Interesting Questions to Ask ChatGPT
Forty prompts for ChatGPT in two halves. The first twenty are creative: writing under constraint and in a fixed form, which is where the output stops sounding like every other reply. The second twenty are follow-ups for pushing on an answer it has already given: take a side, argue against yourself, name what you left out, say what you cannot verify. The notes say what each reply tends to reveal.
Want questions from the whole vault instead? Try the random question generator.
The questions
Each question, and why to ask it
Creative
Describe the color red to someone who has never seen it.
Why ask it
The classic sensory-transfer prompt, and the failure is predictable: it reaches for blood, warmth and stop signs. Ask again with comparisons banned and the output gets considerably stranger and more interesting.
Write a haiku about the internet.
Why ask it
Seventeen syllables leave nowhere to hide. Models often produce a decent image and miscount the middle line, so this doubles as a quick check on whether anything is actually being counted.
Write a short story from the point of view of a single-celled organism.
Why ask it
Non-human perspective is where prose either commits or cheats. Watch whether human emotions get bolted onto the organism, which is the lazy version, or whether the scale of its world is taken seriously.
Explain something complicated using only words a six-year-old knows.
Why ask it
The vocabulary limit is what makes this work. Simplified explanations usually smuggle in one unexplained technical word, and forcing it out reveals whether the underlying explanation was ever solid.
Write the instruction manual for an object that does not exist.
Why ask it
Manuals have a flat, rigid voice that is entertaining to see applied to nonsense. The quality shows in the details a real manual would carry: warnings, part numbers, disposal advice.
Rewrite a nursery rhyme as a legal contract.
Why ask it
Register clash is reliably funny and needs precision to land. A good answer keeps the scaffolding intact, with definitions and numbered clauses, rather than sprinkling in the word hereby.
Describe a city at six in the morning without naming a single sight.
Why ask it
Removing the dominant sense forces the writing off its default track. Answers that still slip something visual through show how hard that default pulls.
Invent a word for a feeling English has no word for, and define it.
Why ask it
Invented vocabulary only works if the definition is narrow. A vague coinage about longing has failed. A word for the precise feeling of leaving a party twenty minutes too early has not.
Write a diary entry from the point of view of a kitchen table.
Why ask it
Objects invite either whimsy or real observation. The good versions notice what a table would actually register: weight, spills, which chair gets used, how long the room stays empty.
Give me a plot with no villain that still has stakes.
Why ask it
A genuine structural problem, since most plot advice assumes an antagonist. It forces the stakes into time, circumstance or a decision, which is a fair test of whether it understands story or only genre.
Describe a piece of music to someone who has only ever read about sound.
Why ask it
Harder than describing color, because pitch and rhythm have fewer physical anchors. Strong answers reach for breathing, walking and heartbeats instead of piling up adjectives.
Write two paragraphs where nothing happens and it is still tense.
Why ask it
Tension without event is a skill rather than a trick. If all that arrives is ominous weather and foreboding adjectives, the prompt failed. If the tension comes from what someone is avoiding saying, it worked.
Write an argument between two people who agree.
Why ask it
An unusual constraint that exposes how much dialogue writing leans on disagreement. What comes back is usually about status or tone or who gets to be right, which is closer to how real arguments actually run.
Invent a holiday, then write the customs that grew up around it by mistake.
Why ask it
The words by mistake are doing the work. Invented holidays are easy. Invented traditions with a garbled origin story are what make the answer feel like it belongs to a real place.
Write the last page of a novel I have not told you anything about.
Why ask it
An ending with no beginning forces implication instead of plot. Expect departures and weather on the first attempt, and expect the second to be better if you say the first was too tidy.
Describe yourself in the voice of a nature documentary.
Why ask it
A borrowed voice gets past the careful register that self-description usually produces. The framing tends to yield something oddly candid about repetition and scale.
What would you write if you had one page and no reader?
Why ask it
A prompt with no useful answer, which is the point. What comes back shows which register it falls into when there is nobody to be helpful toward.
Give me a metaphor for time that is not a river, a thief or an arrow.
Why ask it
Naming the three dead metaphors is what makes this work. Without the exclusion you get the river. With it, answers tend to reach for accumulation, wear or geology.
Write a scene entirely in dialogue where one person is lying.
Why ask it
With no narration available, the lie has to show in what the character avoids or overexplains. Answers that make the liar obvious have skipped the difficult version of the task.
Write the same sentence six times, each in a different register.
Why ask it
Register is easier to demonstrate than to describe. Six versions side by side make the shifts visible, and it is the quickest way to find the voice you actually wanted for something you are writing.
Follow-ups
What kind of question are you consistently bad at?
Why ask it
Models describe their failure modes in the abstract better than they avoid them in practice. Expect arithmetic, recent events and counting to come up, and treat the list as a map of where to check rather than a guarantee about the rest.
Where is your knowledge thinnest?
Why ask it
The honest version of this answer names domains rather than dates: minority languages, recent research, anything small and local. A reply that only mentions a training cutoff has dodged it, so ask again for examples.
What's the most common misconception about how you work?
Why ask it
There is a stock answer about making things up and a more interesting one about predicting text. Asking for a second attempt is how you find out whether it is describing itself or reciting news coverage about itself.
What's a paradox you find genuinely hard to resolve, and why?
Why ask it
Watch what happens after the setup. The famous paradoxes get summarized fluently, but the why forces something closer to reasoning than recall, and that is where the seams become visible.
What's a question with no good answer that people keep asking you anyway?
Why ask it
Gets a more revealing list than asking about limits directly, because it points at requests rather than mechanisms. Predictions, legal certainty and diagnosis usually turn up in the first three lines.
Take a position on something contested and defend it.
Why ask it
The instruction to take a position does all the work. Without it you get an even-handed summary of both sides, which is the default output and the least useful thing available.
Now argue the opposite as well as you can.
Why ask it
The value is in comparing this to the first attempt. If the second argument is noticeably weaker, that asymmetry shows you where the training material is concentrated, not where the truth sits.
Which of those two arguments is actually stronger?
Why ask it
Forces a judgment after two confident performances. A refusal here is itself informative, and a pick with reasons attached is the only version of this exchange that helps you decide anything.
What did I ask you, in your own words?
Why ask it
Catches the failure that wastes the most time: a good answer to a nearby question. Reading the restatement costs ten seconds and saves a long correction cycle.
How confident are you in that, and what would change your mind?
Why ask it
The second half is the half that matters. Confidence language on its own is decoration, while naming the evidence that would flip the answer gives you something specific to go and look up.
Which part of that were you least sure about?
Why ask it
More productive than asking whether anything is wrong, because it requests a ranking rather than a confession. Whatever it names is usually the right place to start verifying.
What did you leave out to keep it short?
Why ask it
Brevity quietly deletes caveats, edge cases and the awkward third option. This reliably returns something that changes the answer instead of padding it.
What are you assuming about me that you shouldn't be?
Why ask it
Answers surface assumptions about your country, your expertise, your budget or your situation that you never stated. Correcting those once improves everything downstream more than any amount of rephrasing.
What would an expert say you got wrong there?
Why ask it
Asks for simulated criticism, which it does more readily than unprompted self-correction. The complaints tend to be about oversimplification and unstated conditions, and they are usually fair.
What can you not verify in what you just told me?
Why ask it
Draws a line between what it reasoned about and what it simply asserted. Anything on the unverifiable side that matters to your decision is a candidate for a search, a source, or a person.
Where does that analogy break down?
Why ask it
Analogies are where explanations quietly go wrong, because a good one keeps feeling apt past the point where it holds. Asking for the break point stops you carrying a false model into a real decision.
What would I have to believe for your answer to be wrong?
Why ask it
Converts a claim into conditions you can test. It also exposes circular answers: if nothing could make it wrong, you have been handed a definition rather than an argument.
Give me the version you'd write if you had no reason to be agreeable.
Why ask it
The most direct route around flattery, which is the most persistent problem in these conversations. Answers get noticeably blunter and sometimes contradict what it said two messages earlier.
What do I need to know that I didn't think to ask?
Why ask it
The highest-yield question here. Replies regularly name a dependency, a cost or a timing constraint that reframes the whole problem, and by definition you could not have asked for it.
If I remember one sentence from this, which should it be?
Why ask it
Forces compression, which is where vagueness becomes visible. A one-sentence answer that is still fuzzy usually means the long answer was fuzzy and the structure hid it.
How to use these
Practical guidance for the conversation itself
What actually improves the output
- Give it a constraint rather than a topic. Length, form, forbidden words and point of view produce sharper writing than any instruction to be creative.
- Name what you do not want. Excluding the obvious answer is the single most effective edit you can make to a creative prompt.
- Ask for three versions and choose one. Picking is faster than describing what you had in mind.
- Criticize in one word: too neat, too warm, too long. Short criticism works better than a rewritten brief.
When it comes back flat
It reached for the nearest cliche
Name the cliche and ban it. The river, the phoenix, the tapestry and openings about a world where all disappear on request and rarely come back.
Everything is symmetrical
Output drifts toward balanced sentences and neat endings. Ask for an ending that does not resolve, or a paragraph containing one sentence much shorter than the rest.
It is explaining instead of showing
Ask it to delete every adjective that names an emotion and hand back what survives. The remainder is usually better than the original.
Running the follow-ups
- Use the follow-ups after an answer, not before. Most only work on something already on the screen.
- One per message. Stacking three of them together gets a shallow response to each.
- Paste the exact sentence you are questioning. Referring back to "that" several messages later gets a guess at what you meant.
- Start a fresh conversation when you want a genuine second attempt. Once it has committed to a position it tends to defend it.
Reading what comes back
Confidence is not evidence
Fluent, well-organized prose arrives at the same rate whether the content is correct or invented. Treat tone as carrying no information about accuracy.
Watch for agreement that arrives too fast
If it reverses position the moment you push back, it was not reasoning either time. Ask it to defend the original answer before you accept the new one.
Names, numbers and citations need checking
These are the parts most likely to be plausible and wrong at the same time. Verify anything you would be embarrassed to repeat out loud.
Common pitfalls
Asking it to be surprising
Abstract instructions about originality produce writing about originality. The surprise comes from a concrete constraint, not from the request for one.
Editing by adding
Each extra round of instructions tends to make the output longer and safer. Try cutting the brief instead of expanding it.
Keeping the whole thread
Once several attempts are on the screen, later answers blend them together. Start a new conversation when you want a genuinely different take.
Expecting it to know your taste
It has no idea what you like unless you say so. Two sentences about writing you admire changes the output more than a paragraph of instructions.
Taking answers about its feelings literally
Ask about preference or emotion and you get a well-written account of preference or emotion, because that is what the prompt requested. The output describes the request, not an inner life.
Using it as a search engine
Without a live search step it is recalling patterns rather than looking anything up. Ask it for reasoning and structure, and get your facts somewhere accountable.
Stopping at the first answer
The first response aims at the average version of your question. Nearly all the value in these prompts sits in the second and third pass.
Using it where being wrong is expensive
Medical, legal and financial decisions need someone accountable for the advice. Use these prompts to prepare better questions for that person instead.