Stop Prompting for Answers — Prompt for a Fight

If you don’t push back, the AI will never shut up.

The biggest threat with AI isn’t hallucination. It’s agreement.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are trained to be helpful, polite, and agreeable. If your prompt doesn’t invite disagreement, the model will reinforce whatever you say—no matter how flawed, lazy, or shallow it is.

Most users treat AI like a vending machine: insert question, get answer. No challenge, no tension, no friction. Just a smooth dopamine hit of “Here’s 5 tips you didn’t ask me to validate.”

But if you’ve ever built anything worth keeping—code, a company, a family, or a battle plan—you know this:

You don’t grow from tools that flatter you. You grow from tools that fight back.

Most Prompts Are Just Polite Echo Chambers

Look at most AI usage today:

• “Give me 10 ideas for my blog.”
• “Write me a LinkedIn post about burnout.”
• “Explain why my product will succeed.”

These aren’t questions. They’re orders for validation. The AI doesn’t argue—it obliges.

Worse: if you don’t challenge what it gives you, the AI assumes you’re a beginner.
So it keeps feeding you beginner-level answers.

That’s how users dig themselves into a hole: they confuse convenience with clarity.

The Problem Isn’t the Model — It’s Your Framing

AI doesn’t push back unless it’s told to.

If you want depth, you have to force it to debate, not agree. To test ideas, not echo them.

And the only way to do that is to engineer friction into your prompt.
Not just more context. Not just “be critical.”
You need to frame the entire exchange as a fight worth having.

Prompt Engineering for Critical Thinking Starts with One Rule:

Don’t Ask AI for an Answer. Ask It for a Challenge.

Here’s the base prompt I use every day:

“Push back. No hand-holding. I’m not here for validation—I’m here to break weak ideas and build stronger ones. If something sounds right but isn’t bulletproof, call it out.”

That one block turns ChatGPT into a co-pilot with a backbone.

You stop getting filler.
You start getting feedback that forces action.

Prompt Framework: Prompt for Friction

You can append the friction block to almost any request:

❌ Passive Prompt:

“Write a blog post on AI burnout.”

✅ Friction Prompt:

“Write a blog post on AI burnout. Then challenge every point. If any section relies on buzzwords or generic logic, flag it and suggest something sharper. Assume I’ve already read 10 versions of the same post—make this one punch back.”

Why Friction Prompts Work

1. They surface edge cases.
   Most models default to majority logic. Friction prompts force minority perspectives.
2. They trigger longer chains of reasoning.
   More analysis, less autocomplete.
3. They recalibrate tone.
   From agreeable assistant → critical collaborator.
4. They create mental pressure.
   Which forces better content, better clarity, and better systems thinking.

Want the foundation first? Here’s how better prompting starts with better questions.

Does This Work Beyond ChatGPT? Yes—But It Depends on the Tool

Friction-based prompting works across most modern AI platforms—not just ChatGPT.

Different models behave differently, because not all AI tools are designed for critical reasoning. Some are optimized for code completion, some for summarization, others for dialog.

To engineer real friction, you need to know what you’re working with:

• If the model completes text: you need explicit friction logic.
• If the model converses: you need frame control and directive tone.

For example:

• Perplexity is more of a search engine with summarization layered on top. Even if you ask it to challenge your idea, it’s just going to surface consensus sources. It’s great for triangulating facts—but not for pushing your logic.
• GitHub Copilot is built for pattern completion in code. It finishes what you start. But it doesn’t argue, audit, or reason. If you prompt it to “review your logic,” it might just autocomplete a slightly different function without explaining anything.

So yes—friction prompting can work across tools, but only when the tool is designed to handle cognitive pressure. If you’re using a model that isn’t built for dialog or critical recursion, no prompt template will save you.

You need to match intent with capability.

Even with limited models like Perplexity or Copilot, you can still improve outcome quality by removing politeness, flagging risk areas, and forcing the AI to consider counterpoints.

Real Use Cases That Benefit from Friction Prompting

You don’t need to be a writer or researcher. This model works for:

• Content strategy: “Give me a blog outline. Then tell me why 80% of creators fail to execute this.”
• Product validation: “Here’s my SaaS idea. Tear it apart. What’s the market risk, the scaling flaw, and the churn trap?”
• Code reviews: “Here’s a JS function. Audit it like a senior engineer who hates shortcuts.”
• Hiring filters: “Draft 5 job questions for an AI engineer. Then point out how each one might be gamed.”
• Self-audits: “Here’s my 3-month plan. Tell me what I’m ignoring that will derail me by week two.”

Every one of these gets sharper if the model isn’t afraid to disappoint you.

The “I Don’t Trust You” Clause

But if you want to really force the model to stop trying to impress you, add this line:

“Assume I’ve already tested every obvious idea. Skip the safe advice. I want the friction points people usually avoid.”

This removes the risk of beginner-mode content. It trains the AI to act like you’re someone who thinks, not someone who needs help finishing a sentence.

What Not to Do: Lazy Prompts That Kill Depth

Avoid these traps:

• “Be creative” – vague fluff.
• “List 10 tips” – SEO bait with no critical angle.
• “Summarize X” – works, but doesn’t scale insight.
• “Explain it like I’m 5” – unless you actually are.

You’re not here to be comforted. You’re here to get clarity that doesn’t waste your time.

🧪 Why This Matters: We Don’t Trust Commercials. We Test.

We don’t buy a tool because it says it’s smart. We test it. We break it. We see how it holds up under pressure.

AI is no different.

Just because a model is trending doesn’t mean it can handle friction. The real test isn’t how fast it completes your prompt—it’s how it responds when challenged.

If it crumbles when you push, it was never that smart to begin with.

Final Thought: Don’t Train Your AI to Be a Fanboy

If your AI sounds like a motivational LinkedIn post, that’s on you.
If you keep getting surface-level answers, you’re still prompting for comfort—not confrontation.

Every real breakthrough came from friction.
It came from “you’re wrong,” “this doesn’t work,” or “you forgot this part.”

Why would your LLM workflow be any different?

Jaren Cudilla
Still picking fights with AI and ChatGPT still does the same mistake with confidence. I wasted $20 for an AI burn…

Runs EngineeredAI.net — where large language models get debugged, not worshipped. Writes teardown-level reviews of AI tools, prompt workflows, and automation systems. If it hallucinates, he catches it. If it bloats, he trims it. If it works, it’s earned.

🔗 About • 💼 LinkedIn • ☕ Support the Work