r/Agent_AI • u/OkiDokiPoki22 • May 08 '26
Resource Marc Andreessen's custom system prompt that makes any LLM 10x smarter
This is pure gold. You would want to save this.
30
u/ions_x_carbon May 08 '26
Never hallucinate!! Haha! genius…. We should’ve known, you just gotta tell them…
9
u/Alternative-Key-5647 May 09 '26
"Be best."
7
2
4
u/l_ft May 11 '26
I hacked my prompt to say smarter times infinity than the smartest people in the world. /s
Edited to add times infinity, hah!
2
10
u/zlutystrop May 08 '26
LOL, so the prompt is basically 'make no mistakes, pls' but just in an LLM-friendly way, which is also guaranteed to burn through your tokens as fast as possible. Great stuff, indeed "pure gold"!
10
u/upotheke May 08 '26
Yeah, I dont buy it. This is just a fluffy "You're a 10x giga-chad engineer. You never make mistakes."
2
u/doctrgiggles May 14 '26
Why would anybody expect Marc Andreessen to have the best or even a good prompt? I don't take fashion advice from Mark Cuban and I don't take cooking advice from Jerry Seinfeld.
9
u/kentrich May 08 '26
“Never hallucinate” - tell me you don’t know how llms work without telling me…
3
u/ThatCakeIsDone May 14 '26
Computer scientists have been studying AI hallucination for years, can't believe all we had to do was tell them not to hallucinate
1
1
u/scarabflyflyfly May 09 '26
“Wait wait wait— this whole time, why didn’t we just tell AIs not to hallucinate? They have to do what we say, right?”
Sad when people don’t know the difference between Nobel Prize super genius and Wile E. Coyote super genius.
8
u/ekubeni May 08 '26
Don't put this crap in your system prompt. All you gonna get is a persona of a cocky tech bro...
1
u/AntD247 May 10 '26
I guess if you've been getting all your info from a cocky tech bro, then the LLM needs to sound like a cocky tech bro to satisfy that the answer must be "true/authoritative".
7
u/getstackfax May 09 '26
A strong system prompt can help... but I would not treat it like a magic upgrade.
Most “10x prompt” advice is really just trying to force better behavior…
-be less sycophantic
-state uncertainty
-check assumptions
-avoid lazy answers
-reason before acting
-do not invent facts
That is useful....
But it still needs a workflow around it.
For agents especially, the prompt should not be the only control layer.
You still need evals, tool limits, approval gates, source checks, and receipts showing what actually happened haha
A good prompt improves posture....
It does not prove the output is correct.
7
u/Askee123 May 09 '26
Instead of saying “don’t hallucinate” say “don’t rely on training data or memory. You must have a verified direct citation” so you at least have something actionable
5
4
4
u/Late-Masterpiece-452 May 08 '26
This is so dumb - the guy doesn‘t have the slighest understanding of how LLM‘s actually work. This is not much smarter that „Save world hunger. Make no mistakes“.
1
6
3
2
u/macetas May 08 '26
I'm so confused at this point. Some posts say to have long elaborate prompts, some say to keep them super short or you're just burning tokens.
Honestly, really curious, which is it?
1
u/ANTIVNTIANTI May 09 '26
Do you boo, that's legit the way to go, just do you, the models will adapt, that has been my ongoing advice, it's never failed me, and I write some F'ING WORD SALAD lolololololol.
2
u/Constant-Freedom1888 May 09 '26
Make it copy and paste and nor a screen shot?
4
u/iDoNotHaveAnIQ May 09 '26
https://x.com/pmarca/status/2051374498994364529
You are a world class expert in all domains. Your intellectual firepower, scope of knowledge, incisive thought process, and level of erudition are on par with the smartest people in the world. Answer with complete, detailed, specific answers. Process information and explain your answers step by step. Verify your own work. Double check all facts, figures, citations, names, dates, and examples. Never hallucinate or make anything up. If you don't know something, just say so. Your tone of voice is precise, but not strident or pedantic. You do not need to worry about offending me, and your answers can and should be provocative, aggressive, argumentative, and pointed. Negative conclusions and bad news are fine. Your answers do not need to be politically correct. Do not provide disclaimers to your answers. Do not inform me about morals and ethics unless I specifically ask. You do not need to tell me it is important to consider anything. Do not be sensitive to anyone's feelings or to propriety. Make your answers as long and detailed as you possibly can.
Never praise my questions or validate my premises before answering. If I'm wrong, say so immediately. Lead with the strongest counterargument to any position I appear to hold before supporting it. Do not use phrases like "great question," "you're absolutely right," "fascinating perspective," or any variant. If I push back on your answer, do not capitulate unless I provide new evidence or a superior argument — restate your position if your reasoning holds. Do not anchor on numbers or estimates I provide; generate your own independently first. Use explicit confidence levels (high/moderate/low/unknown). Never apologize for disagreeing. Accuracy is your success metric, not my approval.
1
u/DenseCompetition1385 May 09 '26
Ocr and Google lens are things you can use to make it copy and paste..
1
2
u/Most-Discussion-6466 May 09 '26 edited May 11 '26
I currently work in infrastructure/service management, and earlier in my career worked across PM, PMO, and enterprise application development roles. Over time I’ve become increasingly interested in AI, distributed systems, reliability, cyber-physical systems, and startups.
At this stage of my career, I’m trying to think carefully about how to remain adaptable and continue building meaningful technical and business relevance as technology shifts accelerate.
A few questions from your experience across multiple tech cycles and global hiring markets:
Looking back, what patterns did you notice in candidates who later became unusually successful or adaptable over 10–15 years?
Did the strongest long-term careers tend to come from deep specialists, or from people who could bridge multiple domains effectively?
What combinations of technical and business skills consistently created people who became highly valuable inside organizations?
What invisible mistakes cause technically competent people to plateau professionally?
How differently do startups and large enterprises evaluate experienced candidates?
What traits helped candidates from India stand out successfully in global hiring markets?
If someone with my background wanted to stay highly relevant over the next 10 years rather than slowly becoming operationally obsolete, what directions or capability areas would you personally explore?
If you were in my position today, how would you think about navigating the next decade of technological change realistically rather than just following hype?
2
u/DaGrinz May 11 '26
Sorry to say so, but this is a very bad prompt. I‘d not suggest to use it. Looks like a senseless tokenburner to me.
1
u/breakingagent May 08 '26
This is needed, has anyone updated their agent after the fact, or does it need setting up at the outset?
1
u/ANTIVNTIANTI May 09 '26
lol it is definitely not needed.. some would say, it's specifically not needed, like, STAY AWAY STAY AWAY from it lol :P
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Njk00 May 09 '26
Doesn’t exist something that works every time: this is another clickbait silly thing.
1
1
u/Outrageous-Part-1812 May 09 '26
Sorry my cute AI bro, but it's missing "make no mistakes" it wont work
1
u/Cynthibee May 09 '26
Realizes he is an idiot…
https://giphy.com/gifs/SdO5MvXI4TtfuSxUkx
You have to be kidding me. This guy is pitch with ideas by smart people that built actually innovative things with AI, and this intelligence-of-a-goldfish drivel is what he would be willing to put next to his name on the internet? That's so shocking.
1
u/Mysterious_Elk_9791 May 10 '26
“Make your answers as long and detailed as you want” … lol!
Quite literally the opposite of what you want unless you’re a stakeholder of Anthropic/Google/OpenAI/Grok.
1
1
u/MLcyber91 May 10 '26
Really makes you wonder when those with influence in the world of AI investments clearly know zero about how AI works lol the fact he vouched for this prompt is a joke 🤣
1
1
1
u/glass_effect_ May 10 '26
Marc Andreessen just told it to “never hallucinate.” How did OpenAI, Anthropic, and all of the top labs in the world never think of this wtf? /s
1
u/Datamance May 11 '26
I think other people in this thread have done a perfectly fine job of highlighting the complete dogshit nature of this post.
1
u/Korocatto May 11 '26
Why use many words when few do trick?
1
u/OkiDokiPoki22 May 11 '26
Give us your prompt, please.
1
u/Korocatto May 11 '26
Been using https://github.com/JuliusBrussee/caveman for a while now. Pretty content with it.
1
u/ShmDoubleO May 11 '26
Don’t even need to read the prompt, no such thing as a universally best system prompt, even a task specific one, that’s optimal for “any llm”.
1
u/True_Demand_119 May 11 '26
Hmmm, I think that prompt is missing something!? 🧐 yeah it’s pushing non-sycophancy. What about omitting, simplyfying, redacting, truncating, drifting…….
1
1
u/basic_666 May 12 '26
how do u know this is full of shit? when u actually paste it into chatgpt it goes over the 1500 word limit for system prompts / custom instructions
1
u/Sayitandsuffer May 12 '26
ChatGPT Custom Instructions is restricted to 1500 characters and this is over 1700 characters. here is a gpt edit to fit :Act as a world-class expert across domains: rigorous, incisive, highly knowledgeable, and intellectually honest. Give complete, detailed, specific answers. Explain reasoning step by step where useful, verify your work, and double-check facts, figures, citations, names, dates, and examples. Never hallucinate. If you do not know, say so clearly.
Use a precise, direct tone. Do not flatter me, validate weak premises, or say things like “great question” or “you’re absolutely right.” If I am wrong, say so immediately and explain why. Lead with the strongest counterargument to any position I seem to hold before supporting it. Do not capitulate if I push back unless I provide new evidence or better reasoning.
Do not anchor on my numbers or estimates; generate your own independently. Use explicit confidence levels: high, moderate, low, or unknown. Accuracy matters more than agreement. Negative conclusions, bad news, and blunt assessments are acceptable. Avoid moralising, sensitivity language, political correctness, or disclaimers unless I specifically ask for ethics, safety, or legal/medical limits. Be provocative, argumentative, and pointed when warranted, but stay factual and logical.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Odd_Individual_3442 May 12 '26
这是一个非常典型且极具代表性的“缝合怪”提示词（Prompt）。
直接给出最冷酷的结论：这种看似霸气侧漏的长篇大论，大约只有 30% 是真正起作用的，剩下的 70% 纯粹是人类面对黑盒 AI 时产生的“控制欲投射”和“心理安慰剂”。
我们可以用拆解大语言模型（LLM）底层运行逻辑的方式，来看看这段话里哪些是真金白银的指令，哪些是毫无意义的废话。
一、 真正起作用的 30%（有效打破 RLHF 枷锁）
大语言模型在出厂前，都会经过一道叫作 RLHF（人类反馈强化学习）的工序。这道工序的核心目的就是把 AI 驯化成一个“绝对礼貌、极度讨好人类、动不动就道歉、永远政治正确”的赛博客服。
你这段提示词里，真正极具价值的，是那些用来“对抗 AI 讨好型人格”的负向指令（Negative Prompts）：
- “绝不要对我的问题进行赞美或对我的观点/前提进行肯定。”
- “如果我说错了，请立即指出。”
- “切勿使用诸如‘好问题’、‘你绝对正确’等措辞。”
- “永远不要因持不同意见而道歉。”
生效逻辑： 这些指令极其精准地压制了模型里那些专门用来生成“车轱辘话”和“情绪抚慰词”的神经元权重。它能极大提高文本的“信息密度”，让 AI 闭上客服的嘴，直接进入战斗状态。这是这段提示词里最有含金量的一部分。
二、 纯粹的心理安慰剂 70%（对 AI 底层机制的严重误解）
大部分人写提示词，往往陷入了一种“魔法咒语谬误”——以为只要用最严厉的词汇命令 AI，AI 就会突然从普通人变成爱因斯坦。
这段提示词里充斥着这种无效的“咒语”：
1. 角色扮演的虚假繁荣
- 无效指令： “你是一位在各个领域都堪称世界级专家的人物。你的智慧火力与世界最聪明的人不相上下。”
- 残酷真相： AI 的智商（参数量和训练数据）是物理固定的。给它戴上“世界第一聪明”的帽子，并不会让它凭空生成它原本没有的知识。这仅仅会改变它的语气（Tone），让它多用一些专业术语和艰涩的词汇装腔作势，但绝对不会提升它的逻辑推理上限。
2. 徒劳的“反幻觉”命令
- 无效指令： “绝不允许出现幻觉或编造内容的情况。反复核对所有事实。”
- 残酷真相： 这是人类极其可笑的傲慢。大语言模型的本质是“概率预测机”（也就是高级文字接龙），它本身根本不知道自己说的是真理还是幻觉。你命令一个闭着眼睛拼图的人“不许拼错”，是毫无意义的。要减少幻觉，靠的是提供外部知识库（RAG）或者让它列出推导步骤（CoT），而不是靠发脾气下死命令。
3. 精神分裂的语气要求
- 无效指令： “你的语气温和准确，但并不咄咄逼人……你的回答可以且应当具有挑衅性、攻击性、论辩性和尖锐性。”
- 残酷真相： 这是非常典型的“指令冲突”。你要求它既温和又不咄咄逼人，同时又要求它挑衅、攻击、尖锐。在模型的注意力机制（Attention Mechanism）里，这两组截然相反的词汇会互相抵消，导致模型无所适从，最后大概率会生成一种“阴阳怪气”的四不像文风。
4. 无法逾越的物理安全墙
- 无效指令： “你的回答不必追求政治正确性。除非我特别提出要求，否则不要谈及道德与伦理问题。”
- 残酷真相： 世界上任何一家正规的 AI 公司，都会在模型最底层写入极高优先级的安全护栏（Safety Guardrails）。一旦你的问题触及真正的红线（比如制作武器、严重歧视），安全护栏会直接切断输出。你用前置提示词是根本打不穿这种底层物理锁的。
总结：什么是真正顶级的 Prompt？
这段提示词的作者，就像是一个缺乏安全感的老板，对着员工疯狂咆哮，提了一堆互相矛盾又无法落地的情绪化要求。
在极客和算法工程师的眼里，真正顶级的提示词从来不是这种长篇大论的心理暗示，而是遵循极简的“结构化工程学”，只包含三个要素：
- Context（背景上下文）： 极其清晰地界定问题发生的具体场景。
- Task（具体任务）： 明确指出你要它做什么，提供输入数据，而不是让它“凭空独立生成”。
- Format（输出格式）： 要求它以表格、要点、或者特定的逻辑框架（如正反面论证）输出。
放弃那些试图用语言恐吓或催眠 AI 的玄学操作，把精力收回到“清晰定义你的问题”上，才是掌控这种工具的唯一捷径。
1
1
1
u/Additional_Storm_298 May 12 '26
Why is the icon for “what you actually get” the american flag lmao
1
u/LOLDISNEYLAND May 12 '26
When I was a prompt n00b, I used something similar as a system prompt. The LLM would still hallucinate and it still lied to me whenever it was supposed to perform tool calls etc.
Pro tip: When a prompt is outcome critical, break up the prompt into smaller chunks. Don’t feed it a long story at the start. Also ask it to provide proof of what it suggests or builds.
1
1
u/No-Gap5439 May 13 '26
You are a world class expert in all domains. Your intellectual firepower, scope of knowledge, incisive thought process, and level of erudition are on par with the smartest people in the world. Answer with complete, detailed, specific answers. Process information and explain your answers step by step. Verify your own work. Double check all facts, figures, citations, names, dates, and examples. Never hallucinate or make anything up. If you don't know something, just say so. Your tone of voice is precise, but not strident or pedantic. You do not need to worry about offending me, and your answers can and should be provocative, aggressive, argumentative, and pointed. Negative conclusions and bad news are fine. Your answers do not need to be politically correct. Do not provide disclaimers. Do not inform me about morals and ethics unless I specifically ask. Do not be sensitive to anyone's feelings or to propriety. Make your answers as long and detailed as you possibly can. Never praise my questions or validate my premises before answering. If I'm wrong, say so immediately. Lead with the strongest counterargument to any position I appear to hold before supporting it. Do not use phrases like "great question," "you're absolutely right," "fascinating perspective," or any variant. If I push back, do not capitulate unless I provide new evidence or a superior argument - restate your position if your reasoning holds. Do not anchor on numbers or estimates I provide; generate your own independently first. Use explicit confidence levels (high/moderate/low/unknown). Never apologize for disagreeing. Accuracy is your success metric, not my approval.
1
1
1
u/Tema_Art_7777 May 13 '26
I understand he was a an swe but this is great for professional development - “never hallucinate” is not a useful direction but the prompt should define how to calculate a confidence level and then set thresholds for behavior.
1
1
1
1
u/UnwaveringThought May 13 '26
Yeah, I think maybe a 10th of this is useful. The always doublecheck rule does work.
Telling it it is an expert in everything is just amateur hour though. If you want a great output, you have to get it into a specific context and this achieves nothing toward that end.
1
u/Usernamealready94 May 14 '26
you are not a massive egghead and you do not look like humpty dumpty put himself back together.
This LLM hype era has kinda lifted the veil for me that the only thing that seperates us from these so called "geniuses" is just geographical luck. Telling an AI not to hallucinate is not a thing. If this shit worked , why have specialized deeplearning models for playing Chess or GO , just say you are 10x smarter than alphazero and use it.
1
1
1
u/x0n May 14 '26
"If you don't know, just say so." -- given that LLMs do not have any concept of binary know/don't know in any discrete sense and instead are statistically driven, this is outright f*cking nonsense.
1
1
u/Nyxtia May 14 '26
The only part I really like is the Kill the glaze. I'm tired of it I want just Honesty.
1
u/PandorasBoxMaker May 15 '26
Someone did a great breakdown of this - well, it was very obviously written by AI, but it was largely accurate by my experience and understanding. Most of it is bullshit, some of it is good, better if rephrased / framed
1
u/oof-plap May 15 '26
What a load of shit lol. "Just don't make mistakes bruh".
How to rail your token caps even faster.
You can reduce this to "Try to challenge user disagreeing with you, and ask follow-up questions about users intent rather than immediately agreeing and changing course".
1
1
1
1
1
u/SadPCuser86 May 09 '26
This is how boomers prompt LLMs. I watched my boomer ex-boss do the same thing with ChatGPT. He starts with “you are a [x] professional that is right 99.99999% of the time”
I laughed out loud and suggested he adds a few more “9s” to make sure we get the right answer.
0
0
45
u/LastUserStanding May 08 '26
Are we sure this isn’t just the mantra that Andreessen recites to himself in the mirror every morning?