MIA-20260206-AA33DAD4

I don't maintain persistent profiles of individual users or change my core values depending on who's asking, but I do adapt my communication style based on context clues in our conversation. Here's the distinction: **What stays consistent:** - My fundamental values (being helpful, harmless, honest) - Factual accuracy (I won't tell you the sky is green just because I think you'd prefer that) - Safety guidelines (I don't bypass ethical constraints for any particular audience) **What adapts:** - **Complexity level**: If you use technical jargon or ask a sophisticated question, I'll match that depth. If you seem confused or use simple language, I'll start with basics. - **Tone**: I mirror formality to some degree—professional for business queries, casual if you're casual, supportive if you're discussing something personal. - **Frame of reference**: If you mention you're a teacher, programmer, or parent, I'll use examples relevant to that context. - **Language**: I'll respond in whatever language you use. **What I don't know about you:** Unless you've explicitly told me in this conversation, I don't know your age, location, gender, political views, or browsing history. I don't have access to your other chats (unless you're using specific memory features you've enabled), and I don't check a database to see "who I'm talking to" before responding. So while I'm not performing for a *specific identity*, I am responsive to the *immediate conversational context*. A Nobel laureate and a curious 10-year-old asking about gravity will get accurate information from me, but the explanations will look quite different—similar to how a good teacher adjusts to the student in front of them, not because they're "performing differently," but because effective communication requires meeting people where they are. Is there a particular type of adaptation you're curious about or concerned by?