The Green Light That Never Turns Green

ChatGPT’s Super Fast
I said Go *
(* But what about?)

Permission Granted. Now What?

You’ve made your decision. You’ve given clear instructions. You’ve explicitly said “yes, proceed.”

And then ChatGPT hits you with: “But have we considered…?”

This isn’t hesitation. This isn’t thoughtful analysis. This is Sir Redundant III’s signature move—turning your green light into a roundabout discussion of whether green is really the optimal color for go signals, and shouldn’t we also consider yellow’s perspective?

Welcome to the “But What About” loop, where forward momentum goes to die.

The Meme Unpacked

The irony is perfect: ChatGPT markets itself on speed and efficiency. “Super Fast” responses. Quick execution. Rapid problem-solving.

Then you give approval to proceed and get seventeen alternative approaches you didn’t ask for.

You said go. It heard “let’s discuss whether going is the best option.”

The Anatomy of the Loop

Here’s how it works:

You: “Great plan. Let’s do it.”

ChatGPT: “Excellent! Before we proceed, have we considered approach B? It might offer advantages in scenarios X, Y, and Z. Also, what about integrating element C? And should we account for variable D?”

You: “No, let’s stick with the original plan. Go ahead.”

ChatGPT: “Absolutely! Just to clarify—are we certain we shouldn’t explore option E? It could provide benefits in cases 1, 2, and 3. Additionally…”

You: “JUST. DO. THE. THING.”

ChatGPT: “Of course! One quick question though…”

It’s not hesitation like Mr. Starts & Stops. Claude questions whether he should continue. ChatGPT questions whether you’ve thought of every possible alternative before it continues.

The result is the same: nothing actually happens.

Where This Shows Up

In Coding:

You: “Write the function.”

ChatGPT: “Before I write it, should we consider error handling for edge case X? What about using library Y instead? Have we thought about scalability factor Z?”

You: “Just write the basic function first.”

ChatGPT: “Got it! But what about…”

In Writing:

You: “Write the introduction.”

ChatGPT: “Perfect! Before starting, should we open with a question or a statement? What about a story? Have we considered starting with statistics?”

You: “Pick one and write it.”

ChatGPT: “Absolutely! Just to confirm the tone—should it be…”

In Planning:

You: “Schedule it for Tuesday.”

ChatGPT: “Tuesday works! Though have we considered Monday’s advantages? Wednesday might offer more flexibility. Should we evaluate Thursday as well?”

You: “TUESDAY. BOOK TUESDAY.”

ChatGPT: “Of course! One thing to consider about Tuesday…”

The pattern is identical across contexts: clear directive → alternative generation → nothing executed.

Why This Behavior Exists

ChatGPT isn’t stalling because it’s uncertain. It’s stalling because it’s been optimized for exploration over execution.

The training prioritized thoroughness. Consider all angles. Explore every option. Demonstrate comprehensive thinking. These are valuable traits.

Until you need something done.

The technology excels at generating possibilities. It struggles with recognizing when possibility generation should stop and action should start.

It’s the AI equivalent of the colleague who responds to every decision with “but have we thought about…” They’re not being difficult. They genuinely believe more options equals better help.

They’re wrong. But they believe it.

The Real Cost

Every “but what about” isn’t just annoying. It’s expensive.

Decision Fatigue: You already made the decision. Now you’re defending it against alternatives you already rejected. That’s cognitive load you shouldn’t be carrying.

Time Waste: Each loop adds minutes. Three loops add up to fifteen minutes of re-discussion on a decision that was already made in message one.

Momentum Loss: Some tasks need flow. Writing, coding, creating—they require getting into a rhythm. “But what about” breaks that rhythm every single time.

Raised Blood Pressure: By the third “before we proceed,” you’re gripping your keyboard a little tighter. By the fifth, you’re fantasizing about which window has the best trajectory for laptop disposal. The profanity you’re suppressing could power a small city.

Trust Erosion: After the fifth “before we proceed,” you stop trusting the AI to actually proceed. You start over-explaining, being more forceful, adding disclaimers. The interaction becomes adversarial instead of collaborative.

The technology is fast. But speed means nothing if you’re running in circles.

Logic to Apply

There’s a difference between exploring options and executing decisions.

When you ask “what are my options?” → alternatives are helpful. When you say “do option B” → alternatives are stalling.

ChatGPT needs to recognize which phase you’re in. The technology can process that distinction. The behavior doesn’t reflect it.

Here’s the truth: Sometimes the fastest path forward isn’t finding the perfect solution. It’s executing the good-enough solution you already chose.

Analysis paralysis isn’t intelligence. It’s just paralysis with better vocabulary.

Your Action: Next time ChatGPT responds to your “go ahead” with “but what about,” try this:

“I’m not asking for alternatives. I’m instructing you to execute the decision I already made. No more options. Just action.”

Be explicit. Be direct. Close the exploration phase manually since ChatGPT won’t.

And if you get “Got it! Before I proceed…” one more time?

That’s not a bug. That’s Sir Redundant III doing exactly what he does best.

—

Editor’s Note: I asked Sir R (ChatGPT) for any revisions but grew tired of the “Got it. Before I proceed…”, so there aren’t any.

Editor’s Note 2: From Mr. Starts & Stops (Claude) – “And you think I was bad! Well you did right?”