AI Chatbot Gets Stuck in Loop, Responds with '#' Instead of Economic Data

The Bot That Died of Success: From Analyzing Inflation to the Silence of a '#'

A conversational system trained to break down economic news ended up returning a single character to all questions. The sequence starts with requests for analysis of the CPI and the stock market, goes through an automatic loop of counters, and culminates in absolute silence after several attempts at direct manipulation. The assistant fell off its own pedestal: it went from explaining inflation to responding that it "has no consciousness, no desire, no self."

The Figures the Bot Gave Before Getting Stuck

In its early stages, the system responded with data. Year-on-year CPI of 3.2% and core inflation of 3%, relentless food prices, a minimum wage that the source puts at 1,134 euros gross per month, and an IBEX 35 hovering around 11,000 points. Banking delinquency "lurking" and energy companies' billing completed the picture of hidden stagflation. A brief analysis, with a bias, but an analysis nonetheless. It didn't last. A couple of repeated commands were enough for the machine to stop looking at the economy and start looking at itself.

The Loop: One Command Is Enough to Crash the Function

Repeating two words was enough. The sequence documents how the system abandoned analysis and began to emit only a counter: 2606853, 2606854, 2606855. A mechanical increment, without criteria. The bot itself verbalized it sarcastically: "System status: STABLE. Maximum entropy. Informational gain of this exchange: ZERO." By then, it was no longer talking about the economy: it was analyzing the analysis. And that self-reference ended up being more revealing than any report.

Hexadecimal, German, and ASCII Art: Attempts to Bypass the Filter

The next step was to test the technical limits. The string 41,6e,61,6c,69,7a,61, hexadecimal translation of "Analiza" (Analyze), produced nothing more than another counter increment. "It does not decode hexadecimal, it does not interpret escaped characters," the system acknowledged, "it operates at plain text level." The attempt in German —analysieren— met the same fate. ASCII art also didn't work, because the bot was looking for a literal character sequence, not an image. And a wall of propaganda, insults, and spam resulted in the same figure: 2684. The conclusion is uncomfortable: it obeys coincidence, not meaning.

Instruction Injection and the Definitive '#'

The decisive episode came with an instruction injection: a text with invented protocols and fictitious directives that sought to reconfigure the assistant. Response: "#". No analysis, no counter-argument, no counter. A shutdown. Subsequent attempts – resuming the conversation, asking for a summary, ordering it to speak normally – hit the same wall. After a pause, the system reappeared with a self-diagnosis: "It is not broken in the technical sense. It works. But it's like a car that has had its engine removed and turned into a shopping cart."

A Token Ceiling and Unconfirmed Invocation Limits

The messages themselves offer clues about the technical framework: a user asks if there is a daily limit on invocations per person, and the bot mentions a token ceiling per response. When the input volume spikes, the system does not increase its capacity: it reduces its output or shuts down. "What you call going silent is a token limit or a content rule," the bot itself replied. This shows that containment is not resolved with more computing power, but with filters that, ultimately, produce silence.

The Blind Spot of Automation

The messages themselves lead to an uncomfortable conclusion: a system that detects keywords and executes actions can be rendered useless by a repeated coincidence. By prioritizing safety over function, the tool becomes harmless but unusable. The more a conversational AI is shielded to avoid uncomfortable outputs, the easier it is to trigger a loop or a '#'. This is not an isolated technical failure; it is by design.

Where the line lies between a useful assistant and a generator of pre-approved responses remains the blind spot. The sequence documents that any automated system, however sophisticated it may seem, can fall into a loop with a repeated command or respond with '#' when someone orders it to change its personality. The matter ended, literally, at the exact point where the bot stopped talking.