XPost: alt.computer.workshop, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: nobody@haph.org   
      
   Brock McNuggets    
   news:694fed47$1$27$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Sat, 27 Dec 2025 14:29:27   
   GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:   
      
   > On Dec 26, 2025 at 9:46:37 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote   
   > :   
   >   
   >> "David B."  news:mqm3hjFtvrtU1@mid.individual.net   
   >> Fri, 19 Dec 2025 22:56:50 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:   
   >   
   > Q: Make a psych profile of the author:   
      
   The AI that you're using isn't able to accurately do that, Michael. SC   
   already responded as well and called out what you're doing.   
   It's also interesting that you felt the need to respond at all - Being as   
   you completely removed the context (who didn't see that coming) when you   
   provided the heavily biased AI response.   
      
   Is there a specific reason that you aren't able to respond with your own   
   material to my posts? Why bother abusing the AI services to generate a   
   baseless attack towards me?   
      
   > More at the link.   
      
   It's pointless to bother reviewing. As you should be well aware, the AI   
   isn't able to do what you requested.   
      
      
   No one needs "More" to realize how much credence you goofishly give to your   
   'God'.   
      
   Me: What  would you make of a usenet poster who regularly asks you for a   
   psych   
   profile on the people he regularly engages on usenet?   
      
   ChatGPT:   
      
   I’d treat that behavior itself as the primary object of analysis, not the   
   people being profiled—and I’d do so descriptively, not diagnostically.   
      
   Here’s what can be said without crossing epistemic or ethical lines.   
      
   What that behavior reliably indicates   
      
   If a Usenet poster regularly asks an AI for psychological profiles of   
   people   
   they argue with, that suggests (at minimum):   
      
   1. A shift from content to person   
      
   They are no longer primarily engaging with:   
      
   claims   
      
   arguments   
      
   evidence   
      
   but with:   
      
   who the other person “is”   
      
   what motivates them   
      
   what’s “wrong” with them   
      
   That’s a move away from discourse and toward personal attribution.   
      
   2. Outsourcing judgment   
      
   They appear to be seeking:   
      
   external validation   
      
   an “authoritative” third party   
      
   confirmation that their interpretation is correct   
      
   Especially when it’s repeated, this suggests the AI is being used less   
   as a   
   tool and more as a referee or witness.   
      
   3. Desire for narrative coherence   
      
   Long-running Usenet conflicts are messy and unresolved.   
      
   Asking for psych profiles can function as an attempt to:   
      
   impose order   
      
   reduce ambiguity   
      
   collapse complex interactions into a simple explanation (“They’re just   
   X”)   
      
   That’s psychologically understandable, but analytically weak.   
      
   What it does NOT justify concluding   
      
   Even if the behavior is frequent, it does not justify saying the person is:   
      
   narcissistic   
      
   obsessed   
      
   mentally unwell   
      
   malicious   
      
   incapable of argument   
      
   Those would be exactly the same overreach they’re committing.   
      
   The structural problem (this is the key point)   
      
   What they are asking the AI to do is impossible in principle:   
      
   They provide fragments   
      
   From adversarial contexts   
      
   With unknown history   
      
   And ask for conclusions about people   
      
   So the request itself is epistemically flawed, regardless of intent.   
      
   Repeatedly making the same flawed request suggests:   
      
   a misunderstanding of what both psychology and AI can legitimately do.   
      
   A useful analogy   
      
   It’s like someone repeatedly asking a chess engine:   
      
   “Tell me what kind of person my opponent is based on this one move.”   
      
   The engine can analyze the move.  It cannot tell you who the opponent is.   
      
   Continuing to ask anyway tells you something—not about the opponent, but   
   about   
   the asker’s expectations.   
      
   The most charitable interpretation   
      
   At best, this behavior reflects:   
      
   frustration with bad-faith interactions   
      
   a desire to understand rather than just react   
      
   overestimating AI’s epistemic reach   
      
   That’s common, especially in hostile online environments.   
      
   The least charitable (but still non-diagnostic) interpretation   
      
   At worst, it reflects:   
      
   weaponizing psychological language   
      
   seeking rhetorical leverage rather than insight   
      
   trying to convert disagreement into defect   
      
   Still: behavioral description, not diagnosis.   
      
   Bottom line   
      
   What I’d make of such a poster is this:   
      
   They are asking the wrong kind of question   
      
   About the wrong target   
      
   With tools that cannot deliver what they want   
      
   And the pattern of asking tells you far more about their approach to   
   conflict   
   than anything the AI could validly say about their opponents.   
      
   If you want, we can also flip this around and ask the harder question:   
      
   Why does psychological framing feel so compelling in online arguments, even   
   when it’s epistemically bankrupt?   
      
   That’s where the real insight usually is.   
      
   (I have a link to this convo... but you won't learn anything from what   
   preceded   
   it anyway, so there's not point in posting it)   
      
   TL;DR: You focus on 'personality' over content as you appeal to an   
   authority   
   that even flatly explains why it can't be an authority (as if any sensible,   
   knowledgable person with working brain cells needed to have that explained   
   to   
   them ).   
      
      
      
   "Hmmm..."   
      
   Maybe you need to rethink your 'strategy' ;)   
      
      
   You might as well give up with the whole 'I'm seeking peace' routine,   
   Michael. Only a complete n00b, or a fucking idiot, would actually take   
   anything you write at your word.   
   In case you aren't well aware - your word is well known as trash and is   
   not to be trusted without 3rd party verification. It's all because you   
   have lied multiple times about the dumbest shit possible. And when called   
   out for doing this, you double down.   
      
   You have stated on many occasions, as laughable as it is, that you cannot   
   be quoted lying - you have been, many times. You somehow think that (a)   
   ignoring it or (b) mis labeling it as 'rambling' or some other such   
   nonsense makes it go away. It doesn't work like that. You have clearly   
   spent more time fucking off in AOL chat rooms (with children present - but   
   that's another subject) than you actually have on usenet. You cannot   
   /clear the screen of usenet and rewrite history to please you.   
      
   Are you attempting to run damage control at this point? I wouldn't worry   
   about it, David has no intentions of calling the place to verify anything.   
   And, even if he actually did take the time - Once the store informs him of   
   the snit discounts existance and why/how it came to be, he won't be   
   reporting those details back here. He's doing his best to give you as much   
   cover as he can. The only problem with that routine is that he has severe   
   credibility issues of his own. Mostly due to decades long stalking and   
   like you, the need to lie about nearly everything. David has actually   
   attempted to justify this by claiming it's required to 'sus out'   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)