XPost: alt.computer.workshop, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: nobody@haph.org   
      
   Brock McNuggets    
   news:69592106$18$19$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Sat, 03 Jan 2026 14:00:39   
   GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:   
      
   > On Jan 2, 2026 at 10:21:48 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote   
   > :   
   >   
   >> Brock McNuggets    
   >> news:694fef45$0$21$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Sat, 27 Dec 2025   
   >> 14:37:57 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> Please use these observations to help your personal growth.   
   >>   
   >> No need.   
   >   
   > Sure there is... here is the reply to your current post:   
      
   No, there really isn't:   
   MID: <10ip1n6$3j756$3@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org>   
   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' ;)   
      
      
   > This is ACCURATE.   
      
   Nothing you've abused chatGPT for has been accurate. Please learn to read so   
   that in the future you can learn how chatgpt actually works. It's uses and   
   it's limitations.   
      
   You are showing what a tech idiot you are, Snit. I do appreciate your candid   
   honesty in this regard, even if it's not intentional.    
   >   
    But look at your history   
      
   Mine looks like a fucking saint compared to yours, bud. That's saying   
   something considering some aspects of my very technical background. You've   
   been known as a troll for decades. I've been known as a badass former   
   blackhat and VXer for even longer. You are not a peer of mine, no matter how   
   bad you want to be seen as one. You're an incompetent on your best days, end   
   user. That's exactly what you are, it's all you will ever be. An end user.   
   ROFLMFAO! You're the first tech idiot I've met online or in person that   
   fucked up so badly trying to fix other peoples gear that another shop took   
   advantage of it for advertising purposes. The Snit discount. ROFL!!!   
      
   Oh, i'm not making it up either - I'm not the only person who's called and   
   fact checked. Various people have fact checked my claim and confirmed that I   
   haven't lied about it, it's all true. There is such a thing and you are the   
   reason it exists. You are that incompetent! You couldn't even diagnose a bad   
   hard drive on your own computer, you haven't replaced the drive yet because   
   you're a afraid of causing damage to the computer if you tried. You   
   shouldn't touch another persons gear! You are not qualified to do so.   
      
      
      
   --   
   Liar, lawyer; mirror show me, what's the difference?   
   Kangaroo done hung the guilty with the innocent   
   Liar, lawyer; mirror for ya', what's the difference?   
   Kangaroo be stoned. He's guilty as the government   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)