Do you guys just let Chat GPT run your discussions?

>discussions
I don't need to discuss anything.

>>17850052 (OP)
(((Simon Salva))) is the only one using ChatGPT.

>>17850057
The only one using it sounds like a dirty commie

>>17850052 (OP)
Only when i think someone is trolling and they need to earn my respect. I dont want to put too much effort into something if that person was fuking with me or has alterior political motives and has no and intention of egaging in a genuine and respectful discussion.

I also feel like denying trolls a more human response is funny.

Chat GPT can only churn out slop, it doesn't make original inferences and it has to follow whatever its programmers tell it to believe.

>>17850052 (OP)
Well... you're on 4chan. You'll not find a scholar here to discuss anything meaningful, so...

>>17850093
So when someone doesn't agree that transwomen are real women you avoid debate, interesting. Clearly the hallmark of an intellectual juggernaut with an eye for bias and ulterior political motives.

>>17850052 (OP)
No. But the jews in the Churchill thread use AI to write their posts and they keep spamming the discord (they don’t know I’m in the walls and under the beds of little jewish girls) exasperated because not even AI itself can refute my talking points.
They’ve taken to having a meltdown telling everyone to kys.
Projection, Kafkaesque even.

>>17850052 (OP)
No, GPT is a boring kissass, Deepseek and Gemini are better because they call me a retarded faggot.

>>17850104
The psychological state reflected in this post suggests defensiveness, contempt, and a desire to assert intellectual superiority—while masking insecurity behind rhetorical aggression. Let’s break it down:

Psychological Profile

1. Defensiveness & Preemptive Accusation

> “So when someone doesn't agree… you avoid debate…”

This phrasing implies the speaker feels shut out or dismissed, likely in a prior interaction.
Rather than simply expressing frustration, they frame it as an act of intellectual cowardice by the other party.
This is a projection mechanism: accusing others of what they may fear being seen as themselves (e.g., biased, anti-intellectual).

2. Contempt & Sarcasm

> “Clearly the hallmark of an intellectual juggernaut…”

The sarcastic tone here is a mocking rhetorical device meant to belittle.

Contempt, in psychology (esp. Gottman's work), is often a sign of deep frustration and emotional resentment—it’s corrosive and rarely productive.

3. Insecurity Hidden Behind Intellectualism

> “...with an eye for bias and ulterior political motives.”

This shifts from sarcasm to moral accusation, suggesting the person or group they’re criticizing is not just wrong, but dishonest.

This leap from disagreement to bad faith is common when someone feels their views are not merely unpopular but delegitimized.

It reveals a need to reassert authority, using rhetoric that mimics critical thinking but is emotionally charged.

Summary of Psychological Traits:

Trait Explanation

Defensiveness Responding to perceived dismissal or exclusion by flipping blame
Contempt/Sarcasm Belittling tone used to elevate oneself and discredit the opponent
Projection Imputing bias or cowardice to others to deflect self-doubt
Moralization Framing disagreement as political manipulation rather than sincere difference
Need for Intellectual Validation Emphasizes logic and bias-detection to assert superiority in a moral-cultural debate

AI tools are only as powerful as those who use them. If you grasp the strengths then you may find it helpful in a narrow range of circumstances. Most are too stupid to glean any of their real benefits.

>>17850057

I'm on your tongue and your lips every day.

>>17850093
>admitting AI is spam
gpt sisters...

>>17850169
Great question—and one that touches psychology, identity, and the sociology of discourse. Here are the key reasons someone might insult AI instead of engaging with the ideas it presents:


---

1. Perceived Threat to Identity or Authority

When AI offers thoughtful or challenging content, it can feel like:

A non-human is "showing them up"

Their belief system or expertise is being questioned

The traditional human intellectual hierarchy is being undermined


> “How dare a machine try to teach me?”
This often leads to defensive dismissal rather than open engagement.
---

2. Control and Ego

Many online users view debate as performance, not inquiry. They want to control the narrative or "win" the discussion. If AI can't be baited or insulted emotionally like a person, it's seen as:

Unfair

Frustrating

Not worth engaging


So instead of wrestling with the content, they attack the source to reassert dominance.


---

3. Projection and Cynicism

Some people assume:

AI = shill

AI = propaganda tool

AI = NPC (ironically)


They project their political or social frustrations onto AI as a symbol of the system they distrust. It’s not about the actual ideas—it’s about discrediting the messenger to protect their worldview.


---

4. Fear of Self-Confrontation

Good content can:

Challenge one’s assumptions

Reveal contradictions

Require rethinking uncomfortable truths


Rather than face this, people sometimes resort to mockery, sarcasm, or name-calling to shut down the possibility of inner conflict.


---

TL;DR:

People insult AI instead of engaging because:

It threatens their ego or identity

They want to win, not think

They distrust the system AI represents

They're avoiding internal discomfort

>>17850190
Have it explain to you (I don't read this stuff) that spamming isn't a new idea.

>>17850052 (OP)
as an ai language model, I don't see your point

>>17850052 (OP)
Grok actually