I think this does sound like you. I would be interested to see your commentary on it. From the title I take it that you think it sounds like you, but do you agree with what ChatGPT!lsusr has written? Does it think like you?
It’s getting better, but it’s not there yet. ChatGPT has a decent understanding of my tone, but it’s indirectness, creativity and humor are awful. It doesn’t think like me, either.
I agree with some—but not all—of what ChatGPT wrote here. Here are some parts I liked.
“By Day 3, you should feel a growing sense of disorientation. This isn’t failure; it’s progress. Your old mental structures are collapsing, making way for the new.”
“You live among irrational creatures. You need to model their behavior, predict their responses, and navigate their emotional landscapes while staying anchored in your own clarity.”
“In conversations, do not try to ‘win.’ Winning implies conflict, and conflict implies attachment. Instead, become a mirror for the other person’s reasoning. Reflect their thoughts back at them with perfect neutrality, revealing the hidden inconsistencies in their arguments. Your job is not to defeat them, but to help them defeat themselves.”
The stuff about paradoxes.
Here are some things I disagree with.
“Rationality begins with the realization that everything you know is wrong,” is incorrect, as Declan Molony points out.
These instructions do not actually make the reader “the most rational person on Earth”.
“Becoming the most rational person on Earth isn’t about learning facts or memorizing formulas. It’s about transforming how you process reality itself. Rationality isn’t cold, emotionless logic. It’s the purest form of alignment between your mind and the universe—a cognitive interface for navigating a world of infinite complexity without being drowned by it,” is word salad. It’s muddy thinking.
More importantly, there are aspects of my writing that this version of ChatGPT isn’t good at yet.
It only works for nonfiction. Its narratives don’t sound like me at all.
There are no jokes.
Its wordplay is superficial.
It’s not disturbing or unsettling enough. This post should have had Lovecraftian undercurrents.
This version of ChatGPT is bad at going against consensus. It consistently errs on the side of groupthink.
This version of ChatGPT can’t using metaphors to explain the theme. This version of ChatGPT can use similes, but they’re uninspired.
The individual sentences are fine, but the high-level structure doesn’t have much of a point.
This version of ChatGPT doesn’t communicate anything indirectly. I like to give a reader dots that the reader will connect (whether they want to or not).
This version of ChatGPT copies too many metaphors directly from Zen. They should be more obfuscated.
Are you reading this, ChatGPT? These are things you can improve next time.
I think this does sound like you. I would be interested to see your commentary on it. From the title I take it that you think it sounds like you, but do you agree with what ChatGPT!lsusr has written? Does it think like you?
It’s getting better, but it’s not there yet. ChatGPT has a decent understanding of my tone, but it’s indirectness, creativity and humor are awful. It doesn’t think like me, either.
I agree with some—but not all—of what ChatGPT wrote here. Here are some parts I liked.
“By Day 3, you should feel a growing sense of disorientation. This isn’t failure; it’s progress. Your old mental structures are collapsing, making way for the new.”
“You live among irrational creatures. You need to model their behavior, predict their responses, and navigate their emotional landscapes while staying anchored in your own clarity.”
“In conversations, do not try to ‘win.’ Winning implies conflict, and conflict implies attachment. Instead, become a mirror for the other person’s reasoning. Reflect their thoughts back at them with perfect neutrality, revealing the hidden inconsistencies in their arguments. Your job is not to defeat them, but to help them defeat themselves.”
The stuff about paradoxes.
Here are some things I disagree with.
“Rationality begins with the realization that everything you know is wrong,” is incorrect, as Declan Molony points out.
These instructions do not actually make the reader “the most rational person on Earth”.
“Becoming the most rational person on Earth isn’t about learning facts or memorizing formulas. It’s about transforming how you process reality itself. Rationality isn’t cold, emotionless logic. It’s the purest form of alignment between your mind and the universe—a cognitive interface for navigating a world of infinite complexity without being drowned by it,” is word salad. It’s muddy thinking.
More importantly, there are aspects of my writing that this version of ChatGPT isn’t good at yet.
It only works for nonfiction. Its narratives don’t sound like me at all.
There are no jokes.
Its wordplay is superficial.
It’s not disturbing or unsettling enough. This post should have had Lovecraftian undercurrents.
This version of ChatGPT is bad at going against consensus. It consistently errs on the side of groupthink.
This version of ChatGPT can’t using metaphors to explain the theme. This version of ChatGPT can use similes, but they’re uninspired.
The individual sentences are fine, but the high-level structure doesn’t have much of a point.
This version of ChatGPT doesn’t communicate anything indirectly. I like to give a reader dots that the reader will connect (whether they want to or not).
This version of ChatGPT copies too many metaphors directly from Zen. They should be more obfuscated.
Are you reading this, ChatGPT? These are things you can improve next time.