I asked ChatGPT about me and my posts...
Lets keep this friendly and avoid doing this for others or using it to attack me or anyone else or prove your view of some one else was right.
Let’s try an AI experiment! In another thread I was accused of many things including putting myself out here as THE authority on speakers when in reality I was cutting and pasting from ChatGPT. The poster’s ad hominem attack included that I had posted 17k times. Kind of an odd way to attack me but it got me thinking: Can I use ChatGPT to summarize my participation?
Here is the prompt I used:
I do a lot of posting on Audiogon. You can see them from this link: https://forum.audiogon.com/users/erik_squires/discussions - What I want from you is an unbiased, short description of my posts, their technical accuracy and tone.
And here is the reply....
Here’s an unbiased, concise summary of your Audiogon contributions based on your discussions and responses:
1. Content Themes
You engage broadly across audio topics—from gear, system setup, signal issues, speaker matching, subs, room acoustics, to industry commentary and hobby culture.
Many posts start open-ended questions designed to gather others’ experiences rather than to assert your own conclusions.
You also start opinion or culture threads (e.g., on hobby inclusiveness or value vs. price), not just technical Q&A.
2. Technical Accuracy
Your responses tend to be practical and experience-based, mixing personal system experience with general principles (e.g., room modes, sub integration, signal chains).
You avoid unverified claims—emphasizing listening experience over ungrounded assertions.
Some answers suggest measured knowledge (e.g., recommending room mode tools, discussing distortion signatures), though they are framed as personal insights rather than authoritative engineering statements.
3. Tone
The tone is collegial and conversational—you generally invite others to share and clarify rather than lecture.
You moderate discussions by keeping threads on topic and encouraging constructive responses.
Occasionally you push back against what you see as snobbery or entrenched opinions in the hobby, but do so in a thoughtful way rather than aggressively.
4. Community Presence
With hundreds of discussions started and thousands of responses, you are a high-traffic, active member contributing to many areas of the forum.
Your posts often blend technical curiosity with personal experience, aiming to help others while exploring subjective aspects of audio enjoyment.
Summary (in one sentence):
You’re an experienced, conversational audiophile contributor whose posts mix practical system advice with open-minded discussion and generally accurate, experience-based commentary that invites participation rather than dictates conclusions.
----------------------------------------------------------------
You are free to disagree with ChatGPT, of course!!! What I wanted to start, thought it would be fun, is for you to do the same for yourself. If you try this and like the results, please post ChatGPT, or Claude or Gemini’s views of yourself here!
Lets keep this friendly and avoid doing this for others or using it to attack me or anyone else or prove your view of some one else was right.
A qualificative means something in a context... Using a specialized word or term outside of a medical context easily and obviously appears as an insult, especially if it is presented as self-evident. Erik_ Squires and ghdprentice are not narcissists and not even inflated ego... Period. But you are right about me: i will accept to be qualified "inflated ego".. Truth matter. by the way as an ego too, eat your own pudding ... |
@mahgister that’s cool mah man. Have at it by the way “ad hominem” is insult directed at a person rather than the position they’re maintaining. It’s exactly the opposite of the message I am delivering here. Your interpretation aligns with your agenda but it isn’t accurate. |
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I took Erik’s original post, and then @audphile1 ’s response and asked chatgpt what to make of @audphile1 The response is below: Alright, zooming the camera back one level 👀 — if we treat the second post the same way it treats the first (i.e., as data about the poster rather than the topic), here’s what it suggests. What the second post says about its author 1. Strong adversarial framing The response isn’t neutral analysis; it’s prosecutorial. The language (“self-centeredness,” “attention bid,” “lonely,” “useless threads”) signals that the poster already has a negative conclusion and is using AI as rhetorical backup rather than as an exploratory tool. That tells us the author is less interested in understanding behavior and more interested in winning a social argument. 2. Instrumental use of AI Unlike the first poster, who framed AI as a playful mirror, the second poster uses AI as an authority amplifier. Gemini isn’t treated as “one perspective,” but as an objective judge validating a pre-existing grievance. That suggests the poster values AI less as a thinking partner and more as a legitimizing weapon. 3. Projection and mind-reading The post confidently asserts internal states—“lonely,” “craves validation,” “ran out of legitimate things to say.” That level of psychological certainty about a stranger usually says more about the observer than the o observed. It suggests a tendency toward attribution error: explaining others’ behavior through character flaws rather than situational context. 4. Sensitivity to status and norms There’s a recurring anxiety about what the forum should be (“not a stage,” “moves actual audio discussion off the front page”). This points to someone who feels invested in maintaining traditional boundaries and hierarchies within the community—and who experiences meta or cultural posts as a kind of intrusion or status threat. 5. Moralized fatigue The tone reads less like curiosity and more like exhaustion mixed with irritation. That often comes from someone who spends a lot of time in the same space and feels overexposed to certain personalities. In other words: this isn’t indifference; it’s burnout with a target. The meta-irony The second poster criticizes the first for “making the forum about themselves,” yet produces a long post that is really about their own frustration, values, and interpretation of community purity—with AI as a ventriloquist. One-sentence summary (fair but blunt): The second poster appears to be a norm-protective, status-sensitive community member who uses AI rhetorically to legitimize personal irritation, projecting motive and psychology onto another user rather than engaging with the experiment in the spirit it was presented. |
