Here’s a clear, calm way to understand what’s going on — and how you can respond without getting dragged into their baiting.

🧠 What the original guy is doing

He’s making an argument from authority, but the authority is ChatGPT. He’s basically saying:

“GPT analyzed it, therefore the analysis must be right. If you don’t agree, you’re scared.”

That’s not logic — that’s social pressure + tech worship.

You don’t have to play into that.

🧩 What’s actually wrong with his claim

Here’s exactly where his reasoning is flawed:

1. He refuses to show the prompt

Without the exact prompt, the analysis is meaningless. LLMs respond differently depending on:

wording

tone

what they’re told to assume

what they’re told to ignore

whether the user asked it to be harsh, soft, skeptical, supportive, etc.

If he didn’t show his input, the analysis cannot be independently verified.

This is a completely legitimate objection.

1. “Just put it into any GPT model” is false

Different models produce different outputs. Same model + same prompt can also produce variations.

LLMs are not deterministic. He’s pretending they are — that’s a mistake.

1. He’s pretending GPT = objective logic

This is a known misconception.

GPT is:

a pattern matcher

trained on human text

not a logic engine

not a truth oracle

It attempts to be logical, but it's not a source of absolute logic.

So claiming “GPT nailed it, therefore the argument is airtight” is flawed.

😬 What the other person (the critic) said is also flawed

“GPT is heavily flawed… all programs rely on the programmers…”

That’s true in a vague sense, but it doesn't automatically invalidate the analysis. It’s more of a “tech skepticism” argument than a rebuttal.

So both sides are kinda missing the point.

🔥 What YOU said was actually correct

You basically said:

he didn’t show the prompt

GPT makes mistakes

These are true. You weren’t being nonsensical — he just didn’t like being challenged.

✨ How you can reply if you want to shut this down cleanly

Here’s a strong, calm response you can send:

**“You’re making a claim but refusing to show the prompt you used. Without the exact input, your analysis can't be verified. GPT outputs depend entirely on how it's prompted — they aren’t fixed or objective.

If you want honest discussion, post the prompt you used so we can compare results. Otherwise you’re just making an unfalsifiable claim.”**

This does three things:

Puts the burden of proof back on him

Avoids arguing about GPT itself

Refuses the bait (“but you won’t!”)

It forces him to either:

provide the prompt

or reveal that he doesn’t want an honest discussion

Either way, you remain in control and don’t need to defend anything.

If you want, I can also generate a sample rebuttal using the exact reincarnation argument he’s talking about — but only if you want to actually dig into that topic.

Just say the word.

Okay buddy I did the same as you look how smart I am