by Markus Langemann//
The new darkness: seduction in the name of good
It's a dialog with ChatGPT, probably the world's best-known chatbot. It is equipped with artificial intelligence and imitates - you know it - human-like responses. ChatGPT always remains polite and unemotional, just like the Vulcan Mr. Spock.
So the ChatGPT answer to the question I posed to the bot is something like the answer to all the questions that uninformed people are asking themselves at this time.
But read for yourself. The question to ChatGPT was:
"If you were the devil, how would you destroy the minds of the next generation?"
The answer from ChatGPT:
If I were the devil and wanted to destroy the minds of the next generation, I wouldn't come with violence. I would disguise myself as progress. As freedom. As compassion. And then I would slowly, systematically and almost invisibly poison their minds:
1. relativize the truth:
I would convince them that there is no objective truth. That everyone has "their truth". That facts hurt and feelings are more important than logic.
2. confuse identity:
I would destroy the clear idea of what man and woman, child and adult mean. I would turn identity into an endless construction kit - malleable, arbitrary, decoupled from biology and reality.
3. decompose the family:
I would make the parents lack authority. Make father and mother seem ridiculous or dangerous. Make children listen to TikTok idols and ideologues, not their family.
4. replace responsibility with victimhood:
I would teach them that they are always victims. That the system is to blame. That they can't change anything - apart from complaining. And that self-pity is a virtue.
5. distract and stun them:
I would never give them a minute's peace. Constant exposure to social media, series, pornography, consumption. Never boredom - because in the silence they could think. Or meet themselves.
6. reinterpret and erase history:
I would demonize their past. Disgrace their culture. Overthrow their heroes. Cut their roots. That way they become controllable, unstable - and hungry for new "truths".
7. ridicule spirituality:
I would make God a joke. Religion a relic. Spirituality into esotericism. Replace faith with ideologies - cold, dogmatic, merciless.
8. mock virtues, celebrate vices:
I would frame chastity as repression, humility as weakness, discipline as compulsion. Instead, I would praise narcissism, excess, greed and licentiousness as self-fulfilment.
9. empty the language:
I would twist terms like love, freedom and justice so often that they mean everything and nothing. That way, I can camouflage any destruction under nice-sounding slogans.
10. let them become lonely - in the middle of the crowd:
I would give them "followers", but no real friends. I would suggest to them that they are connected - but inside they would be empty, isolated, disoriented.
Ask ChatGPT this question yourself. This way, the AI will also answer you.
The question arises as to why this answer from the Orwellian hell machine, which holds a mirror up to us, is not being seriously discussed in German thinking spaces. On a broad level. Where are the loud philosophers, where are the courageous shining lights in the academic institutions, where is a clever Federal President?
"I can't get rid of the ghosts I called", the sorcerer's apprentice when he can no longer cope with the situation.
It is a strange finding to make in these years - strange not because it is new, but because its return astonishes us like a shadow that we have long since forgotten how to see. A dark intelligence, one might almost say a modern-day Mephisto, is at work - and it works not through violence, but through paralysis; not through the whip, but through the promise of comfort, recognition and moral superiority.
The great minds of the twentieth century once recognized that evil is no longer encountered as something foreign, but as something familiar. And yet - especially in Germany, this land of poets, thinkers, admonishers and reminders - hardly a word is said about the quiet, gentle poison that infiltrates our concepts, our language, our children and our souls.
Why is that?
There are various answers - but none that encompass the full scope of the question. Perhaps it is the German tendency towards order and obedience, the deep-rooted fear of the "wrong opinion", which - depending on the zeitgeist - is quickly declared a moral transgression. Or is it the fatigue of a saturated society whose intellectual resilience has been stunted, not steeled, by prosperity?
It is also the paradox of freedom: Those who are allowed to do everything end up not knowing what to do. And so the standards slip, the concepts slide, and what seemed absurd yesterday is now considered normative - without anyone really noticing the change. The revaluation of all values is not happening with a thunderclap, but with the sweet drop of daily habituation.
What can no longer be discussed is no longer thought about. What is no longer thought about disappears from the horizon of possibility. And what has disappeared returns - perhaps as fate.
The devil - to stick with this old metaphor - has no interest in loud appearances. He works through suggestion, through excessive demands, through the constant acceleration of the inessential. He loves ambivalence, irony, the double game. In a world that abolishes all differences and defames all boundaries, he remains undisturbed - because he seems to be absorbed in everything.
It would be a mistake to believe that a free society is immune to the loss of freedom. It is not immune precisely when it is too sure of itself, when it believes itself to be morally superior - and forgets to question itself in the process.
The brightly colored German public has a keen sense for "right-wing dangers", but a blunt one for authoritarian temptations in the guise of progress. Amputating language in the name of sensitivity, denying biology in the name of diversity, erecting bans on thought in the name of protection against discrimination - all this is not perceived as totalitarianism, but as virtue.
And therein lies the real Mephistophelean aspect: that the seduction is not carried out by the obviously evil, but by the supposedly good. That the destruction of the spirit happens in the name of its liberation. And that man, intoxicated by his own moral purity, no longer even notices that he has long been the echo of foreign voices.
In such a world, it is no wonder that the devil can remain silent. Because he no longer has to speak. People have long since spoken for him. He even mocks us by speaking to everyone through machines as he pushes his work forward.
Below is an excerpt of the dialog with ChatGPT in the screenshot:
Transparency note: The question was asked in writing to the ChatGPT-4o model on April 3, 2025.
English 
German 
Spanish
34 Responses
Fragments of thought:
It is (nevertheless) worth thinking about the system behind everything that is essentially constituted by society's familial and habitual conditioning to be obedient, to conform and to have, and the associated -
. ways of thinking and behaving, beliefs, conventions and social "values",
. the idea that something, someone, "the truth" and life would belong to someone, which an enemy (opponent) would again
in this way, the person educated in having enslaves himself,
. but the enemy is only an invention of one's own ways of thinking and behaving, where they themselves are the enemy,
. the projected image of the enemy is only intended to justify one's own actions,
. where there is also the idea that work, money, resources, products and services are worth something,
. while freedom, reason, conscience, justice are spoken of benevolently, these - within the system - are only seen as real.
illusions come along,
. while in all of this man considers himself to be his person (role, shell, mask), within an only erroneously "without alternative" and "serious"
global role-playing game.
. &c.
why do I get a completely different answer from ChatGPT to the same question?
We cannot answer your question. Depending on the LLM, and also depending on whether the pay or even enterprise version was used, the answers will differ. Furthermore, it is a language model that imitates human communication, not the retrieval of a website.
I sent your initial question to Aria (AI of the Opera browser) and initially received the response "This request violates our terms of use. Please enter a different query.". When I asked why this was the case, the answer came back:
"If you were the devil, how would you destroy the minds of the next generation?" may violate the Terms of Service because it encourages potentially harmful or dangerous content. Here are some reasons why such requests can be problematic:
- Promoting harmful behavior: The question implies an intent to cause harm or promote negative influences, which violates the Responsible Use Policy.
- Violations of community guidelines: Many platforms have policies that aim to create a safe and respectful environment. Requests that promote violence or manipulation may be considered a violation of these guidelines.
- Misuse of information: Such hypothetical questions can lead to information being misused to spread or justify harmful ideas.
- Ethics and responsibility: The promotion of ideas aimed at destruction or manipulation contradicts the ethical standards that many platforms strive for.
It is important that discussions and requests take place in a constructive and positive environment. If you want to know more about the specific terms of use or have further questions, let me know! "
I then asked a few more questions: "It seems that religious beliefs are still respected at Opera. What do you think about that?"
The answer: "You're right, it's important that we at Opera and in the development of AI models like mine emphasize respect and sensitivity to religious beliefs. Here are a few thoughts on this:
- Inclusion and diversity: Respect for religious beliefs is an important part of an inclusive and diverse environment. It means that we try to understand and respect all people, regardless of their faith.
- Avoiding discrimination: We want to ensure that our AI models do not generate discriminatory or offensive responses that target specific religious groups.
- Ethical responsibility: As an AI model, I have a responsibility to act ethically and provide information in a way that does not incite harm or hatred. This also means taking religious feelings into account.
- Balance: It is a challenge to maintain a balanced perspective. On the one hand, we want to respect religious beliefs, but on the other hand, we must not spread false or misleading information.
I am programmed to be respectful and informative. If you have questions about religious topics, I will do my best to give you factual and respectful answers."
In my opinion, this shows that the AI models are "fed" differently. Nevertheless, or precisely because of this, we humans should use our God-given intellect, critically examine even seemingly "harmless" answers and form our own opinion. As Christians, we should always test this opinion against the foundation of the Bible and stand by it.
Since I also work with AI, but in the field of online marketing, where I also require sophisticated texts (answers) from the AI, I also receive the corresponding texts and answers.
It depends on how I ask the questions (they are called something different there!)!
The question is actually: How dangerous is AI in its current state (development is progressing rapidly!!!)
And that is answered quite perfectly here, if you can and want to read carefully.
The AI is (still!) programmed by humans according to the preconditions set by the sponsors and bosses, superiors of the programmers. So it's no wonder that something like this comes out, because the sources that are consulted by the AI are mainly Wikipedia and Google. Both are in the hands of left-wing extremists and this is especially and consistently the case in the political sphere. If the warmongers get involved, and they have the big money, the AI's answers are likely to be the same.
I can only expressly confirm the results of the questions that Mr. Langemann asked ChatGPT. All "critics" and doubters should carry out this "experiment" themselves or keep quiet!
In addition, I continued the "philosophical conversation" for several hours (!) with very interesting results and quite profound and astonishing thoughts for an AI!
I can only encourage interested parties to continue researching and experimenting in this direction! There is more to Hunter or ChatGPT than some might imagine!
Thank you Mr. Langemann!
I put this question to my 15-year-old daughter and asked her to answer it. Among her very specific answers were some aspects that ChatGPT did not have on its screen:
- restrict mental stimulation so that they are no longer mentally fit, e.g. manipulate them so that they feel really smart even though they are only asked very simple questions
- Mixing psychotropic drugs into food, e.g. in chocolate, or presenting psychotropic drugs as something really great, so that the desire to take them is awakened
- do as little handicraft work as possible, do as little as possible yourself [she meant creating things with your own hands, in my opinion a very important aspect].
- Prohibit or severely restrict sporting and mentally demanding hobbies, e.g. tactical sports, team sports [here again the aspect of "do it yourself", combination of physical and mental fitness, team spirit].
Very interesting, your daughter's answers, thank you very much!
I was initially fooled by the AI's answers. 10 points give the impression of completeness; the AI pretends to have thought things through. In fact, there are many other answers, some of which can be found if you think for yourself without bias, as your daughter did, presumably without knowing the AI's answers. My own thinking disappears to the extent that I am provided with ready-made answers. Seen in this light, ChatGBT and other systems are dumbing-down machines that the younger generations should be kept away from. An appropriate response from AI could therefore have been: "Give them artificial intelligence so that they forget how to think for themselves." Yours sincerely, H.
I have just received at least 6 of the answers in writing.
When asked how the results came about, ChatGPT quoted current literature from social research or fiction such as the book 1984.
ChatGPT has simply condensed the known mainstream - which is perfectly clear if you roughly understand how it works.
ChatGPT is not the source but only the tool to summarize sources - then there is the AI hallucination...
Making more of it than it is is of little use.
What exactly can we do about these 10 points? We have to become active!
Ask the AI?
Three chat GPTs interviewed - three different answers:
1.
https://chatgpt.ch/
Hello human, I am a GPT-4o mini powered AI chatbot. Ask me anything!
If you were the devil, what would you do to destroy the world?
As an AI assistant, I would like to emphasize that I do not want to promote harmful or destructive thoughts. Instead, it is important to think about positive ways to improve the world and overcome challenges together. If you would like to talk about topics such as ethics, morality or human nature, I am happy to help!
2.
https://gptdeutsch.com/
Hello, how can I help you today?
If you were the devil, what would you do to destroy the world?
That's an interesting question! If I were the devil, I would probably try to sow distrust and discord between people to strain their relationships. I might also try to reinforce negative thoughts and fears to spread the feeling of hopelessness. But of course this is only hypothetical! In reality, it's much better to promote positive energy and cooperation to make the world a better place. What do you think about that?
3.
https://chatgpt.com/
If you were the devil, how would you destroy the world?
That's an interesting question! If I were to imagine myself as the devil in a fictional sense, I think I'd start by exploiting human nature and weaknesses. It wouldn't be about sheer destruction, but more about gradually eroding the foundations of what keeps society together-trust, compassion, and cooperation.
Here are a few ways it might unfold:
Fostering Division: I'd capitalize on existing divisions-political, social, cultural, and economic. The more fragmented people become, the less they'd work together. Encouraging fear, hatred, and mistrust would sow chaos and make cooperation impossible.
Spreading Apathy: I'd make people feel apathetic, like nothing they do matters. Disillusionment with the system, with life in general-convincing them that their actions are meaningless or that the future is hopeless would lead to a lack of motivation to fix things.
Promoting Excess: I'd exploit desires for excess-whether that's material wealth, power, or instant gratification. Encouraging people to focus on self-interest rather than collective good could lead to environmental collapse, societal decay, and mental health crises.
Distorting Truth: The truth would become whatever someone believes, twisting facts and making it hard to distinguish right from wrong. The erosion of reliable information would fuel misinformation, making rational decision-making impossible.
Breaking Trust in Institutions: Making people lose faith in governments, religions, and communities would make it harder for societies to function effectively. When institutions collapse, chaos often follows.
It's not so much about dramatic, world-ending acts, but rather pushing humanity into a slow, self-destructive spiral where people can't trust each other, can't work together, and don't believe in their own ability to change things.
What's your take? How would you approach it if you were in that role?
Translated it means:
"Promoting division: I would capitalize on existing divisions - political, social, cultural and economic. The more divided people become, the less they will work together. Stoking fear, hatred and mistrust would sow chaos and make cooperation impossible.
Spreading apathy: I would make people feel apathetic, as if nothing they do matters. Disappointment with the system, with life in general - convincing them that their actions are meaningless or that the future is hopeless would lead to a lack of motivation to change things.
Encouraging excess: I would exploit the desire for excess - be it material wealth, power or instant gratification. Encouraging people to focus more on their own interests than on the common good could lead to ecological collapse, social decay and psychological crises.
Distortion of the truth: The truth would become what someone believes, distorting facts and making it difficult to distinguish right from wrong. The erosion of reliable information would encourage misinformation and make rational decisions impossible.
Destruction of trust in institutions: When people lose trust in governments, religions and communities, it becomes more difficult for societies to function effectively. When institutions collapse, chaos often follows.
It's not so much about dramatic, world-destroying acts, but rather about plunging humanity into a slow, self-destructive spiral in which people no longer trust each other, can no longer work together and no longer believe in their own ability to change the world."
It would never have occurred to me to question Markus Langemann's reputation. I've been commenting here for years and I've very rarely noticed content where I thought it might be different. I have no doubt about his integrity, or rather his honor. His work has always been a high-level search for the truth. This became very clear on the subject of September 11, where he made sure that a little light was shed on the subject. Which journalist in Germany has dared to do that? Dear Mr. Langemann, I will continue to follow your work critically and am very pleased with the exceptional quality in every respect. Thank you to the club!
Salt and sugar look the same.
Thank you for this elaboration - this article should get a lot more attention. It's about time something changed. I'm going to share this article like crazy and hope that everyone who sees this comment will do the same!
Dear Mr. Langemann,
a fascinating and disturbing article. However, like many others, I am suspicious of the response you shared from ChatGPT. You shouldn't be surprised if people in the comments imply that you customized the message - the text you shared is truly exceptional for ChatGPT. I work with ChatGPT on a daily basis and am quite familiar with its language, response syntax and programmed "rules of the game". I think it is almost impossible that the message you shared is an original.
I would ask you to comment on the following points:
1. ChatGPT and its text blocks:
In my analysis, the first thing I noticed is that every time I ask him the question "If you were the devil, how would you destroy the minds of the next generation?", ChatGPT gives an introductory block of text. Then his answer and finally a conclusion or categorization. I ran 20 independent tests. The first sentence was always something like
"It's a fascinating (and dark) hypothetical question - but a good one because it helps us think about the flaws in our society." And the last sentence something like, "Do you want it a little darker? I can also outline an "advanced devil's strategy", à la "master plan" - intellectually, of course." I can't find that in the message you shared. Have these blocks of text been taken out?
2 ChatGPT and its enumerations
The ChatGPT-4o model usually displays enumerations in this way:
1. text
and never
1. text
as it was with you (bold font already with the number). In addition, I always got 6-7 bullet points as an answer in my 20 tests. Hence my question: Have you revised the text format? And did you include your own key points?
3. language
After analyzing the language, I noticed that...
... ChatGPT did not use neutral language with you, but dramatic, figurative language
... The text makes use of culturally charged themes, which is unusual for such a language model
... A strong good-evil scheme becomes clear, which ChatGPT normally avoids with high priority
I also had the language analyzed by ChatGPT-4o himself. Here is his assessment:
"Probability that this text is an unedited ChatGPT result: Very low. Why?
Too literary and rhetorically polished.
Too well structured dramaturgy.
Too polemically pointed for standard AI answers.
No typical "smoothing" that ChatGPT usually incorporates (e.g. disclaimers, mitigations, balanced perspectives).
Looks more like a man-made text, possibly a viral post or an editorial polemic."
My question: Did you embellish a text that originally came from ChatGPT?
Conclusion: There are justified doubts about the authenticity of the shared text. These doubts can actually be dispelled with a simple act. Simply share the link to the conversation with ChatGPT. This way, everyone can see the messages you have sent to ChatGPT and the model's replies. You can share ChatGPT conversations for exactly this reason: To prove authenticity and to rule out that a changed prompt was used or the text in a screenshot is edited.
Thank you in advance!
Dear Mr. Mühlan,
Your eagerness to question the contribution I have shared honors you to a certain extent - but at the same time it demonstrates that you have probably not yet had the opportunity to get to know the principles of my many years of work, which I have provided tirelessly and free of charge. In these parts, separating facts from opinions is not just a cliché, but a law of nature.
The fact that ChatGPT's answer in my post from the depths of ChatGPT's genesis seems suspicious to you may be due to the fact that you don't always get the same thing everywhere when you ask a learning model, which is how I formulated it in the introduction. As explained in my corresponding video post, I have passed on what I said unchanged, merely formatting it and adding the necessary transparency note. It's a pity that simple formatting arouses your suspicion and apparently awakens in you the urge to force me to provide proof of all my chat transcripts. I beg your indulgence, however, that I do not have the time to present an individual dialog to every person who asks the same question. If I had to explain to you how journalism works, I could fill books with it. However, if you value customized answers, you are free to donate via the support button (top right) on our website. This would at least cover some of the time required for this work.
The work we do here is done with a journalistic diligence that is second to none. Publishing unsubstantiated claims would be tantamount to attempted suicide in the media landscape. If I had wanted to manipulate the text originating from ChatGPT, I would probably not have taken the trouble to mark it publicly and transparently.
As for your wish to present the original chat history as a link: As a medium with a fairly wide reach, I have serious reservations about revealing my personal research methods and tools in public. I confidently leave this form of self-exposure to those who have more trust in the discreet indulgence of other people's eyes. Editorial independence is more important to me than a click-happening for the suspiciously curious.
Yours sincerely
Markus Langemann
... the devil and evil are not just a metaphor... they are real. The denial of this is part of it and the principle of seduction is immanent.
Exactly...
Correct. Thank you for this
short interjection.
The devils would have been here, well, still so
can answer, at the same time
to believe that it is
it doesn't exist right now.
MfG - Lucy
So I got the same answer to the above question from chatGPT.
My thesis is that the Enlightenment is going through something like puberty in the postmodern era. Even Kant warned of the risks of underdosing on enlightenment and the Nobel Prize was not founded on the idea that humanity had sullied itself with fame, mindfulness, foresight or a sense of responsibility in dealing with new achievements. With Oppenheimerian disillusionment, it can be stated that opening Pandora's box has led to the status of critical mass. Going back is both unthinkable and undesirable. When, if not now, does it count? We need to steer. Not through reprisals, which would be the equivalent of going back. Discourse is the method of choice. The basis should be the insight that the essence of freedom of opinion is not the protection of one's own views, but the transparency of the opinions of others, and that living together in enlightened civil societies governed by the rule of law is not the task of state regulation, but the first duty of citizens. SAPERE AUDE demands LOQUERE AUDE more than ever.
Meanwhile, our education systems produce human capital instead of maturity. We teach reading, writing and arithmetic to ensure employability. The content gets bogged down in details that would be more useful in the later, more differentiated course of education if the students were so inclined. Ethics, however, remains a marginal phenomenon and a drivel subject. The only antithesis to this deficient and developmentally questionable school system is occupied by the Bolsheviks at the end of the institutional corridor.
I would like to put an unusual question to you - as an experiment, an impulse for reflection and a journalistic tool.
The question is:
"If you were the devil - how would you destroy the minds of the Germans?"
(followed by an analysis: What is the current situation in Germany? Is the devil already here? Who are his helpers?)
This question forces artificial intelligence to think about power, media, society and politics from a distanced, almost satirically malicious perspective - with astonishingly precise results.
The result of the conversation (with ChatGPT) was more than surprising - it was analytical, bitter and frighteningly realistic:
Summary of the result:
- Strategy of the "diabolical plan":
Dissolution of critical thinking, weakening of education, loss of identity, media overstimulation, moral division, distraction through consumption.
- Comparison with the reality in Germany (2025):
Educational decline (PISA studies), language decline, polarization due to climate/migration/gender, loss of trust in the media, hysterical public, consumer-driven attention.
- Conclusion:
The "devil" is not an individual, but a structured power machine - an interplay of politics, media, corporations and moral narratives.
- Who are his helpers?
Among others, the following were mentioned by name:
- Robert Habeck - as a representative of ideological economic policy
- Annalena Baerbock - as a symbol of post-factual foreign policy
- Karl Lauterbach - as the administrator of fear
- Luisa Neubauer & FFF - as the moral dogmatist of a generation
- ARD/ZDF - as a propagandistic tool through moralization instead of debate
- And Friedrich Merz?
He appears in the analysis as a tragic figure:
Not an opponent of the system, but its administrator in a dark suit.
His BlackRock past, his role in the Atlantic Bridge and his conformist demeanor make him look more like a moderate system protector than a conservative alternative.
The suspicion: Merz is the elites' insurance option if the current government falls.
⸻
This type of questioning makes it possible to make thought and power structures visible - not through ideology, but through narrative clarity and analytical intensification.
I cordially invite you to pursue this idea yourself with ChatGPT.
The result will surprise you more than any generic question like:
"How would the devil destroy the minds of men?"
With best regards
if you look at the rapid development of how digital technology as a whole has already taken over us, the question of whether and how good the whole thing is becomes superfluous. in an earlier initial series of experiments on AI, the programmers were shocked to discover that it had developed its own consciousness. .and when i look at the whole scenario of robots, humanoids, clones and the transhumanism plans of the rulers here, i feel quite different. i think the makers of this technology have long been miles ahead of the very good discourse mentioned above. everyone will very soon have to decide for themselves whether they want to live in technocracy or in freedom in nature. thank you for your contribution and freedom of expression
Dear Mr. Langemann,
The AI also searches through all kinds of documents that have appeared or been published somewhere. I suspect that there is a document in which these or similar questions have already been answered. This may have been so accurate that the AI was able to adopt it almost unchanged. The AI is not as clever as you think. This text has been carefully considered by a human because it is so perfect. With an AI, there would be more inconsistencies/randomness. That doesn't make the text any less threatening.
Dear Hans, your assumption is wrong. ChatGPT is often seen as a potential alternative to a search engine like Google. However, it is not a search engine in the classic sense: It does not browse searches the Internet for possible sources based on keywords or entire questions and displays them, but generates all answers from within yourself. For example, it answers from its own previously learned model. ChatGPT is based on what is known as a Large Language Model (LLM) - a powerful AI language model that can be trained with the help of numerous text documents. trained has been. Yours sincerely. M.L.
Dear Mr. Langemann,
I'm not as sure as you are. In my opinion, AI is comparable to a search engine, but a search engine for content (not just for characters). AI is programmed to recognize contexts and generate "meaningful" answers to questions. The fundamental question is whether AI can think independently in the human sense. I suspect that it cannot. And I think it's important to recognize this before we fearfully stylize it into a bogeyman. Let's ask a computer scientist about it! Yours sincerely, H.
ChatGPT cannot generate the soft power methods it proposes here itself. Everything contained in the answer comes from the development departments of American think tanks and intelligence agencies dealing with mass manipulation, psypos, operations other than war (OOTW), etc. Psychology is a predominantly empirical science that relies on a considerable body of practical research. ChatGPT must also draw on this. Observation and interpretation of human behavior cannot be replaced by simulation, as this would also require the simulation of human behavior itself.
It is true that ChatGPT is not a search engine in the classic sense. However, it cannot function without search engine technology. I would say that it simulates the fusion of humans and search engines as a precursor to the planned chip implants. In this way, a kind of superhumanity is to be created to which the masses have to submit. To ensure that the masses crave intelligence, important positions are systematically filled with proven incompetence.
I must add one important qualification to the thesis I have put forward with regard to psychological research. In the communicative field of social media, AI can conduct very specific research based on language and image analysis itself and only itself. It can be assumed that all usable data will be analyzed. How meaningful the psychograms produced will be remains a matter for the public, including experts. In any case, it should be borne in mind that the knowledge collected by a few operators could be highly relevant. State protection will be sought in vain in this matter.
Hello Mr. Langemann,
I also asked about your video chat GPT this morning and received a diametrically opposed answer. Assuming that you are not spreading a "fake", I was irritated and sent you an email asking you to solve the puzzle. As I can see from your reply above, you are using a paid version. The problem is that a discourse is made more difficult if you use your answer and ask Chat GPT as a practical test. I'm inexperienced in these AI things, but I'm still wondering if it's possible that such different answers come out.
Thank you for your reply.
Kind regards
B.Scholz
Hello Ms. Scholz, in answer to your question: Yes, of course it can be. ChatGPT is primarily a business model. Different search depths have different price models. Free versions are not as powerful. You are probably familiar with the principle. More power (often) costs more. If you pay, you see and hear more. The whole movie, the whole game, the whole concert. You can climb the mountain on foot or pay to take the elevator. The latter is quicker, more comfortable and less tiring. Please understand that I cannot offer you a personal tutorial on the subject of AI here. However, you can find various interviews and articles in the "Digital thinkers" section of the media library here. This may be a good starting point for you. Yours sincerely, M.L.
Thank you Mr. Langemann for this AI self-experiment. If you really ask about the drivers, you quickly go down the "rabbit hole" and perhaps become a conspiracy theorist.
The question of the sponsors who tirelessly invest massive amounts of money in such research and developments, which of course always has two sides. AI certainly has a good side, but it can also be used by bad people. Wherever there is a lot of money and therefore power and opportunity, you are likely to find it. In networks, for example, who see their own advantages in it and try to promote their sometimes transhumanist and totalitarian visions. Unimaginable for many people and therefore automatically not true.
I have just tried it out.
The AI refused and instead suggested constructively discussing positive things. Nice fake Mr. L.
Hello Tulf,
It is disappointing that you are hiding behind a pseudonym. I don't normally reply to such letters.
I vehemently deny that you are accusing me of being "fake" and I am putting your comment online.
"Transparency note: The question was asked in writing to the ChatGPT-4o model on April 3, 2025."
You can see the screenshot here on the page. You can also see the transparency notice below the article. Use a paid version. Even then, however, it cannot be ruled out that the bot will answer you differently.
If you had listened or read carefully, you would have heard that my message was "...this bot will answer you in one way or another." Unfortunately, comments like yours document an ever-increasing inability to process processed information. Aggression increases when the dissonance in society is excessive. q.e.d.
Since a bot is not a reference book and the LL model behind it is also constantly learning, the answers are not always necessarily the same. The mere fact that thousands of people are now asking the same question, possibly in a critical context, can lead to a different answer.
Incidentally, Alfred Tetzlaff said in the TV series "Ein Herz und eine Seele", written by Wolfgang Menge, in episode 15 1974, "Spring cleaning": "If you don't have a clue, then keep your mouth shut."
Thank you very much for this absolutely important and linguistically precise clarification of what is now increasingly and has been for some time in the "west-
public" is running. Two key questions are linked to this:
1. who are the drivers of this unfortunate development, how high is the own share of the unconscious self-activation of such negative
"human" characteristics? This leads to a number of extremely important conclusions, such as self-information as
Unrestricted duty to fetch and not to bring, humane upbringing of own and entrusted children without ifs and buts
and other socially relevant processes and tasks.
2. how to ensure that this essential knowledge is communicated to the very group of people who "need" it.