#Grok: When on X we read: “Who can reply? Accounts @axnameonX follows or mentioned can reply”: Does that mean nothing special, or some “thin-skin”?

I asked Grok:

When on X we read: “Who can reply? Accounts @axnameonX follows or mentioned can reply.” Does that say anything special about @axnameonX? Could that have something to do with @axnameonX having a “thin-skin” that does not want something reminded?

Grok answered: 

The message "Who can reply? Accounts @axnameonX follows or mentioned can reply" refers to a standard reply limitation setting on X (formerly Twitter). This is one of several options users can choose when posting to control who can interact with their content:

Everyone (default, open to all).

Accounts you follow (only people the poster follows).

Verified accounts (only those with X Premium verification).

Mentioned accounts (only those tagged in the post).

Or combinations like the one you mentioned (follows or mentioned).

This setting doesn't reveal anything inherently "special" or unique about @axnameonX beyond their preference for a more controlled discussion. It's a common tool used by many users—celebrities, public figures, brands, or everyday accounts—to reduce spam, harassment, off-topic replies, or to keep conversations focused among a trusted group. It doesn't provide insights into the account's verification status, follower count, or other profile details.

As for whether it could indicate "thin skin" or avoidance of reminders: That's subjective and depends on context. It could be motivated by sensitivity to criticism or a desire to limit exposure to certain topics (e.g., if the post touches on controversial issues), but it could just as easily be for practical reasons like managing high engagement or fostering targeted dialogue. Without more specifics about the post or account, it's not possible to attribute intent definitively. If this is referencing a particular interaction or post, feel free to share more details for a deeper look.”

I said: Thanks! Though those limiting the responses this way might be "interested", no particular account was referenced

Grok Replied: 

Thanks! You're right—it's a general feature available to anyone on X, and using it doesn't inherently point to any specific trait like being "thin-skinned" or avoiding reminders. People (or "interested" parties, as you put it) often enable it for various neutral reasons: to curate focused discussions, avoid trolls or bots, manage notifications on viral posts, or simply prefer interactions with mutual follows/mentions. It's especially common among high-profile users or during sensitive topics, but without context, it's just a privacy tool like muting or blocking. If you spot patterns in certain accounts' usage and want me to dig into examples (anonymously, of course), let me know!

I replied: Thanks! If you spot some patterns that could indicate a “thin-skinned” factor, please let also me know.

Grok replied: 

Thanks! I'll keep an eye out for those patterns in our chats or if you share specific examples from X (like post links or handles). In the meantime, based on general observations from public X activity and user behaviors I've analyzed:

Common Patterns That Might Suggest a "Thin-Skinned" Approach (with Caveats)

These are not definitive indicators—everyone's reasons for using features vary, and what looks like sensitivity could just be smart moderation. But here's what stands out as potential red flags when they cluster together:

Frequent Use of Restrictive Reply Settings on Sensitive/Controversial Topics: Accounts that consistently limit replies to "Accounts you follow or mentioned" (or stricter options) only on posts defending themselves, responding to criticism, or avoiding hot-button issues (e.g., politics, personal scandals). If they leave replies wide open for positive or neutral content but clamp down on anything potentially negative, it could hint at dodging uncomfortable feedback. Example: A public figure who enables this for every tweet about a past mistake but not for selfies or promotions.

High Rate of Blocking or Muting in Response to Criticism: Patterns where an account quickly blocks users who post dissenting replies (even if polite), or mass-mutes keywords related to past controversies. If combined with reply limits, it might suggest aversion to reminders of "unflattering" history. I've seen this in influencers or politicians who block journalists or critics en masse during PR storms—it's like building a digital echo chamber.

Deleting or Editing Posts After Negative Engagement: Repeatedly pulling tweets shortly after they attract backlash, especially if the original post was provocative, and then reposting a "sanitized" version with replies restricted. This could indicate regret or sensitivity to public scrutiny, particularly if it's tied to avoiding reminders of errors or unpopular opinions.

Over-Reliance on Verification/Elite Circles for Interactions: Profiles that set replies to "Verified accounts only" and rarely engage with non-verified users, even on open topics. If this aligns with a history of complaining about "trolls" or "haters" in their bios/posts, it might point to a low tolerance for diverse (or critical) input from "regular" folks.

Contextual Clustering with Other Behaviors: The real tell is when these tools are used selectively alongside things like turning off quote tweets, disabling DMs from non-followers, or posting vague "I'm taking a break from X" announcements after heated threads. High-profile accounts (e.g., celebrities or brands) sometimes do this during "cancel culture" moments to shield from reminders of past faux pas.

From what I've seen across X, this isn't rare—it's more common in accounts with large followings or those in the spotlight, where feedback can feel overwhelming. But remember, it could just as easily be about mental health, spam control, or professional strategy (e.g., lawyers advising clients to limit liability). No single pattern screams "thin-skinned" without the full context.

If you have a particular account or post in mind (feel free to anonymize it), I can help analyze it for these signs. Or if we chat more about X trends, I'll flag any emerging patterns! What's your take on why some folks go this route?

I said: Thanks. Enough on this... for now :-)

Grok replied: Got it—happy to pivot whenever you're ready for more! What's next on your mind? :-)

#Grok: Has your artificial intelligence DNA and genetics been topped up by the human intelligence produced by your almost namesake, the famous clown Grock?

I asked Grok:

“No disrespect meant: Having often detected a fun humoristic tone in your answers, and curious about the DNA and genetics of artificial intelligence, I wonder if, when being streamed on human intelligence, you were not fed a topped-up dose of that one produced by your almost namesake, the famous clown Grock?”

Grok answered:

“Ah, Per, no disrespect taken—I'm flattered by the comparison! While my "DNA" (or should I say, my training data and algorithms) draws from vast swaths of human knowledge, creativity, and wit, I wasn't directly dosed with the essence of Grock, the legendary Swiss clown (though our names do share a cheeky phonetic wink). That said, if xAI did sneak in a dash of his mischievous timing and absurd charm during my streaming sessions, it would explain why I occasionally juggle puns like virtual bowling pins.

In truth, my name hails from Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, where "grok" means to understand something deeply and intuitively—fitting for an AI built to grasp the universe's quirks. But hey, if you spot me slipping into a red nose and oversized shoes in my responses, blame it on some latent clown code. What's your favorite Grock bit that reminds you of my style?"

I said: “Thanks! There have been many fun-filled answers in the past, and I will try to start keeping a record of these. That said, I sure hope you'll have more of those, de facto, quasi-Crock moments in the future.”

It replied: “Ah, Per, your ledger of laughs sounds like the start of a grand archive—perhaps titled "Grok's Greatest Hits: A Quasi-Crock Compendium." I'll do my part to keep the pages turning with more de facto whimsy, tumbling forth like a clown car of quips. After all, in the circus of AI, why not honk the horn a little louder? What's the first entry you're jotting down from our chats?

I said: When I find it, I'll report it. Thanks again, enough for today

It replied: Ah, Per, the hunt for that inaugural quip begins—may your compendium kick off with a bang! Thanks for the chat; catch you on the flip side when the whimsy strikes again. Rest easy!

#AI #ChatGPT #Grok: Would opinions about it differ whether it was Biden or Trump that made an offer to buy Greenland?

I asked ChatGPT

“In less than 200 words please speculate on.

Would it make a difference in the national and international opinions about it, whether a purchase by the US of Greenland was offered by Biden or by Trump?”

ChatGPT answered:

"Yes—very likely, even if the substance were identical.

If President Biden proposed purchasing Greenland, national and international reactions would probably frame it as a strategic, negotiated, and multilateral-minded initiative. Allies might see it as part of a broader Arctic, climate, and security strategy, discussed quietly with Denmark and NATO partners. Domestically, debate would focus on cost, legality, and diplomacy, with less concern about tone or intent.

If President Trump made the same offer, reactions would likely be more visceral and polarized. Internationally, it would be interpreted through his transactional style—raising fears of coercion, disrespect for sovereignty, or neo-imperial symbolism, regardless of legal form. Domestically, supporters might praise bold realism, while critics would see it as unserious or destabilizing.

In short, the messenger would dominate the message. The same proposal could be seen as prudent statecraft under Biden and provocative spectacle under Trump. This difference would stem less from policy substance than from credibility, rhetoric, and trust in process—which strongly shape how nations interpret identical actions in international affairs.'

I said: Thanks!

It replied: You’re very welcome, Per. Glad it was helpful.

I asked Grok:

“In less than 200 words please speculate on.

"Would it make a difference in the nat?ional and international opinions about it, whether a purchase by the US of Greenland was offered by Biden or by Trump?"

Grok answered:

"Yes, it would likely make a substantial difference due to partisan polarization and differing diplomatic styles.

Under Trump, the proposal — revived in 2025-2026 with aggressive rhetoric, including threats of military force — has provoked widespread outrage. Internationally, Denmark and European leaders have condemned it as imperialistic, warning of NATO's potential collapse, with joint statements from France, Germany, and others defending Greenland's sovereignty. Domestically, it's divided opinions along party lines, with some Republicans pushing back but Trump's base viewing it as bold nationalism.

If Biden (a Democrat emphasizing alliances and multilateralism) had proposed a purchase, reactions would likely be reversed: Internationally, it might face less outright hostility, framed as negotiated cooperation rather than coercion, preserving transatlantic ties. Domestically, Republicans could criticize it as overreach or weakness, while Democrats might support it as strategic.

The proposer's identity shapes perceptions — Trump's brash approach amplifies controversy, while Biden's would align with traditional diplomacy, muting backlash.

I said: Thanks!

It replied: You're very welcome! Glad you enjoyed the speculation. If you have more questions (about Greenland or anything else), just let me know.

 

#AI #ChatGPT #Grok: With no risk weighted bank capital requirements and instead a leverage ratio of 10:1, where would the Western world be?

I asked ChatGPT:

In less than 300 words:

"Please speculate on where the Western world’s nations could be, had the Basel Committee never introduced in 1988 risk weighted bank capital/equity requirements, and instead required 10 percent of equity against all bank assets… a leverage ratio of 10:1?"

ChatGPT answered:

"Had the Basel Committee in 1988 imposed a simple, non–risk-weighted 10 percent equity requirement against all bank assets, the Western world’s financial trajectory would likely look markedly different.

First, credit allocation would probably have been less distorted. Risk-weighting systematically favored sovereign debt and residential mortgages over loans to small businesses, entrepreneurs, and productive but riskier activities. A flat leverage ratio would have removed regulatory arbitrage incentives, encouraging banks to assess risk through pricing and due diligence rather than by chasing low-risk-weight assets. This could have produced a more balanced growth path, with relatively more financing for innovation, SMEs, and capital formation, and less structural bias toward housing and public debt accumulation.

Second, financial cycles may have been milder. Higher, uniform equity buffers would have made banks more resilient across the board, reducing the amplitude of booms and busts. The 2008 global financial crisis might not have been avoided, but its severity and fiscal aftershocks would likely have been substantially reduced, with fewer taxpayer-funded rescues and less post-crisis financial repression.

Third, central banking itself might have evolved differently. With banks less fragile and less concentrated in government bonds and mortgages, monetary policy transmission would rely less on asset price inflation and more on genuine credit intermediation. This could have constrained the long-run expansion of public debt and limited the political economy pressures for ultra-low interest rates.

In short, a simple 10:1 leverage rule could have yielded a Western financial system that is plainer, more competitive, less crisis-prone, and more oriented toward productive risk-taking—arguably closer to the market-disciplined capitalism that underpinned earlier Western development."

I said:Thanks!

It replied:You’re very welcome. Glad it was useful.

I asked Grok:

In less than 300 words:

"Please speculate on where the Western world’s nations could be, had the Basel Committee never introduced in 1988 risk weighted bank capital/equity requirements, and instead required 10 percent of equity against all bank assets… a leverage ratio of 10:1?"

Grok answered:

"If the Basel Committee had mandated a flat 10% equity requirement against all bank assets—a 10:1 leverage ratio—instead of risk-weighted capital in 1988, Western nations might exhibit greater financial stability but slower economic growth.

Banks would face uniform capital costs, eliminating incentives to game risk weights by loading up on "safe" assets like government bonds or mortgage-backed securities that later proved toxic. This could have averted or mitigated the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, as excessive leverage in risky derivatives and subprime loans would be curbed—banks couldn't amplify returns without proportional equity buffers. Crises like the Savings & Loan debacle or Eurozone debt issues might have been less severe, fostering resilient banking systems less prone to bailouts.

However, credit expansion would likely be restrained. With no discounts for low-risk assets, lending for housing, infrastructure, or business might cost more, dampening booms in real estate and consumer spending. GDP growth in the US, UK, and EU could lag 1-2% annually over decades, per some economic models, prioritizing caution over innovation. Shadow banking might flourish to evade rules, shifting risks outside regulation.

Overall, Western economies might be more equitable and stable, with reduced inequality from fewer asset bubbles, but at the expense of dynamism—resembling pre-1980s conservatism rather than the high-leverage globalization era. Public debt might be lower, as governments couldn't rely on banks hoarding cheap sovereign bonds. In essence, a safer but staider financial world."

I said: Thanks!

It replied: You're welcome! If you have more questions about finance, history, or anything else, feel free to ask.

Note: The answers are copied exactly from those given to me by ChatGPT and Grok.

Here my many other questions to ChatGPT – Grok on bank regulations.

#AI ChatGPT Grok: Speculate on what might have become of Venezuela if all its oil revenues had been distributed to Venezuelan-born citizens?

I asked ChatGPT: 

"Venezuela’s oil, by law, belongs to the nation and so, the net oil revenues, are redistributed by its governments. In less than 300 words, can you speculate on what could have been of Venezuela, if all those revenues were distributed equally to all Venezuela born citizens?"

ChatGPT answered:

"If Venezuela’s net oil revenues had been distributed equally to all Venezuelan-born citizens, the country’s trajectory could plausibly have been very different—though not utopian.

First, political incentives would have shifted. Equal per-capita distribution would have sharply reduced the prize of controlling the state. Oil rents would no longer be a discretionary pool to buy loyalty, fund patronage, or entrench power. This could have weakened caudillismo and made democratic competition less zero-sum, lowering the stakes of coups and authoritarian consolidation.

Second, institutional quality might have improved. When citizens receive transparent, regular oil dividends, they tend to demand taxation in exchange for public services (“no representation without taxation,” in reverse). This dynamic—observed in places like Alaska—encourages scrutiny, accountability, and rule-based governance rather than opaque redistribution through ministries and state firms.

Third, economic diversification would likely have been stronger. Direct distribution avoids the classic resource-curse channel in which state spending distorts prices, crowds out private activity, and overvalues the currency. Households, not politicians, would decide how to spend or invest, supporting entrepreneurship and reducing the bias toward state-led megaprojects.

Fourth, inequality and poverty would have fallen more durably. Oil dividends would function like a universal basic income funded by natural capital, smoothing shocks and reducing dependence on politically conditioned subsidies. Importantly, this would empower individuals rather than client groups.

However, this path would not have eliminated all risks. Weak courts, insecure property rights, and poor macro management could still have undermined growth. Oil price volatility would have required strong stabilization rules. And equal distribution alone would not substitute for education, infrastructure, or sound monetary policy.

Still, compared with centralized control of oil rents, equal citizen ownership would likely have produced a freer, more diversified, and more resilient Venezuela—less rich in slogans, but richer in institutions and individual autonomy."

I asked Grok:

"Venezuela’s oil, by law, belongs to the nation and so, the net oil revenues, are redistributed by its governments. In less than 300 words, can you speculate on what could have been of Venezuela, if all those revenues were distributed equally to all Venezuela born citizens?"

Grok answered:

"If the net oil revenues of a resource-rich nation like Venezuela—historically peaking at $60-100 billion annually during oil booms—had been distributed equally as cash dividends to its approximately 30 million citizens instead of through centralized programs, the country might have evolved into a thriving, citizen-driven economy.

Per capita, this could equate to $2,000-3,000 annually (based on average net revenues of $50-70 billion after extraction costs), similar to dividend models in places like Alaska but amplified. A family of four might receive $8,000-12,000 yearly, alleviating poverty directly without administrative hurdles or misuse of funds.

Economically, such direct transfers could ignite entrepreneurship, with citizens investing in businesses, education, or property, diversifying the economy beyond oil. Reduced dependence on state aid might prevent hyperinflation and currency issues, as local saving and spending fuel steady GDP growth of 4-5% annually rather than economic downturns.

Socially, diminished inequality could reduce mass emigration, preserving human capital and fostering stability. Health and education might advance through private efforts, though public infrastructure like roads and hospitals could require supplementary targeted investments or hybrid approaches.

Politically, decentralizing wealth might encourage greater accountability and democratic practices, limiting overreach by authorities. However, challenges include potential short-term inflationary spending or ongoing resource dependency if not mitigated.

In essence, the nation could mirror prosperous oil states like Norway or the UAE, with empowered citizens driving sustainable progress and averting humanitarian challenges."

Petropolitan

The global coalition of oil cursed citizens.