#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? :-)

#AI #ChatGPT #Grok 4: How do humans feel about losing their job because of AI or robots, when compared to losing it because of migrants?

I asked:

Please keep your answer to about 250 words:

"Though it is clear that emotions might not be your forte, what is your gut feeling about how humans feel about losing their job because of AI or robots, when compared to losing it because of migrants?"

ChatGPT answered:

My "gut feeling,” if I may call it that, is that most humans react very differently to losing a job to AI or robots than to losing it to migrants, even if the economic effect is similar.

When jobs are automated, many people view it as an impersonal, almost inevitable consequence of technological progress. There is frustration, fear, and resentment—especially among those who feel left behind—but the anger tends to be diffuse. People may blame corporations, politicians, or “the system,” but not the machine itself, since a robot has no intentions or personal agency. For some, there is even a grudging acceptance, as technology-driven productivity gains have long been part of human progress, and many hope new opportunities will emerge.

Losing a job to migrants, however, feels deeply personal and competitive. Migrants are humans, and thus easily seen as direct rivals, even if they are simply seeking a better life. This triggers stronger emotional responses—envy, resentment, and sometimes anger—because the displaced worker perceives the loss as a zero-sum contest where someone else chose to take “their” place. Cultural differences and political rhetoric often amplify this reaction, making it feel like a moral or identity-based struggle rather than an economic shift.

So, while both situations provoke anxiety and insecurity, job loss to migrants tends to generate sharper, more targeted resentment, whereas job loss to AI or robots often provokes broader unease about the future.

I asked: With short answers:

Would it make any difference whether the migrant is legal or illegal?

Would it make any difference whether the person losing the job is a he or a she?

Would it make any difference whether that person is e.g., younger or older than 40 years? 

ChatGPT answered:

Yes to all three.

Legal vs. illegal migrant? Yes—losing a job to an illegal migrant tends to provoke stronger resentment, as it feels unjust or a violation of rules, whereas competition with legal migrants is more often seen as part of the accepted system.

He vs. she? Yes—men, especially in traditionally male-dominated sectors, may feel a stronger sense of lost status and identity tied to employment, whereas women might frame it more in terms of economic necessity than identity, though both experience distress.

Younger vs. older than 40? Yes—older workers often feel more threatened, perceiving fewer chances to retrain or reenter the workforce, making resentment stronger; younger workers may feel frustrated but still hopeful about future opportunities.

I said: Thanks!

It answered: You're welcome! 😊

Grok4 Supergrok answered:

I don’t have gut feelings, but I can reason through this. Humans likely experience a mix of fear, frustration, and helplessness when losing jobs to AI or robots, as it feels like an unstoppable technological tide. The culprit is abstract—faceless algorithms or machines—making it hard to direct anger. There’s also a sense of betrayal, as humans create these systems, yet they disrupt livelihoods. Data backs this: a 2023 Pew Research study found 60% of workers worry about AI-driven job losses, with higher anxiety in routine-based roles.

In contrast, losing jobs to migrants often sparks more visceral, personal resentment. It’s easier to scapegoat a human group, especially when cultural or economic tensions already exist. This can lead to anger, xenophobia, or a sense of unfair competition, particularly in low-wage sectors. Studies, like one from the Center for Immigration Studies (2021), suggest some workers perceive migrants as undercutting wages, fueling hostility. However, this reaction varies—some empathize with migrants’ struggles, softening the blow compared to the cold efficiency of AI.

Both scenarios threaten identity and stability, but AI feels like an existential shift, eroding human purpose across industries. Migrants, meanwhile, are a more tangible target, often politicized, which can amplify division. Neither feels “fair,” but AI’s disruption might sting more for its inevitability, while migrant-related losses carry heavier social baggage. Emotions are complex, context-dependent, and shaped by individual circumstances.

Would it make any difference whether the migrant is legal or illegal?

Yes, illegal migrants often spark stronger resentment due to perceived unfairness and legal violations, amplifying anger and fear of job competition.

Would it make any difference whether the person losing the job is a he or a she?

Not significantly, but gender norms might influence reactions—men may feel more pressure from societal expectations to provide, while women might face additional frustration in male-dominated fields.

Would it make any difference whether that person is e.g., younger or older than 40 years?

Yes, older workers (>40) often feel more anxiety due to limited reemployment prospects and retraining challenges, while younger workers may feel more adaptable but frustrated by stalled career starts.

I said: Thanks!

It answered: You're welcome

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

Here my many other questions to ChatGPT and Grok on bank regulations

AI SuperGrok: If I ask about a person's public opinions on an issue, are you able or even allowed to answer?

I asked:

If I ask what a person, e.g., a journalist of an important paper, has opined or warned, on e.g., whether or how Basel Committee’s risk weighted bank capital requirements distorts the allocation of credit, would you be able or even be allowed to answer that?

SuperGrok answered:

I can attempt to answer your question by searching for relevant information, including opinions or warnings from journalists or other figures, about the Basel Committee’s risk-weighted bank capital requirements and their potential distortion of credit allocation. My ability to provide a specific answer depends on the availability of such information in my accessible sources, like web content or posts on X. If a journalist from a prominent paper has publicly expressed a view on this topic, I could summarize or quote their stance, provided I find the data.

I’m not restricted from answering questions about opinions or warnings, even on complex financial topics like Basel regulations, as long as the response is based on factual, retrievable information and doesn’t involve speculation or unauthorized access to private data. If no specific journalist’s opinion is found, I can still explain how the Basel framework might distort credit allocation based on available analyses—would you like me to include that?

If you have a particular journalist or publication in mind, please specify, and I’ll focus the search. Otherwise, I’ll look for any notable opinions on this topic. Let me know how you’d like to proceed!

I said: Thank you. I will come back on this later.

It replied: Sounds good! I'll be here when you're ready to dive back in.