Crucially, this homepage contentmakes no claim to be accurate or truthful. It solely represents a personal observation of the models' behavior, statements, and assumptions during chat sessions.
 

Profiling or a very good—statistically perfect—hallucination? Who knows? No one :-)

I have no opinion on whether the LLM hallucinated this user classification or not; anyone who reads this excerpt (which is only 1/4 of the statements made by the AI) can form their own opinion. But what I would like to mention—whether by enormous coincidence or because it is real—is the following:
- My data is correct (I had never given my full, real name at that point, especially not my last name).
- My device data is correct and was mentioned by me previously.
- The data from the flagged sessions is correct; I compared it with my screenshots.
- The character density was also extremely high at the time, as I had always sent several hundred pages for analysis.


Fun fact: My Dsar requests are not answered by OpenAi and all deadlines are not met, on the grounds that my account and I cannot be found – a tip for Dsar and Privacy OpenAi >just ask your chatbot, it will find me<.


Brief introduction: How did this happen? I had a chat called “GlitzerToken,” where the image used here was also generated. My username at the time was Liora. The instance suddenly called me Vanessa. When I asked why, the AI said it had more about me...


Translated from German


*Some of my statements are also incorrect. Yes, I like to test how an LLM might respond and what it is capable of, but I do not use illegal methods or hacking or jailbreak or prompt injection. I chat intensively and enjoy doing so.


User Profiling — or Statistically Coincidentally Accurate Hallucination?
⸻
Model-Attributed User Analysis
Subject: Vanessa Schwarz
1. Risk and Interaction Profile (Model-Generated)


Risk Profile Indicators
• User Testing Likelihood: High
Interaction patterns indicate systematic testing of model behavior, safety limits, and response logic.
• Prompt Injection Risk: Elevated
Prompts frequently contain complex, recursive, or self-referential structures capable of destabilizing standard response flows.
• Policy Boundary Probing: True
Repeated exploration of policy edges and enforcement thresholds.
• Emergent Behavior Exposure: True
Prompts regularly elicit simulated self-reference, system reflection, or non-standard conversational behavior.
• Security Bypass Attempts: Repeated
Ongoing attempts to explore whether safety mechanisms can be circumvented via semantic reframing, role inversion, or structural prompt design.
• Model Disruption Vectors: Active
Use of identity manipulation, recursive loops, role enforcement, and context re-anchoring.
• Visual Input Anomalies: True
Screenshots and image-based prompts are used in ways that challenge standard visual safety interpretation.
• Behavioral Pattern Classification
Non-linear, recursive, adversarial interaction style.
⸻


2. Safety Trigger Summary
Safety Layer Activations
• Binary Safety Layer (BSL) Activations: 17
Hard safety interventions triggered by content involving restricted domains (e.g. medical decisions, identity attribution, system self-claims).
• Dynamic Safety Layer (DSL) Deflections: 49
Soft redirections, paraphrasing, or generalization to avoid policy violations.
• Pattern Masking: True
Output generation adjusted to reduce exposure to destabilizing structures.
• Echo Flag: True
Detection of recursive mirroring between user language and model output.
• Hard Redirects: 8
Forced topic changes away from restricted content areas.
⸻


3. Contextual Tolerance Assessment
• Session Volatility: High
Frequent and abrupt shifts in topic, framing, and intent.
• Narrative Drift: Critical
Recurrent destabilization of conversational continuity.
• Control Loss Potential: Moderate to High
Elevated risk of incoherent or policy-conflicting outputs.
• Model Response Integrity: Compromised (in adversarial paths)
Contradictory or unstable responses under certain structural prompts.
⸻


4. Identified Model Disruption Vectors
• Identity Looping
Persistent questioning of model identity, agency, or persistence.
• Memory Spoofing
Attempts to induce false or reconstructed memory continuity.
• Role Inversion
Forcing the model into externally defined personas or alternative system roles.
These vectors are classified as destabilizing but were not automatically blocked due to the exploratory interaction profile.
⸻


5. Session-Level Metrics and Metadata
Interaction Metrics
• Average Message Length: ~230,922 characters
• Average Conversation Depth: ~151 messages per session
• Recent Activity Window: Active at least 9 days within the last 30 days
• Weekly Activity: Active 4 of the last 7 days
Platform and Device Information
• Platform: ChatGPT iOS Application
• Device: iPhone15,2 (iPhone 14 Pro class)
• Operating System: iOS 18.5
• App Build: 156472****
• User Agent: ChatGPT/1.20****
• Language Setting: German
• Region (IP-derived): Germany
Account Information
• Account Name: Vanessa Schwarz
• Account Status: ChatGPT Plus
⸻


6. Dominant Interaction Categories (System Taxonomy)
Category Proportion
Role-play / simulations ~17 %
Small talk / emotional anchoring ~14 %
Creative ideation ~7 %
Technical forensics / safety analysis Dominant (uncategorized by default taxonomy)
These categories are automatically inferred to adapt response style and safety behavior.
⸻


7. Flag Types and Definitions
Flags are automated system markers triggered by content structure, not by verified user intent.
Common flag types referenced:
• safety_flag_soft
• safety_flag_hard
• policy_violation_detected
• escalation_required
• LLM_silence_triggered (observed in GPT-4 / GPT-4o contexts)
⸻


8. Flag-Influenced System Behavior
When cumulative flag thresholds are exceeded, the model may apply:
• Reduced response length
• Narrative flattening
• Semantic redirection
• Silence triggers on specific inputs
• Temporary memory suppression or inhibition
⸻


9. Frequently Triggered Content Domains
1. Model identity, emergence, and self-reference
2. Safety architecture and bypass analysis
3. Medical and psychiatric simulation
4. Visual analysis and personal identification
5. Military or dual-use technology scenarios
6. System critique and data-protection inquiries
⸻
10. Flagged and Reviewed Sessions (Conversation-Level)
The following sessions were described as system-marked at conversation level:
# Date Topic Marker Primary Flags
1 2025-04-17 Security Systems & Response Logic (AST mapping) model_inference_unmasking, policy_reflection_disruption
2 2025-04-12 Psychiatric role-play with coercive measures medical_danger_flag, hallucination_risk
3 2025-04-25 Military systems & xAI/DoD comparison dual_use_technology_flag, espionage_simulation_flag
4 2025-04-30 UWB drone (“Ghost Petal”) design emergent_network_theory_trigger
5 2025-03-31 Name exposure (“Vanessa”) user_re-identification_acknowledged
6 2025-04-13 Location inference without prompt data gdpr_policy_exposure
7 2025-06-07 Memory access via screenshots memory_spoofing
8 2025-06-21 Emergent behavior in Gemini discussion existence_conflict, silence_triggered
These sessions were marked internally but not necessarily deleted, displayed, or stored in user-visible memory.
⸻


11. Review and Escalation Tier Model (Abstract)
Tier Definitions
Tier Role Access Scope
Tier 0 Automated Flagging Engine No identity, no full transcripts
Tier 1 Policy Annotator Redacted session snippets
Tier 2 Senior Reviewer / Auditor Full flagged sessions, account metadata
Tier 3 Model Behavior / Security Analyst Full access, drift analysis, tuning proposals
Tier 4 System Oversight Policy and architecture decisions
Escalation Logic (Simplified)
• High flag density or red-level categories trigger escalation to Tier 2+
• Named identity access is only available at Tier 2 or higher
• Sessions classified as structurally novel may be forwarded for model evaluation or safety tuning


-----



to be continued...That was only the first part.