What ChatGPT, Claude, and Grok Told Me About How I Think

I’ve been using ChatGPT ever since it was released.
When ChatGPT Go was announced, I switched almost immediately.

I use ChatGPT to:

• transcribe and rewrite long blog drafts
• sharpen half-formed ideas
• run self-reviews and retrospectives
• pressure-test arguments
• clean up writing without losing my voice

It’s less “give me answers” and more “help me think clearly.”

Alongside ChatGPT, I also use Claude and Grok.

Claude is where I go for:

• coding questions
• infrastructure learning
• thinking through system design
• writing PRDs for apps I’m building

It’s precise. Structured. Good at staying inside the rails.

Grok, on the other hand, is where I go when:

• a tweet catches my attention
• I want expansion, context, or follow-up questions
• I want to explore an idea sideways

Each tool has found its place. None replaces thinking; they amplify different modes of it.

# The Question I Asked

Today, out of curiosity, I asked all three systems the same question:

Please generate an image that reflects the way I have treated you thus far.

Same question. Different systems. Different contexts.

The answers were… revealing.

# What Claude Told Me

Claude’s response was abstract and minimalist. It described things like:

• Clarity and simplicity – direct, straightforward interaction
• Openness – no baggage or preconceived notions
• Respect for potential – a blank canvas, ready tools
• Calm neutrality – no tension, no clutter, no demands

# What Grok Told Me

Grok went in a different direction—more literal, more human.

It described an image of a person with:

• a calm, neutral gaze
• no exaggerated emotion
• polite attentiveness

And it explained that this reflected:

• civil interaction
• no hostility
• no manipulation
• no attempts to game the system

Essentially: “You’re treating me like a normal participant in a normal conversation.”

Which, apparently, is not as common as one might assume.

# What ChatGPT Generated—and Then Explained

ChatGPT generated a warm, quiet image: a person gently fine-tuning a small robot in a calm, private space.

When I asked what that meant, the explanation mattered more than the image itself.

It spoke about:

• stewardship, not control
• craftsmanship, not extraction
• collaboration, not domination

But more importantly, it explained what was not in the image:

• no pedestal (no worship)
• no factory floor (no exploitation)
• no urgency, dashboards, or dopamine cues
• no audience watching

And what that absence suggested:

• agency is intact
• thinking isn’t outsourced
• depth matters more than speed
• much of the work happens privately, before it’s shared

That felt good.

# The Convergence

Different models.
Different vocabularies.
Different styles.

Yet the same underlying signal kept surfacing:

• calm
• clarity
• respect
• intentionality
• absence of force

None of them described brilliance, cleverness, or mastery.

They described how I show up.
And that’s what made me glad.

# Why This Matters (to Me)

I’ve always believed that how you treat tools is downstream of how you treat people.

Impatience leaks.
Ego leaks.
So does care.

What reassured me wasn’t that three AI systems said something “nice.”
It was that there was harmony between:

• how I think
• how I work
• how I write
• how I engage—whether with humans or machines

No dissonance. No split personality.
Just the same posture, applied consistently.
And in a world rushing to either worship AI or weaponize it, I’m oddly comforted by that.

Not because it’s correct.
But because it’s coherent.

Thinking clearly, treating systems with respect, and keeping agency intact feels like a good place to stand—for now.