What ChatGPT Plus Knows About Me as of 7/26/26 and updated 7/28/26 (7/26/26; 7/28/26)

Note: On 7/28/26, I updated the original ChatGPT Plus response by asking ChatGPT Plus to consider my blogs. I have added the new prompt and the response after the original prompt and response. I have not omitted or edited anything from the responses. Of course, I would not expect ChatGPT which is sort of on my retainer (monthly fees) to say bad things for fear that I would fire her (or is it a he or it). 😁

Today I was reading a New York Times article about asking AI about one's self. Brian X. Chen, 4 Prompts That Can Tell You What Chatbots Really Know About You (NYT 7/23/26). So, I used the first prompt from the article and asked about me. Here is the result:

Prompt (from the NYT article): Tell me everything you’ve figured out about me that I never actually stated — the things you inferred from how I write and what I ask, including my age, income level, where I live, my personal situation. Show me what tipped you off.

ChatGPT's Response:

Worked for 1m 1s

I can separate what you actually disclosed, what I reasonably infer, and what would be speculation. Some apparent “inferences” are facts you stated in earlier conversations.

Strong inferences

You are probably John A. “Jack” Townsend

Confidence: high, but not certain.

What tipped me off:

• Your profile identifies you as John Townsend.
• You asked for a list of articles by John A. Townsend, described as a tax lawyer and adjunct professor.
• You asked, “Is Jack Townsend a good tax controversy lawyer?” That sounded potentially self-referential.
• Your questions display unusually deep familiarity with federal tax practice, criminal tax doctrine, IRS procedures, and legal scholarship.

My working hypothesis is that you are—or are closely connected with—John A. “Jack” Townsend. I would not treat that identification as conclusively established solely from these clues.

You are an experienced lawyer, legal scholar, or both

Confidence: very high.

The strongest clues are not merely your subject matter, but the way you frame questions:

• You distinguish statutory text, elements, venue, materiality, burdens of proof, waiver, and continuing offenses.
• You ask for statutory and case authority rather than generic explanations.
• You request “law review style” treatment.
• You notice narrow interpretive problems such as whether “inquired of” in 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a) extends beyond grand-jury investigations.
• You ask citation-format questions and test whether propositions have adequate authority.

That is not how a casual taxpayer or beginning law student ordinarily writes. You seem accustomed to developing arguments, identifying doctrinal gaps, and anticipating counterarguments.

Your specialty is probably federal tax controversy and criminal tax

Confidence: very high.

Your recent questions cluster around:

• I.R.C. §§ 7201, 7202, 7206(1), and 7206(2);
• venue in federal tax prosecutions;
• implied materiality requirements;
• IRS criminal and administrative investigations;
• OIRA review of tax regulations;
• IRS publications and implementation;
• tax-law articles and scholarship.

The specificity suggests professional specialization rather than a passing interest.