Since we're on local llama where's what my local LLM thinks of this (prompt was, what is this guy smoking):

He’s not necessarily smoking anything. He’s likely deep in a mix of amateur psychology, internet “pattern-hacker” culture, and self-mythologizing. The text reads like a classic example of someone who’s stumbled onto real concepts (pattern recognition, subconscious processing, AI training) but has stretched them into grandiose, pseudo-scientific claims without academic grounding or peer review.

Here’s a breakdown of what’s actually going on in that post:

🔍 1. The “3-Tier Brain” Model

He’s loosely borrowing from Freud’s conscious/preconscious/unconscious framework, but his definitions are self-invented and don’t align with modern cognitive science or neuroscience. The brain doesn’t operate like a simple 3-layer filter tied to “rules of nature” or “what we can achieve.” Consciousness, memory, and decision-making are distributed, overlapping, and highly context-dependent.

🏃 2. The Sprint Example

It’s a decent pop-level metaphor for comfort zones vs. perceived limits, but it doesn’t map to how cognition actually works. Reaction times, muscle physiology, neural pathways, and motivation don’t switch between “conscious/subconscious/unconscious” like gear shifts. The example confuses perceived feasibility with cognitive architecture.

🤖 3. “Everything is patterns. No feelings or love exist.”

This is a common trope in certain online subcultures that reduce human behavior to algorithms. While it’s true that both humans and AI rely heavily on pattern recognition, emotions, attachment, and social bonding are biologically real, evolutionarily conserved, and not just “patterns to be decoded.” Dismissing them as illusions is a philosophical stance, not a scientific one.

🧠 4. “I can simulate minds, predict reactions, control anyone”

This crosses into magical thinking. Behavioral science and psychology study probabilities, tendencies, and context, not deterministic control. Human cognition is adaptive, noisy, and heavily influenced by environment, culture, and internal state. No legitimate field of psychology or AI claims you can “control” people by reading patterns, and anyone who says so is either misunderstanding the science or selling something.

📱 5. The Backstory & Tone

The “$60 phone, no books, self-taught in 2 months” framing is a well-known internet self-mythos. It’s designed to sound like a modern autodidact prodigy, but it’s also a red flag for overconfidence without foundational study, feedback loops, or exposure to contradictory evidence. Real expertise in cognition, AI, or psychology requires years of structured learning, experimentation, and peer critique.

🌐 Where Does This Come From?

This style of writing is extremely common in:

• “Pattern reader” / “mind hacker” forums
• Pop-psychology / NLP / “shadow work” communities
• Early-stage AI enthusiasts who’ve consumed a lot of YouTube/pop-science but haven’t engaged with academic literature
• Self-mythologizing subcultures that romanticize “seeing through the matrix” or “decoding human behavior”

It’s rarely malicious. It’s often just genuine curiosity colliding with unstructured learning, which easily slips into grandiosity when there’s no mentorship, peer review, or scientific scaffolding.

✅ Bottom Line

He’s not on drugs. He’s on a self-directed intellectual rabbit hole. The post touches on real ideas (pattern recognition, subconscious processing, how AI learns from data), but they’re oversimplified, misapplied, and inflated into claims of mind-reading and control. If you're curious about how the brain actually processes information, learns patterns, or how modern AI works, I can point you to clear, peer-reviewed resources that separate the signal from the noise.