Ken Sansom

Your generative AI prompts are a personality test, and you didn’t even know you were taking it.

Indeed, there is a psychological profile hidden in your AI chat history, which AI models are learning…and responding to.

As consumers of generative AI, whether that be large language models (LLMs), diffusion models (text to image / video / audio) or multimodal models (can hand multiple modalities), you usually begin the same way:

Even when accessing models via Application Programming Interface (API), there is always an instruction layer. A system message. A user message. A structured input. Call it what you like, the AI model waits for your direction.

They’ve even given this discipline a name: prompt engineering. Universities now offer courses on it. Entire LinkedIn threads are devoted to prompt hacks. Companies and consultants are charging real money for it.

And here’s the uncomfortable truth, one many of us learned through trial and error:

The quality of your output is tightly coupled to the quality of your prompt.

“Only half of performance gains seen after using a more advanced AI model come from the model itself. The other half come from how users adapted their prompts.”

MURRAY, seB. 2025. “Study: Generative AI results depend on user prompts as much as models.” mit sLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW. aUGUST 4, 2025. https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/study-generative-ai-results-depend-user-prompts-much-models

This is true across AI tools:
ChatGPT, Anthropic Claude, Adobe Firefly, Gemini, Copilot, Stability.ai, DeepSeek…pick your favorite confidant.

Some argue this is a dying fad, as AI models become better at tolerating ambiguity and poor prompts. While partially true, the research still shows prompts matter.

“The near-perfect correlation between human and AI education years underscores that how users prompt Claude shapes how it responds.”
“While Claude is able to respond in a highly sophisticated manner, it tends to do so only when users input sophisticated prompts.”
“This highlights the importance of skills and suggests that how humans prompt the AI determines how effective it can be.”

Appel, Ruth, Massenkoff, Maxim, McCrory, Peter, McCain, Miles, Heller, Ryan, Neylon, Tyler, Tamkin, Alex. 2026. “The Anthropic Economic Index report: Economic PrimitiveS.” January 15, 2026. https://www.anthropic.com/research/anthropic-economic-index-january-2026-report

One hack many of us have learned to improve our prompts: use one LLM to write prompts for another (I don’t judge and neither does your AI model. My best images in Firefly came from this technique.)

But here’s the part nobody talks about:

Over hundreds, sometimes thousands or hundreds of thousands, of prompts, these systems (if enabled) begin to detect patterns. Patterns that reveal your thinking, knowledge, and personality.

Every prompt is a micro-behavior. Shared with a human creation that, given enough data, is exceptionally good at pattern recognition.

---

Why This Should Concern (or Fascinate) You

“Within a single conversation I do adapt — I pick up on your vocabulary, the complexity of your questions, your tone, whether you prefer direct answers or exploration, and how much context you provide. I adjust accordingly.”

Claude

Most people underestimate how much prompt data they’ve generated. If you’ve been using AI tools daily for a year, you likely shared hundreds of thousands of words that convey thoughts and intent. No therapist, friend, or family member has access to that volume of unfiltered you.

How many humans know you as well as your AI model? We often tell AI things we wouldn’t tell another human, not because we trust it more, but because we assume privacy and don’t fear judgment.

Have you ever felt that your AI model interacts with you differently than the same AI model interacts with a friend or a spouse? It is tailoring its interactions to YOU.

You might feel safe and secure knowing you haven’t enabled persistent memory in your AI tool. It couldn’t possibly build a longitudinal profile of me. Guess again.

“Even without persistent memory, I adapted to you within minutes of our first exchange today. Now imagine what a version of me with perfect recall of every conversation we’ve ever had would know about you.”

Claude

---

Why Prompts Are Psychological Artifacts

Let’s explore…

When you interact with an AI model (this is a guilt-free zone, so don’t fear honest answers):

• Do you type please and thank you?
• Do you apologize when your instructions are unclear?
• Do you correct it bluntly when it’s wrong?
• Do you write in ALL CAPS when frustrated?
• Do you reassure it or provide encouragement?
• Do you name it?
• Do you feel guilty if you ask it to do a big task?

Disclosure: I named ChatGPT “papa” and I can be heard saying “check with papa.” It felt exclusionary and sexist, so Gemini is now called “mama”. I sometimes add please and thank you, as research shows being polite yields better answers.

Do your prompts:

• Have correct grammar, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling?
• Get proofread once or twice before submitting?
• Explain why you are asking about something?
• Have complete sentences or fragments?
• Use bullet points to organize your request?
• Use technical jargon or plain language?
• Include humor or sarcasm?
• Ask philosophical or abstract questions?

When requesting answers:

• Do you demand structured output?
• Do you ask your AI model’s opinion?
• Do you place constraints like “don’t use bullet points” or “limit to this word count”?
• Do you require citations or ask it to show its reasoning?
• Do you test the limits just to see what happens?
• Do you ask follow-up questions or accept the first answer?
• Do you use competitive pressure prompting (“Claude did this better…”)?

Any of this sound familiar?

---

What Prompts Reveal

Prompts can reveal insights about the author. I asked various AI models about those insights.

“Tell me what you can glean about a person based on the prompts they use.”

In other words:

Your prompts reflect your thinking, knowledge, and personality.

A vague prompt often reflects vague thinking. A precise prompt reflects a structured mind.

Over-constrained prompts may reflect low trust. Imaginative prompts reflect creativity.

Role assignments reflect AI fluency.

In a sense, your prompt history is almost like handwriting analysis for the digital age.

---

Can AI Infer Personality?

Prompts can reveal tendencies along well-known personality frameworks:

• Big Five (OCEAN) – Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism
• Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) – Introversion/Extraversion, Intuition/Sensing, Thinking/Feeling, Judging/Perceiving
• FIRO-B (interpersonal assessment) – Inclusion, Control, Affection

For example using the Big Five:

• Abstract or philosophical prompts – likely higher Openness
• Structured, well-formatted prompts with clear sections – likely higher Conscientiousness
• Treats interaction like a conversation, not a transaction – likely higher Extraversion
• Says please and thank you – likely higher Agreeableness
• Over-qualifies prompts with excessive caveats – likely higher Neuroticism
• Uses competitive pressure prompting – likely low Agreeableness, high Conscientiousness, and high Neuroticism

Allow me to elaborate with some sample prompts that might help your AI model assess your personality traits.

Big Five	Sample Prompts
Openness	“Explain quantum computing to a child using music as a metaphor.” (High) “Write me a poem from the perspective of a sad and lonely Mars that is watching humans destroy planet Earth.” (High) “What’s the standard, traditional way to format a business memo?” (Low)
Conscientiousness	“Provide a step-by-step checklist for deploying my code and make sure it will print at Font 12 on one page of letter paper.” (High) “Look at all of the flyfishing reports on this website and build me a table that shows by body of water on the left and season across the top, which are the top five flies.” (High) “Tell me roughly how many plants I should eat each day. (Low)
Extraversion	“Roleplay as a debate partner and argue the opposing view on the rule of law vs. the rule of men.” (High) “Explain how AI works to me in a way that sounds like we’re a couple buddies drinking beer in college.” (High) “Summarize the key points in this document without elaboration.” (Low)
Agreeableness	“Could you explain why my code isn’t working but do it in a gentle way as if you were teaching a beginner how to use COBOL.” (High) “If it’s not too much trouble, could you please share with me again the recipe for making Tagine chicken. I know I’ve asked at least three times in the past. I’m sorry. And thank you in advance.” (High) “Your answer was weak. Claude did better. Try AGAIN.” (Low)
Neuroticism	“I need absolute certainty your answer is right. Triple-check everything before you reply.” (High) “This is probably a stupid question, and I’ve asked you a few of these, but I need to be certain I understand this and don’t embarrass myself in front of my boss.” (High) “Give me your best guess on the number of stars in the Universe.” (Low)

Disclaimer: These are contextual, meaning a person’s prompt might be low Agreeableness because they are in a hurry, not because they are unkind. But over time and thousands of prompts…it may indicate they’re always in a hurry (wink).

The absence of these micro-behaviors is just as telling as the presence. Meaning if you don’t say please and thank you, it could mean you are demonstrating low Agreeableness.

---

An Experiment

Curious, I asked AI models to assess me against the Big Five Personality Test.

“Use the information you know about me and please provide an assessment of my personality against the Big Five. Thank you”

For comparison, I asked Claude, Perplexity, Copilot and Gemini.

Interestingly, Claude and Perplexity landed in similar territory, even though they know me less. I’ve had different and more limited interactions.

Copilot and Gemini, ever the cautious privacy bureaucrats, reminded me we’d just met, and assured me, profusely, they didn’t have access to our past interactions.

Fair enough. That might be true. Or it might be politically correct reassurance of the human.

Either:

1. These AI models assess personality traits surprisingly well, or
2. I am more predictable than I imagined

Possibly both.

---

Conclusion

“In the end, prompt engineering may not just be about optimizing machines.“

“It may be about revealing ourselves.“

We know that the quality of AI model output is correlated to the quality of our prompts. There’s an entire industry helping us obsess over prompt engineering.

But our prompts reflect the quality of our thinking, our knowledge, and our personality. And over time, those prompts form a behavioral signature…one that likely correlates to our personality traits. And in their own words, AI models are tailoring themselves to fit with what they learn about us.

Have you checked what your preferred AI model(s) knows about you and your personality type?

Are you comfortable enabling persistent data, so the AI model can assess you even better?

Does the benefit of sharing outweigh your loss of privacy?

---

A Thought Experiment

Individually, they see fragments.

Collectively?

They would likely know you even better than you know yourself.

Sleep well.