Updated: Based on related facts / articles, ChatGPT gives Robinson a 60 to 70% chance of being influenced by Groypers
The probability went up after a fellow DUer pointed out flaws in the logic. (see below). I fed their response back into ChatGPT and it updated and increased the probability to 60 to 70% from 40 to 50%.
Take this for what it's worth as it is just ChatGPT guessing:
ChatGPT final conclusion pulled from the bottom of this post. Snip:
But the chance he was a sympathizer, someone influenced by Groyper ideology or online culture overlapping with it remains fairly solid.
What the Vanity Fair Article Highlights
Some key facts & observations from the article:
The bullet casings had inscriptions like: “Notices bulges OwO what’s this?”, “Hey fascist! Catch!”, some arrows (up/right/down etc.), “Bella ciao Bella ciao Bella ciao ciao ciao”, “If you read this, you are gay lmao.” These are memes / references from internet culture and gaming.
Vanity Fair
Nothing in the publicly reported inscriptions is a known Groyper code word or explicitly traces back to Nick Fuentes or organized Groypers. The symbols seem meme-ish / trolling / internet subculture.
Vanity Fair
The article emphasizes: “little is known about his motivations or ideology.” It warns that being “extremely online” (memes, gaming culture) doesn’t automatically mean membership in any specific extremist group.
Vanity Fair
The article mentions that a photo of Robinson appeared to reference a Groyper meme, which has led to speculation, but no concrete proof.
Vanity Fair
⚖️ What That Suggests About the Probability He Was a Groyper
Putting this together, here’s my assessment of likelihood:
Likelihood Level Description Rationale
Low to Moderate (20-30%) Possible but not strongly evidenced Some meme references, trolling, possibly overlapping with Groyper-adjacent culture. But no solid proof, no explicit Groyper slogans, no convictions or public declarations.
Moderate (30-50%) More than just coincidence The intersection of trolling, conservative online circles, potential dislike of Charlie Kirk, appearance of a Groyper meme photo raise plausible links. But still speculative.
High (50-70%) Strong evidence / proven link We’re not there yet. The publicly known inscriptions & info don’t rise to confirmation that Robinson identified as a Groyper or was part of their organized circle.
✅ My Best Guess
I lean toward “Possible but not proven” — roughly 30-40% chance that Tyler Robinson had at least some ideological alignment or interest in Groypers, but not enough evidence to confidently say he was a “Groyper” proper (i.e. a member of the group, following/funding them, using their codes regularly, etc.).
Updated after I added in Nick Fuentes Telling His ‘Groyper Army’ to Stand Down
Revised Probability Estimate
Considering what we knew before (memes, online behavior, no firm evidence of Groyper ties) plus this new article, here’s an updated probability table:
Level of Likelihood Revised Estimate Reasoning
Low (Not a Groyper) ~40% The “stand down” order from Fuentes makes it less likely that Robinson was acting as an endorsed operative. He could be independent.
Moderate (Possible alignment or sympathizer) ~40–50% Memes, internet culture, online hostility toward Kirk — combined with Robinson’s ideological leanings — make this plausible. The lack of public disavowal (if involved) also leaves room.
High (Active member / Operative) ~10–20% Less likely in light of Fuentes disavowing violence. Being part of the “army” but with violence is something leadership seems distancing from.
✅ My Take (This is from ChatGPT)
I still don’t think there’s enough proof that Robinson was a “Groyper” in the formal sense (member, operatively aligned, etc.).
But the chance he was a sympathizer, someone influenced by Groyper ideology or online culture overlapping with it remains fairly solid.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Although I'm frequently literally amazed by it's ability to grok complex concepts, especially coding-related ones, I have also grown pretty adept at guessing what types of mistakes it is apt to make (which is important when writing ones prompts).
One thing you have to studiously avoid though is leading it toward conclusions with your prompts if you want a truly objective answer. AI is disappointingly "agreeable" when it comes to telling you what it deduces that you "want to hear".
One example I frequently cite is an early interaction I had with AI (well, early for me). If you ask an AI "Can you show me a list of historical evidence for the fact that the 2A was meant to confer an individual right to gun ownership, rather than a collective right?" it will do exactly that. IF you ask the converse "Can you show me a list of historical evidence for the fact that the 2A was meant to confer an collective right to gun ownership, not an individual right?" it will answer in a completely opposite way.
IOW, it pretty much does exactly what you tell it to do. It will not, of it's own accord, give you "both sides" of any given "argument". But if you specifically ask for it to as you (wisely) did initially, "rate the possibilities something is true" it is capable of doing so reasonably effectively.
There is still a lot of utility in pointing out the flaws in its logic when you see them, however. It is always ready to reconsider, which I have to say has a certain refreshing quality in comparison to talking to (most) other humans. I personally don't have QUITE the animosity towards AI as is common on DU (and that, by rights, I probably should), and that because I find the tech interesting and fun to play with, and SOMETIMES it can be pretty amazingly "smart" (seeming).
However, by prompting it with what I wrote verbatim, you've given it a big hint WRT the way you want it to answer which it in turn is likely to consider in its response 
