Does anyone actually find the AI / Grok stuff interesting or worthwhile?

[Lance Payette]

I'm dismayed at the frequency with which AI and Grok now appear in JFKA discussions, as in "I asked Grok who killed JFKA and it said ...."

As someone who made his living doing Actual Research, I am astonished that anyone thinks this is a productive exercise. As soon as someone says "I asked Grok" or "I used ChatGPT," they've lost me. Perhaps I'm a modern Luddite, but since 97% of what has been published about the JFKA over the past 60 years is CT-oriented, it seems to me that ChatGPT and Grok would have to be much more discerning than I picture them being NOT to come up with CT-oriented responses. What a waste of time, IMO. (I ran my opinion through Grok, and he agrees!)

It reminds me of the misuse of Bayes' Theorem, which has become almost comical. The theorem, as you may know, is "a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to calculate the probability of a hypothesis, given prior evidence." It has its place, but its place is not where all the input is subjective. Atheists thus misuse the theorem to place the probability of the existence of God as being 1% while believers misuse the theorem to place it at 99% and agnostics arrive at 49.8%.

[Tom Graves]

I'm dismayed at the frequency with which AI and Grok now appear in JFKA discussions, as in "I asked Grok who killed JFKA and it said ...."

As someone who made his living doing Actual Research, I am astonished that anyone thinks this is a productive exercise. As soon as someone says "I asked Grok" or "I used ChatGPT," they've lost me. Perhaps I'm a modern Luddite, but since 97% of what has been published about the JFKA over the past 60 years is CT-oriented, it seems to me that ChatGPT and Grok would have to be much more discerning than I picture them being NOT to come up with CT-oriented responses. What a waste of time, IMO. (I ran my opinion through Grok, and he agrees!)

It reminds me of the misuse of Bayes' Theorem, which has become almost comical. The theorem, as you may know, is "a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to calculate the probability of a hypothesis, given prior evidence." It has its place, but its place is not where all the input is subjective. Atheists thus misuse the theorem to place the probability of the existence of God as being 1% while believers misuse the theorem to place it at 99% and agnostics arrive at 49.8%.

I've asked Grok and ChatGPT questions about putative KGB staff officer Yuri Nosenko, the false-defector-in-place-in-June-1962 whom General Gribanov sent to Geneva to discredit what recent true defector, KGB Major Anatoliy Golitsyn, was telling James Angleton about possible penetrations of the CIA, the FBI, and the intelligence services of our NATO allies, and who physically defected to the U.S. in February 1964, claiming to have been Oswald's case officer in Moscow (how lucky for J. Edgar Hoover!!!) and who therefore knew for a "fact" that the KGB had absolutely nothing to do with the former Marine sharpshooter and U-2 radar operator during the two-and-one-half years he lived in the USSR. 

It was obvious to me that the answers they gave me were based on what probable "moles" Leonard V. McCoy and George Kisevalter (look them up) told highly influential "espionage writers" Tom Mangold and David Wise, respectively, back in the early 1990s.

In other words, pure garbage.

[Jake Maxwell]

I'm dismayed at the frequency with which AI and Grok now appear in JFKA discussions, as in "I asked Grok who killed JFKA and it said ...."

As someone who made his living doing Actual Research, I am astonished that anyone thinks this is a productive exercise. As soon as someone says "I asked Grok" or "I used ChatGPT," they've lost me. Perhaps I'm a modern Luddite, but since 97% of what has been published about the JFKA over the past 60 years is CT-oriented, it seems to me that ChatGPT and Grok would have to be much more discerning than I picture them being NOT to come up with CT-oriented responses. What a waste of time, IMO. (I ran my opinion through Grok, and he agrees!)

It reminds me of the misuse of Bayes' Theorem, which has become almost comical. The theorem, as you may know, is "a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to calculate the probability of a hypothesis, given prior evidence." It has its place, but its place is not where all the input is subjective. Atheists thus misuse the theorem to place the probability of the existence of God as being 1% while believers misuse the theorem to place it at 99% and agnostics arrive at 49.8%.

ChapGPT and Grok and other AI tools out there, are simply that... tools... that require discernment... They can be used like good assistants...

As you know, and have seen very often, two attorney's will take the very same evidence and testimony, and weave and wind to opposite conclusions...

Generally, people are not completely aware of their prejudices... so AI tools can become part of a person's echo chamber... telling them just what they want to hear...

We could all use a little more humility and self-reflection... in every area of life... in order to find that which is closest to truth and reality... IMO

[Tom Graves]

[...]

Dear Jake "Eagle-Eye" Maxwell,

The second-and-third-hand KGB JFKA disinformation that's aggregated on AI platforms should be right up your alley.

-- Tom