JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Lance Payette on August 23, 2025, 05:13:36 PM
-
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'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.
-
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
-
[...]
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
-
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
well said, mssr. Maxwell. thanks+ ……. and am assuming those words came from your brain, oui? I mean, those LLMs spit out those bite-sized paragraphs, right?
-
My experience is AI can be a useful tool for finding facts although even those should be verified. I don't trust it to analyze factual information. That requires real intelligence, not artificial. AI only know what it has been told and it gets told a lot of BS:
-
Grok and ChatPGR's chatbots are meant to be machines that will agree with whatever SFW thing you say, regardless of contradictions, so if we are gonna solve Kennedy getting shot, we use humans instead of machines that speak 0s and 1s.
-
Artificial electronic information is the most corruptible...
I often encounter AI data that has obviously been corrupted by pre-entered information designed to skew in favor of the government version...
-
I learned all I needed to know about AI when I turned to it to confirm a claim I had made on this forum. I found exactly what I was looking for and was getting ready to post it here as confirmation. Then on closer inspection I discovered that the source for this "confirmation" was the post I had made on this very forum. I'm glad I caught it before I posted it. That could have been really embarrassing.
I do find that AI is useful in completing sentences for me although I have to check to make sure it has filled in what I had intended. Once in a while, it actually makes the point better than I would have.
I suppose there are probably AI apps that could actually write a coherent post arguing for a point of view or refuting somebody else's. I wonder what it would do with some of MTG's posts.