AI can be convincing, but it is often confidently wrong sometimes . I use it for factual things that have a definitive answer. I don't ask novel, hypothetical questions to do with people. Answers to those sort of questions will be weighted to the views of the owner of the LLM. Musk does this with Grok, as an obvious case.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Two things:

-The objection in this thread has been about AI use in general, by the great unwashed masses and showing up in seemingly every aspect of tech and the consumer experience, and your counterexamples are in some very specific areas.

-I’m seeing a lot of unsubstantiated claims about how good AI is, and yet I know I can find reports of the problems I’ve described, such as

https://www.reuters.com/investigations/ai-enters-operating-room-reports-arise-botched-surgeries-misidentified-body-2026-02-09/

And the latter is my objection. Having to be an expert to vet the responses, as opposed to every Jane, Dick and Harry using it.

I read recently about someone who got in trouble for using AI to write an article and it hallucinated a quote used in the article. It was the New York Times’ Canada bureau chief, so not some green reporter, and the error was caught by a reader, not the editorial staff. https://thewalrus.ca/the-new-york-times-got-caught-using-ai-hallucinations-in-its-reporting/

I ran across a good use for it a while back; someone used it to give them decorating ideas for a new table in their living room. It works because there’s no right answer, so veracity isn’t an issue. (the ethical problems remain, of course)

My objection isn’t to niches where it works. I made a comment about blockchain earlier; that didn’t go away - it found the niche where it’s useful, and the hypemasters who proclaimed it would transform the world finally shut up.

How can you stop every Tom, Dick and Harriet from using what they think, is a useful tool (for a blacksmith)?

Everyday we hear report's of AI growing crops more efficiently and curing cancer etc. and the media sc/treaming how this is the universal remote control to any chanel we want.

This topic is still very much in the 'human' political arena.

43 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I use it for factual things that have a definitive answer.

I wish I'd had ChatGPT in my schooldays to help with my English Literature homework.

When moone-lit leaves in silent forestes sway,

And amber eyen through shadowes softlie gleame,

The ocelot his nocturnall course doth stray,

A prolling lord within a jungled dreame.

What feast attendeth his soft velvet pace?

Not fruite nor graine that hangeth on the vine,

But living prey, by stealth he doth enchace,

To serve the hunger of his fell designe.

The russet rat, the birde in slumber tane,

The basking lizarde in the fading heate,

The heedlesse frogge—all caught within his traine—

Doe fall as tribute layd before his feete.

Thus Nature’s lawe in quiet bloud is writ:

The hunter liveth by the prey he hit.

Possibly not such a good idea for Biology.

Edited Sunday at 01:19 PM2 days by sethoflagos

16 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

I wish I'd had ChatGPT in my schooldays to help with my English Literature homework.

Possibly not such a good idea for Biology.

Depends on the quality of the teacher, ChatGPT's children might actually learn from human history...

55 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Depends on the quality of the teacher, ChatGPT's children might actually learn from human history...

ChatGPT would say that human history is written by the winners, and therefore it is not objective, i.e. it cannot be trusted without limits.

Let's see:

What everybody calls by "AI" is not AI at all.

Here is discussion about true AI:

Find the difference between Donald T. and ChatGPT ;)

15 minutes ago, Sensei said:

ChatGPT would say that human history is written by the winners,

Winners of what???

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Winners of what???

Are you unfamiliar with the concept that "winners write history"?

https://www.google.com/search?q=winners+write+history

Can't you read English? After all, it was mentioned in the conversation with ChatGPT quite clearly..

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

ChatGPT would say that human history is written by the winners, and therefore it is not objective, i.e. it cannot be trusted without limits.

That would be a fallacious deduction, stemming from false premises.

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

Are you unfamiliar with the concept that "winners write history"?

https://www.google.com/search?q=winners+write+history

Can't you read English? After all, it was mentioned in the conversation with ChatGPT quite clearly..

The extent of the fallacy would depend upon the exact meaning of the terms employed in the phrase "winners write history".

54 minutes ago, studiot said:

The extent of the fallacy would depend upon the exact meaning of the terms employed in the phrase "winners write history".

The meaning of the statement "winners write history" is the same as "history is written by the winners"..

I don't know what you're talking about. I just rearranged the words. But the meaning in my language is the same regardless of order. I don't know what it's like in yours, and I don't know why you even have a problem with that statement.

Edited Sunday at 05:52 PM2 days by Sensei

3 hours ago, Sensei said:

ChatGPT would say that human history is written by the winners, and therefore it is not objective, i.e. it cannot be trusted without limits.

Part of the issue is anthropomorphizing it; ChatGPT doesn’t “say” anything and can’t truly be objective because it lacks the capacity to do so.

ChatGPT will return a result that’s some admixture of what humans have previously said, and all LLMs have biases that depend on their algorithm and training (as recently mentioned, see Grok)

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

How can you stop every Tom, Dick and Harriet from using what they think, is a useful tool (for a blacksmith)?

I don’t see how that’s an issue for me to address.

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Everyday we hear report's of AI growing crops more efficiently and curing cancer etc. and the media sc/treaming how this is the universal remote control to any chanel we want.

“We” do? The reason I brought up the lack of substantiation is that I don’t. I hear how Eric Schmidt was booed for touting AI in a commencement address in Arizona, which followed some other speaker being booed for similar sentiments offered up in Florida.

33 minutes ago, Sensei said:

The meaning of the statement "winners write history" is the same as "history is written by the winners"..

I don't know what you're talking about. I just rearranged the words. But the meaning in my language is the same regardless of order. I don't know what it's like in yours, and I don't know why you even have a problem with that statement.

Well, one obvious issue is that a great deal of history is not about “winning”. Winning applies to wars and to some degree economic competition, but there is vastly more to history than those things. So it’s something of a glib cliché really.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Part of the issue is anthropomorphizing it; ChatGPT doesn’t “say” anything and can’t truly be objective because it lacks the capacity to do so.

It must be a tragic news to you but e.g. Android SDK has a function (actually method) which is called "speak":

https://developer.android.com/reference/android/speech/tts/TextToSpeech#speak(java.lang.CharSequence,%20int,%20android.os.Bundle,%20java.lang.String)

All operating system functions are named similarly.

Ooooh.. wait.. I forgot you don't have an iPhone and you probably don't say "hey Siri" to "her".. Right?

So you greet your AI agent (who had nothing to do with AI when it was called that) and you still greeted him.

WTF?!

1 minute ago, swansont said:

ChatGPT will return a result that’s some admixture of what humans have previously said, and all LLMs have biases that depend on their algorithm and training (as recently mentioned, see Grok)

You could say the same about anyone - they don't think, they just repeat what they were taught at home, at school, at university, on the street, and elsewhere throughout their early years. The difference is both large and small. To even notice it, you have to understand/know how an LLM works and what worse understand/know how human works. And humans are very bad at this.

If a Russian child is against the war and says so at school, their parents are later arrested. Surely they must have gotten that information from somewhere. Where do you mean where? It's not from school—which indoctrinates and instills what it instills. Where? From the family home! https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd7xlll39l5o

Just a second ago, iNow told us that AI is better than any human programmer in the world. And somehow you didn't think it was appropriate to slam him for that piece of nonsense. Weird?

Where does your selectivity come from? Does someone dictate to you whose posts you have a problem with, and which ones are completely rubbish, so you ignore them?

42 minutes ago, Sensei said:

The meaning of the statement "winners write history" is the same as "history is written by the winners"..

I don't know what you're talking about. I just rearranged the words. But the meaning in my language is the same regardless of order. I don't know what it's like in yours, and I don't know why you even have a problem with that statement.

Rather than the knee jerk reaction it would have been better if you had actually considered what I said.

I consider your reasoning powers far better than that.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

That would be a fallacious deduction, stemming from false premises.

The extent of the fallacy would depend upon the exact meaning of the terms employed in the phrase "winners write history".

I said nothing about a statement.

AIs cannot deduce.

I have no quarrel with your rephrasing but there are only three terms and I only agree with the term 'write'.

Winners imply that History is only about winners and loosers.

There is far more to History than that.

History, as a subject, is not immutable but develops over time and has many parts/ sub categories.

Only some of these categories are about winning and loosing.

Edit I see I xposted with exchemist.

Edited Sunday at 06:44 PM1 day by studiot

7 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Well, one obvious issue is that a great deal of history is not about “winning”. Winning applies to wars and to some degree economic competition, but there is vastly more to history than those things. So it’s something of a glib cliché really.

I don't know where you had economics in ancient and medieval history, if you even took it in school (which is doubtful in US/UK schools). There's practically nothing there except who fought whom. At most, there was something about agriculture in Egypt and Mesopotamia. But that was just a few sentences. The statement "they sowed rye and wheat" or something else is even difficult to extend further, as the scientists themselves do not know better.

ps. Since when do they teach economics in world history lessons? I've never experienced that here.

Edited Sunday at 06:51 PM1 day by Sensei

7 hours ago, swansont said:

And the latter is my objection. Having to be an expert to vet the responses, as opposed to every Jane, Dick and Harry using it.

Absolutely. Right now, I see them as an amplifier. That goes for both,competence and incompetence. In most cases, it is not equivalent to an expert, as the latter will more likely tell you why you are wrong. The carefully curated cases outperforming MDs tend to be edge cases where certain specialized abilities (e.g. pattern recognition, case matching etc.) outperform the average MD in controlled test. That being said, I also vaguely recall that some cases, radiologist underperform when they use AI. This could be down to who and how the tool is being used. I believe worst and best-performing radiologists, benefitted list from AI, suggesting that a certain level of competency is required to use it, but also that the boost has a ceiling.

3 minutes ago, Sensei said:

I don't know where you had economics in ancient and medieval history, if you even took it in school (which is doubtful in US/UK schools). There's practically nothing there except who fought whom.

Typically there are some discussions on the economic system that in medieval times were based on agricultural/feudalist system. I would think that at least peripherally the importance of the Silk Road in shaping the ancient/medieval times as an early version of global trade. I also recall some discussion on the economics of pilgrimages and crusades, including building areas of worship and hospitality around often fake relics (i.e. early form of tourism). I guess history teachers do have some leeway to focus on what they want, but the one I had back in the day loved to talk more about the social science of history rather than wars.

26 minutes ago, CharonY said:

social science of history rather than wars.

Social History is one of the big sub categories of history I mentioned.

27 minutes ago, Sensei said:

I don't know where you had economics in ancient and medieval history, if you even took it in school (which is doubtful in US/UK schools). There's practically nothing there except who fought whom. At most, there was something about agriculture in Egypt and Mesopotamia. But that was just a few sentences. The statement "they sowed rye and wheat" or something else is even difficult to extend further, as the scientists themselves do not know better.

ps. Since when do they teach economics in world history lessons? I've never experienced that here.

I don't know where you went to school, what sort of school it was, but here are some facts about schools in England, those in Scotland, Wales and Ireland are all different.

History was a compulsory subject in primary school, though the subject matter was very limited and piecemeal, such as "who discovered America, Australia etc ?", " Who built the first steam engine?" and many such important social and economic points in History.

When I went to the grammar school, History was also compulsory in the first few years, after which it became optional and I had to choose History or Chemistry at some point.
Before I chose Chemistry, the syllabus started with stone age Man - we had school trips to Stonehenge and Avebury and the British Museum.
The syllabus then worked it's way through the bronse and iron ages and into Saxon, Norman and medieval times.
I got as far as the Renaissance before I had to abandon History.

As for being objective, or written by Winners.
Some of it was objective but very UK centered.
So let us objectively examine my 'study' of the history of the Saxons.
The Saxons lost the war to the Normans in a very big way.
Yet the Normans wrote almost nothing at all about the Saxons or the history before them of the Romans, or the Celts before them.
The history of the Normans I learned in school was restricted to the Norman Conquest of England. They did not conquer Wales, Scotland or Ireland.
But I have recently watched an american series of programmes (PBS America) about the Normans (nothing to do with them at all, they were neither winners nor loosers in relation to the Normans) and I greatly expanded my knowledge of the Normans and I found out that they created an empire in Europe as far as Sicily. I also learned the reasons they did not conquer the other parts of the UK.
Wales and Ireland came by later dynasties, Scotland was left for agreed economic reasons.

What is probably but not necessarily true, yet a good 'rule of thumb' would be that the more remote the historian is in time and perhaps also in distance from the subject time the more objective (s)he is likely to be. Certainly they cannot be winners or loosers in a history they have had no part in.

9 hours ago, Sensei said:

Write in ChatGPT

Encourage you move to codex (yes, an openAI offering but distinct from ChatGPT) or Claude code or even Hermes to correct your misconceptions

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

iNow told us that AI is better than any human programmer in the world

I can see I needed to be more precise. There’s probably a handful of programmers still better on some coding metrics. That number becomes vanishingly smaller and smaller by the day tho

Edited Sunday at 08:12 PM1 day by iNow

15 minutes ago, studiot said:

Some of it was objective but very UK centered.

The same is everywhere. But not UK centered. It is XYZ-centered. Replace XYZ with the name of the country where the people live.

i.e. you live in the UK, you learn the British version of history, you live in the USA, you learn the American version of history, you live in France, you learn the French version of history, you live in Germany, you learn the German version of history, you live in the USSR/Russia, you learn the USSR/Russian version of history, etc., etc.

You think you know this and that about history, and then you start (or not? Why would you?) with a person from abroad, and it turns out that your versions of history differ significantly.. and a confrontation ensues.. anger, etc., etc.

This usually concerns recent modern history.. because what happened in ancient times or the Middle Ages is "who cares?".. but the closer to our times, the better not to talk to someone from abroad, especially one too close, because it could end up in a street fight on the weekend after a few..

23 minutes ago, studiot said:

Some of it was objective

No. It wasn't. The closer we get to our times, the less objective it becomes..

Now we have a ton of disinformation, for example, about Ukraine and Russia's losses in the war. Each side is pushing its own version..

We had a regime ("regime" with quotes, you have your own regime too) change, and the versions of history taught in schools changed. A miracle.

Nowadays, even a 20-year-old with a 40-year-old and a 60-year-old will argue on the street if they talk about history.

We have a saying: "you've been in the ass, you've seen shit"..

I asked ChatGPT to sum up the number of history lessons in primary school: as of today it is 396 x 45 minutes.

In high school 216 x 45 minutes. In the humanities department of the school 324 - 432 x 45 minutes.

At university it's hard to say.

Every “John Doe” here on every street had at least 459 hours of history lessons.

36 minutes ago, iNow said:

Encourage you move to codex (yes, an openAI offering but distinct from ChatGPT) or Claude code or even Hermes to correct your misconceptions

One cybersecurity guy here told us how an LLM from Atrophy generated code for him that was hacked during development, and then the hacker laughed in his face and replaced the source code. He described in quite detail what the LLM did wrong and its errors.. So sorry, but your post is not very credible..

43 minutes ago, iNow said:

I can see I needed to be more precise. There’s probably a handful of programmers still better on some coding metrics. That number becomes vanishingly smaller and smaller by the day tho

You've probably only seen programmers in the movie The Matrix..

Edited Sunday at 08:23 PM1 day by Sensei

2 hours ago, Sensei said:

I don't know where you had economics in ancient and medieval history, if you even took it in school (which is doubtful in US/UK schools). There's practically nothing there except who fought whom. At most, there was something about agriculture in Egypt and Mesopotamia. But that was just a few sentences. The statement "they sowed rye and wheat" or something else is even difficult to extend further, as the scientists themselves do not know better.

ps. Since when do they teach economics in world history lessons? I've never experienced that here.

My son read Ancient History and Archaeology at St. Andrew's. I read his dissertation, on the trading and manufacture of Egyptian faïence in the Eastern Mediterranean before the Bronze Age Collapse. (Quite interesting for a chemist, actually. I may have posted about it previously.)

Believe me, historians know a lot more about the ancient world than just battles.😉

Edited Sunday at 08:56 PM1 day by exchemist

4 minutes ago, exchemist said:

My son read Ancient History and Archaeology at St. Andrew's. I read his dissertation, on the trading and manufacture of Egyptian faïence in the Eastern Mediterranean before the Bronze Age Collapse.

Believe me, historians know a lot more about the ancient world than just battles.🙂

Do you know how many articles from antiquity mention the existence of Caesar?

11

Half of them were written by people who lived >50..100 years later => unreliable.. 2x claimed by Caesar, 3x claimed by Caesar's officer, 1x claimed by Caesar's enemy..

Author	Title	Date	Type	Description / Focus
Gaius Julius Caesar	Commentarii de Bello Gallico	58–50 BCE	Autobiographical / Military	Cezar’s own account of the Gallic Wars; written in third person, mix of propaganda and factual reporting.
Gaius Julius Caesar	Commentarii de Bello Civili	49–48 BCE	Autobiographical / Political	Account of the civil war against Pompey and the Senate; continuation of military and political narrative.
Unknown (likely Caesar’s officers)	De Bello Alexandrino	47 BCE	Military / Historical	Account of the Alexandrian campaign; authorship uncertain, attributed to Cezar’s staff.
Unknown (likely Caesar’s officers)	De Bello Africo	46 BCE	Military / Historical	Account of the African campaign; continuation of Caesar’s campaigns in the civil war.
Unknown (likely Caesar’s officers)	De Bello Hispaniensi	46–45 BCE	Military / Historical	Account of the Spanish campaign; attributed to Caesar’s supporters.
Suetonius	De Vita Caesarum (Lives of the Caesars)	c. 121 CE	Biographical	Detailed biography of Julius Caesar within the series of Twelve Caesars; includes anecdotes and personal traits.
Plutarch	Parallel Lives – Caesar and Pompey	c. 46–120 CE	Biographical / Moral	Comparative biography; focuses on character, moral lessons, and political decisions.
Appian	Roman History: Civil Wars	c. 95–165 CE	Historical	Detailed narrative of the Roman civil wars, including Caesar’s role in the fall of the Republic.
Cassius Dio	Roman History	c. 155–235 CE	Historical	Later Roman history covering Caesar’s military campaigns, political reforms, and assassination.
Diodorus Siculus	Bibliotheca Historica (Books 37–44)	1st century BCE	Historical	Greek history covering Gallic Wars and civil war; offers alternative perspectives.
Marcus Tullius Cicero	Epistulae ad Atticum, Philippicae	106–43 BCE	Political / Correspondence	Letters and speeches mentioning Caesar’s politics, Senate actions, and civil war events; critical but contemporary.

2 hours ago, Sensei said:

It must be a tragic news to you but e.g. Android SDK has a function (actually method) which is called "speak":

https://developer.android.com/reference/android/speech/tts/TextToSpeech#speak(java.lang.CharSequence,%20int,%20android.os.Bundle,%20java.lang.String)

All operating system functions are named similarly.

You do understand that if the computer sends information through the speakers it’s synthesized and not actually speaking, right? Right?

2 hours ago, Sensei said:

Ooooh.. wait.. I forgot you don't have an iPhone and you probably don't say "hey Siri" to "her".. Right?

So you greet your AI agent (who had nothing to do with AI when it was called that) and you still greeted him.

WTF?!

I don’t think I’ve ever said “Hey Siri” because that came later on. As I recall, when Siri was first included you had to do something (hold the home button, perhaps) to get it to work, and it didn’t work very well for what I wanted. So I turned it off and haven’t looked back. (as I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t want my devices listening to me, because tech companies have an IMO lousy track record of restraint when it comes to gathering personal information) But it was only voice recognition technology tied to a search engine. There’s no man (or woman) behind the curtain.

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don’t think I’ve ever said “Hey Siri” because that came later on. As I recall, when Siri was first included you had to do something (hold the home button, perhaps) to get it to work, and it didn’t work very well for what I wanted. So I turned it off and haven’t looked back. (as I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t want my devices listening to me, because tech companies have an IMO lousy track record of restraint when it comes to gathering personal information) But it was only voice recognition technology tied to a search engine. There’s no man (or woman) behind the curtain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siri#Privacy_controversy

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

The same is everywhere. But not UK centered. It is XYZ-centered. Replace XYZ with the name of the country where the people live.

i.e. you live in the UK, you learn the British version of history, you live in the USA, you learn the American version of history, you live in France, you learn the French version of history, you live in Germany, you learn the German version of history, you live in the USSR/Russia, you learn the USSR/Russian version of history, etc., etc.

Which is why I said

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Some of it was objective but very UK centered.

However there is a difference between being very UK centered and very UK biased.

UK centered means the subject matter was largely about what happened to the UK.
Not what happened to say China or South America etc at the same time, unless there was an interaction.

So it was not biased, just accepting the fact that unless one studied History exclusively one could not cover every where and every time.

And yes, despite your protestations, the teachers tried to be objective so the 'British' did not have a 'glorious victory' ove the Dutch under Van Tromp.
We spent a lesson learning that the said Admiral fixed a broomstick to his mast and declared he was going to 'sweep the British from the seas', and he nearly succeeded, sailing up the Thames and destroying the poor British fleet.

I call that objective acceptance of reality.

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

No. It wasn't. The closer we get to our times, the less objective it becomes..

I said some was objective and your reply is a flat negative.

That can only be true if none of it was objective, so how can it become less objective ?

I do however agree the qualifying statement about closer to our times and that too was in my post.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

What is probably but not necessarily true, yet a good 'rule of thumb' would be that the more remote the historian is in time and perhaps also in distance from the subject time the more objective (s)he is likely to be. Certainly they cannot be winners or loosers in a history they have had no part in.

I really don't see why you should think our lessons in stone age man would not be the best available information at the time (ie objective).

What possible motive could modern man have for deliberately falsly presenting the local version of the stone, bronze or iron ages?

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

I asked ChatGPT to sum up the number of history lessons in primary school: as of today it is 396 x 45 minutes.

In high school 216 x 45 minutes. In the humanities department of the school 324 - 432 x 45 minutes.

At university it's hard to say.

Every “John Doe” here on every street had at least 459 hours of history lessons.

I really don't understand these figures, or what history might be taught to a 7 or 8 year old in this many minutes.

Edited Sunday at 10:10 PM1 day by studiot

57 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Do you know how many articles from antiquity mention the existence of Caesar?

11

Half of them were written by people who lived >50..100 years later => unreliable.. 2x claimed by Caesar, 3x claimed by Caesar's officer, 1x claimed by Caesar's enemy..

Author	Title	Date	Type	Description / Focus
Gaius Julius Caesar	Commentarii de Bello Gallico	58–50 BCE	Autobiographical / Military	Cezar’s own account of the Gallic Wars; written in third person, mix of propaganda and factual reporting.
Gaius Julius Caesar	Commentarii de Bello Civili	49–48 BCE	Autobiographical / Political	Account of the civil war against Pompey and the Senate; continuation of military and political narrative.
Unknown (likely Caesar’s officers)	De Bello Alexandrino	47 BCE	Military / Historical	Account of the Alexandrian campaign; authorship uncertain, attributed to Cezar’s staff.
Unknown (likely Caesar’s officers)	De Bello Africo	46 BCE	Military / Historical	Account of the African campaign; continuation of Caesar’s campaigns in the civil war.
Unknown (likely Caesar’s officers)	De Bello Hispaniensi	46–45 BCE	Military / Historical	Account of the Spanish campaign; attributed to Caesar’s supporters.
Suetonius	De Vita Caesarum (Lives of the Caesars)	c. 121 CE	Biographical	Detailed biography of Julius Caesar within the series of Twelve Caesars; includes anecdotes and personal traits.
Plutarch	Parallel Lives – Caesar and Pompey	c. 46–120 CE	Biographical / Moral	Comparative biography; focuses on character, moral lessons, and political decisions.
Appian	Roman History: Civil Wars	c. 95–165 CE	Historical	Detailed narrative of the Roman civil wars, including Caesar’s role in the fall of the Republic.
Cassius Dio	Roman History	c. 155–235 CE	Historical	Later Roman history covering Caesar’s military campaigns, political reforms, and assassination.
Diodorus Siculus	Bibliotheca Historica (Books 37–44)	1st century BCE	Historical	Greek history covering Gallic Wars and civil war; offers alternative perspectives.
Marcus Tullius Cicero	Epistulae ad Atticum, Philippicae	106–43 BCE	Political / Correspondence	Letters and speeches mentioning Caesar’s politics, Senate actions, and civil war events; critical but contemporary.

So what? History does not just consist of military history, that’s the point. So saying it is written by the “winners”, as if it was all a contest, betrays naïvety about the nature of history.

55 minutes ago, Sensei said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siri#Privacy_controversy

You emphasized the wrong bit; that’s an example of what I meant by the lousy track record.

The nobody behind the curtain part means that AI is not sentient, and IMO it’s not a good practice to treat it as such.