This actually shows a misunderstanding of the tool.
AI doesn’t “give false information” when it’s used correctly. Bad prompts, no source checking, and blind copy-paste produce bad results. That’s user error, not a flaw in the tool. Used properly, AI is a verification accelerator. It helps cross-check statutes, filings, dates, and contradictions quickly. That’s exactly how it’s being used here.
You keep saying “use facts, not opinions,” but everything you’ve presented is opinion by definition. You’ve asserted investigations, insider knowledge, and conclusions that cannot be independently verified. If something cannot be verified, it is not fact. It is opinion, no matter how confidently it’s stated.
What’s been pushed back on isn’t facts. It’s unverified claims. When a claim can be checked and it does not hold up under verification, that’s not debunking by opinion. It’s a claim that fails evidence-based review.
Quoting statutes or rules and then inserting your own conclusions about how they apply, without a filing, action, or disclosure to anchor them, is opinionated interpretation. That’s exactly what you accuse others of doing.
Facts survive verification. Opinions rely on authority, secrecy, or tone. So far, only one side here is producing things that can actually be checked.
AI doesn’t “give false information” when it’s used correctly. Bad prompts, no source checking, and blind copy-paste produce bad results. That’s user error, not a flaw in the tool. Used properly, AI is a verification accelerator. It helps cross-check statutes, filings, dates, and contradictions quickly. That’s exactly how it’s being used here.
You keep saying “use facts, not opinions,” but everything you’ve presented is opinion by definition. You’ve asserted investigations, insider knowledge, and conclusions that cannot be independently verified. If something cannot be verified, it is not fact. It is opinion, no matter how confidently it’s stated.
What’s been pushed back on isn’t facts. It’s unverified claims. When a claim can be checked and it does not hold up under verification, that’s not debunking by opinion. It’s a claim that fails evidence-based review.
Quoting statutes or rules and then inserting your own conclusions about how they apply, without a filing, action, or disclosure to anchor them, is opinionated interpretation. That’s exactly what you accuse others of doing.
Facts survive verification. Opinions rely on authority, secrecy, or tone. So far, only one side here is producing things that can actually be checked.
2
1
