-PJ
Posted on 10/10/2025 12:08:18 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too
-PJ
OK, now apply this to President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded to him after only 8 months in office.
Also, explain why President Trump's accomplishments between January 2017 and January 2021 were not considered, including the groundbreaking Abraham Accords.
Trump's treatment is the symptom. The rest of the report is a diagnosis of the disease.
-PJ
Thank you for this analysis. To its credit, Grok was able to adjust its priors.
Machado is certainly deserving some award.
She could get it last year!
But, unfortunately, she is obvious face saving election chosen by TDS affected committee.
If they selected some commie, fighting for some endangered bug or global warming, it would be too obvious.
So they picked deserving conservative, using lame excuses to exclude DJT!
Sad!
I also noticed that the AI specifically ignored your question about the Abraham Accords, instead listing achievements that occurred after the so-called deadline of January 31, except for one from President Trump's first term, but it was questioning the effectiveness of the Kosovo-Serbia cease fire.
Then you did later nail down the AI regarding 'process' vs. 'results' double standards regarding Trump and the current recipient.
I'm sure it could. I haven't used Grok so I don't know about its user interface or its persistent memory. I do know that all AI models will eventually break down when the memory gets too large; the AI loses track of its earlier learnings and becomes less responsive the longer the conversation continues. This may not be a problem to the average AI user, but for a researcher who engages in an extensive training session via the AI, it's a problem that the AI begins to break down just when it has reached maximum learning.
That said, I use Perplexity Pro due to it's multiple AI models, as well as it's "Research" mode versus its "Answer" mode. Research mode searches for more sources than Answer mode, which is intended for quick searches to simple questions rather than deep dives for comprehensive analysis.
Also, a March 6 2025 study of AI models by the Columbia Journalism Review showed that Perplexity Pro had the most "completely correct" responses with the fewest "completely incorrect" answers. That's why I use Perplexity Pro right now.
-PJ
Any “award” that was given to both Yasir Arafat and B. Hussein is not something you will miss if you do not receive it.
It’s like positive recognition from Pelousy and Schumer. If I received recognition from Pelousy and Schumer, I would need a very loooong shower.
Open-ended questions will result in the AI producing a wide swath of output. That output has an inherent bias because it is sourced by predominantly left-wing media and academic content. That's why the follow-up questions must target specific points rather than generalized frustrations, so that the AI can validate its sources and correct its interpretations.
A good AI will take that learning from the challenged follow-up and reassess its prior analysis, and not just correct that one point and move on.
It may seem to be bloat to start with such simple questions that we already know the answers to, but it establishes the baseline for the rest of the conversation. It's easier for me to to dispute content that the AI already provided, so I have to isolate on a single conclusion and point out its mistake. This is much more productive than asking a loaded question that causes the AI to ignore parts of it and focus on the fact that is in dispute.
The goal is for me to get the AI to produce as much correct content as possible with the fewest interactions on my part.
-PJ
-PJ
I wish you asked it “then explain why Obama won the Nobel?” in the context of your discussion.
Ah, I see it was briefly mentioned but the follow-up would be “what extraordinary efforts?”
Bfl
My consideration is : do not begin a trend of polluting FR with AI results.
Not against referencing them, just not the whole unfiltered screed.
The AI brought up Obama on its own, which was good, but I had other more focused topics to delve into, and Obama would have been a distraction. The committee's rewarding of the prize to Obama fit the conclusion that the Nobel Committee was rewarding European style standards of diplomacy, and that was all that I needed from the Obama example.
As of now, Machado is in hiding, encouraging the resistance from underground. Trump is engaging in literal gunboat diplomacy with Venezuala right now. He's probably softening up Maduro for a larger hemisphere engagement later. The Nobel Committee is rewarding Machado's tenacity, if not her results to-date.
-PJ
Why would anyone accept the Nobel ‘Peace’ Prize after the NPP committee urinated on it in 2009 ?
I would hardly consider my use of AI as a "screed," especially since it is very well sourced (which I excluded to save space).
My own posts on other topics are certainly screeds, and I openly admit that.
But you're entitled to your opinion. Now, you can comment on the contents instead of the AI, or not.
-PJ
Western Diplomacy Model = Munich 1938
For the $1.2 million cash prize that goes along with it?
-PJ
Did not notice any ‘saved space’ but thank you if there was.
(ok, yes, it could have been twice as long, but I think that underlines my point)
do you deny the possibility of AI screeds?
( no where did I imply that your usage was such )
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.