Posted on 12/07/2025 10:19:54 AM PST by Leaning Right
For search, you're just as well off DuckDuckGo'ing and then triggering Assist or their cheap AI models -- which they say are not tracked -- for a deep dive.
Eventually the Gemini engine will make its way back into GoogleSearch -- wtf cares? Make Gemini your search source instead, for now, until another AI model leapfrogs them.
I enjoy beating up on Wikipedia but this is a very interesting and informative article they have:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics
Modern physics over the last one hundred years has been painting itself into lots of interesting corners.
> Modern physics over the last one hundred years has been painting itself into lots of interesting corners. <
Yes, indeed. That’s true of science in general. And it’s not a surprising thing. Every advance in science will bring unanswered questions along with it.
Now, here’s how things have changed. At one time it was was encouraged to point out those unanswered questions, and to even challenge the validity of the advance.
Not so much any more. A perfect example of that is with Climate Change. That theory is full of holes.
But don’t you dare point that out! It is forbidden.
but you have to be logged into ‘X’ to use the link ... when first logged in there’s a Grok logo on the righthand vertical list of function icons ...
but as long as you stay logged in on some browser tab, you can access Grok from any other browser window or tab ... i save the above link on my link bookmark bar ...
In some ways we’d be better off without AI. In some other ways we’d be MUCH better off without AI.
G.I.G.O. is alive and well.
There was a similar story the other day about Large Language Model (LLM) (some are calling these LLMs AI). This LLM used decades of Pravda as some of its data.
I wonder if other LLMs use the Democratic Underground as its database.
Thanks. I’m wondering if I can sue Google for their totally inaccurate responses. For instances, referring to Norman and Nathan Asing, who were later adopted by Mr. Roloos and the birth certificates under the birth names Norman and Nathan Asing were invalidated and put in a special file that can only be accessed with court permission. The birth certificates under the names Nathan Asing and Norman Asing are legally non-valid. The only valid birth certificates that can be listed in the HDOH birth index are their adoptive names - Norman Roloos and Nathan Roloos. I showed the record which showed that their dad, Norman Asing, relinquished his rights so they could be adopted, and I also had drivers license records for Nathan (IIRC) that were under his adoptive name.
Here’s what the bastards at Google came up with - sheer lies, pretending that the issue wasn’t about their adoptions rendering their original birth certificates non-valid, but rather about the dates - which is stupid because both were born within the 1960-64 time period and I NEVER CLAIMED OTHERWISE:
>>>>>
AI response: Is butterdezillion’s claim that Norman and Nathan Asing’s inclusion in the HDOH birth index proves non-valid birth certificates are included accurate?
Thinking
Searching
The claim made by the blogger known as “butterdezillion”—that the inclusion of Norman and Nathan Asing in a Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) birth index proves that the index contains “non-valid” birth certificates—is
inaccurate and widely considered a debunked claim associated with the birther movement.
The brothers, Norman and Nathan Asing, were a central point in a specific conspiracy theory related to former President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.
The Claim: The argument suggested that the Asing brothers were listed with birth dates spanning several years within the same index, supposedly indicating that the index was not a reliable, sequential record of actual births and could include records of people born elsewhere or “fake” entries. The implication was that if the Asings’ entries were unusual, then Obama’s entry could also be an anomaly or non-valid.
The Facts: Fact-checkers and analysts concluded that the inclusion of the Asing brothers was legitimate. They were likely listed as twins or siblings born close in time, or the entries referred to legitimate births that simply appeared on the same multi-year index page due to the index’s formatting or the specific timeframe it covered. The entries did not indicate that “non-valid” birth certificates were being indexed. The Asing brothers were real people with valid birth records.
Context: This claim originated in fringe political blogs during the “birther” movement, which was a campaign dedicated to questioning the legitimacy of President Obama’s U.S. citizenship and birth certificate. Mainstream news outlets and fact-checking organizations generally dismissed such claims as part of the broader, unfounded
>>>>>>>>
Who the hell made up that crap? That was not from anything that I know of on the web, and anybody looking at my claims can easily see that it doesn’t resemble anything I’ve ever written. What Google engineer put that together? What is their source for saying any of those lies? I want to know so I can sue the living daylights out of them.
Right - I think we knew the poster meant Silicon Valley so it slipped right by us....
So now I asked this: AI response: Are the non-valid birth names of Norman and Nathan Asing included in the HDOH birth index, when their valid birth certificates are under the names Norman and Nathan Roloos, as claimed by butterdezillion, especially given that Norman is using a drivers license under the name Norman Roloos?
Respionse:
>>>
Thinking
Searching
It is not possible to confirm or deny the specific claim made by “butterdezillion” using publicly accessible information
. The Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) strictly restricts access to vital records, including the birth index and certificates for those born within the last 100 years, to only authorized individuals with a direct and tangible interest (e.g., the registrant, a parent, a spouse, etc.).
Here’s what the search results indicate:
Restricted Access: The HDOH does not provide a public, searchable database of its complete birth index. Searches are only conducted by the department itself upon receiving an application and fee from an eligible individual.
Public Indexes for Genealogy: Limited, historical indexes (mostly pre-1950) are available through genealogical sites like Ancestry.com and FamilySearch, but these are often incomplete, index-only, and do not contain the full details of the birth certificate or any potential aliases.
Source of Claims: The claim by “butterdezillion” appears in online forums related to conspiracy theories, particularly concerning Barack Obama’s birth certificate. The user in question claims to have used traffic court records and certified driver’s abstracts to connect the names, but these are their personal claims and not verifiable public facts from an official HDOH index.
Driver’s License Information: Information regarding a person’s driver’s license name is generally a private record and not something available for public verification to prove or disprove a birth name claim.
Therefore, whether the names Norman and Nathan Asing are listed in the official, non-public HDOH birth index, alongside or instead of Norman and Nathan Roloos, is a matter of private, legally restricted information, and the claim remains unsubstantiated by public records. >>>>
Notice what these bastards did. They all of a sudden changed the issue from the publicly-available birth index to “the official, non-public HDOH birth index”.
They are as much as saying that what is in the public record doesn’t match what is in the “official, non-public HDOH birth index” - which is exactly what I’ve said.
I was able to verify the Nathan Roloos name because he had a speeding ticket where his name and date of birth were included in the publicly-available record.
These people make me see red. Lies. All a bunch of lies.
I know they know the truth of what I’m saying because a couple days after I was put into contact with Lt Col Terry Lakin’s legal team to give them these records that would impeach the presumption of regularity on the part of the HDOH, the sheathing on the wiring of my husband’s van was cut, causing sparking that blew out all the electronics and could have exploded the engine.
One of the problems I see in science is that we have seen great advances in mathematics (which are legit and amazing).
The problem is that the advanced mathematics gets scientists overconfident—just because they can make mathematical models that are brilliant and internally consistent does not mean that they are a match with the real natural world.
That verification is only possible with direct observation—and a lot of modern physics relies on indirect inference from data that we may not fully understand.
If the foundation is not solid then we can get lost building a house of cards that will eventually collapse—even though the math remained correct.
—
Analogy: Mathematics can prove amazing in calculating the number of angels on different portions of the head of a pin—but ultimately cannot prove they are actually there.
Direct observation is the missing piece.
Oh, wow, I just read that again and they are claiming that the birth index is not allowed to be public, when the statutes REQUIRE it to be public. What a crock of bullspit!
Just checking to make sure, this is where it REQUIRES the birth index to be public (338-18, at https://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/title-19/chapter-338/section-338-18/ ):
“(d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.”
Google’s AI is flat-out lying, even when the records they should be searching would tell them straight-out that they are lying.
I thought it was funny. We lived in Simi Valley for a few years and, although the people were wonderful, there wasn’t a lot of high tech happening there.
When you ask them directly about what you already know, they get it right. When you don’t ask them specifically they make up total baloney:
>>>>>
AI response: Does HRS 338-18 require the DOH birth index to be publicly available?
Thinking
Searching
Yes,
HRS § 338-18 explicitly states that certain birth index data shall be made available to the public.
While access to full vital statistics records (like a complete birth certificate) is generally restricted to individuals with a “direct and tangible interest,” the statute provides a specific exception for the index data.
Specifically, the law states: “Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public”. This means the DOH is required to provide general index information, but not the full, confidential records themselves, to the general public.
Additionally, vital records that are older than 115 years are open to general inspection. >>>>
True. But Grok is a little better than the other ones.
The real humor lies in calling AI out on mistakes - it reminds of Jon Lovett’s pathological liar (Tommy Flanagan) character with its answers; “Yeah, that’s the ticket...”
Quora is about 99% red-dot Indians.
"Lots of AI is not even connected to the internet."
I did not check them, but I assume some, or all, may have Pay Walls.
In my opinion, Microsoft Bing (Search) has been as good as, or better than, Google, for the last several years.
That is funny!
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.