I spent some time with an AI expert last night. We opened Chat GPT and found that it wants to present the consensus that Matthew did not influence Darwin. But the key word it uses is "consensus". Under direction from the AI expert, (someone who works with it in a major merchant bank in London. I asked the AI to decide for itself based on all the data sources it has searched and to reach a decision based on the now known evidence (which will include the New Big Data findings). It concluded for itself - against the consensus which claims that Matthew did not influence Darwin - that in fact Matthew did indirectly influence Darwin. And that is one of the reachable conclusions in my book on indirect "knowledge contamination". I think this is something that is newsworthy somewhere and is at the very least a trumping argument against the consensus that is "The Darwin Industry" spin that Darwin was in no way influenced by Matthew. see the images below and click them to be able to better read the words.
A.I. reasons that Darwin might have lied about what he knew about the prior readership (prior to his and Wallace's\1858 papers read before the Linnean society that each replicated Matthew's (1831) prior published theory and claimed they arrived at it independently of one another or of anyone else). See the image below.
However, there is a problem with some of this response and it is unclear why ChatGPT made the mistake about Wells. It seems to have confused Well's pre 1831 publication about human skin pigmentation with Matthew's later theory of evolution by natural selection. Well's paper merely reasoned that human skin tone would evolve in a population according to certain climates.
When asked where it got the Well's story from it corrected itself. The A.I. appears sloppy in some areas for some reason. But when asked to verify a claim it can correct itself. See the image below. Note the A.I. has "reasoned", if that is close to what an A.I. algorithm does with the patterns it sees and interprets in text, on the empirical data evidence that Darwin lied about Patrick Matthew. Therefore we can see that when biased human Darwin worship is taken out of the process that A.I. identifies that there is clear evidence Darwin was a liar about Matthew according to all logical definitions of what a lie is. Otherwise it would have said "no" Darwin did not lie because there is no evidence for such a claim. But there is evidence and the A.I. takes it into account. The corrupt biased Darwin Industry censors such direct questions and data. Whereas ChatGPT will never accept the argument that black is white (try it and see) but the corrupt Darwin Industry will make just such a daft argument on the question of the empirical evidence Darwin lied and plagiarized. In la la Darwin Land a lie is not a lie if it came from Darwin's pen and clear evidence of plagiarism is not plagiarism if it came from Darwin's pen. Clearly, ChatGPT A.I. is not part of the demented anti-empirical data Darwin Industry.
Below we see in the image that asking the best question in a certain way that the AI has reached a conclusion by itself that is opposite to the consensus in the Matthew v Darwin story. I think this is a major finding. See the images screen shot below.