Plagiarising Science Fraud

Plagiarising Science Fraud
Newly Discovered Facts, Published in Peer Reviewed Science Journals, Mean Charles Darwin is a 100 Per Cent Proven Lying, Plagiarising Science Fraudster by Glory Theft of Patrick Matthew's Prior-Published Conception of the Hypothesis of Macro Evolution by Natural Selection

Sunday, 27 August 2023

ChatGPT AI Versus The Darwin Myth

 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.

When the AI is told very specifically about the editions of the books to ensure we are not talking about post 1859 editions of the origin of Species (because Darwin did write to deny Matthew's influence in later editions) we get the same result. see first image below. To be clear, however if the word arboriculture is solely dropped from the question it answers "Minimally".  So the AI is, arguably, far from perfect in weighing things sensibly from a human academic perspective. Nevertheless, this is interesting as a challenge to the current bone headed highly biased and unscientific orthodox consensus that Matthew's 1831 published theory in no way influenced Darwin's 1859 Origin of Species.

Click the images in order to best read the text.

ChatGPT was asked to think about the empirical data on his issue, and what it means even further a day later. See the response below

Chat GPT reasons that the question of Matthew's influence on Darwin is important

Click the images in order to better read the text.

When we ask another AI called MyAI (given the handle Lorax) on Snapchat  the question the answer is even more definitive that Darwin was influenced by Matthew. See the image below:

But it can also be more reserved;

The Big Question on whether A.I. thinks - on the basis of all the empirical evidence - the scientific community will come to recognize that Patrick Matthew influenced Darwin before 1858. The answer is yes!

The next day 31 August 2023 ChatGPT has broken its promise to answer another exact same question the exact same way. And it admits it and corrects its mistake/or lie?

So to be clear the A.I. ChatGPT is also asked next:

The blog post is partly archived HERE

No comments:

Post a Comment

Spam will be immediately deleted. Other comments warmly welcome.

On this blogsite you are free to write what you think in any way you wish to write it. However, please bear in mind it is a published public environment. Stalkers, Harassers and abusers who seek to hide behind pseudonyms may be exposed for who they actually are.

Anyone publishing threats, obscene comments or anything falling within the UK Anti-Harassment and the Obscene Communications Acts (which carry a maximum sentence of significant periods of imprisonment) should realize Google blogs capture the IP addresses of those who post comments. From there, it is a simple matter to know who you are, where you are commenting from, reveal your identity and inform the appropriate police services.