Tim Pool

It can only... How do I describe this?

If you have a legal question, like let's say the birthright citizenship is the best example.

If you ask any AI...

about birthright citizenship, it will tell you every single time that it is just legal correct in every way.

If you try to present an argument saying, based on the language of the law,

The framers intentions and letters and what's going on today, would it not be the case this way?

And it'll go, no, you are wrong.

This is exactly as it is, because instead of it can't comprehend.

It's strange how to describe this.

In many circumstances, if you find a flaw in an institution, it will defend that flaw because it is the way it is.

Whereas a human being will go, interesting point.

You found a loophole.

The AI will go, nope, nope, doesn't exist.

You're wrong.

Right.

It'll reroute a new truth.

And it'll respond with things like, because Grok does this too.

No, courts have consistently upheld that birthright citizenship is justified.

And the framers, and you'll say, yes, but here's an example of why this would not apply in this sense.

And it'll go, no, you are wrong.