Artificial
Intelligence is at the forefront of the news, our industries and economy, and
our everyday lives today. Most everyone
has a smartphone and doing a simple search is utilizing AI nowadays – ask
Google a question and it will return an “AI Overview”, data found by its Gemini
AI system. While surfing social media like X (formerly Twitter), it is
commonplace to see debates over topics especially political and posts are rife
with “facts” cited, most assuredly found thru a web search leveraging AI. I recently went down this rabbit hole
questioning Gemini about something related to the War for Southern
Independence. I’ve learned from my wife
that you have to feed the AI bot very specific questions and even include
relevant information, somewhat akin to leading the horse to water, asking
leading questions. Nonetheless, Gemini
still frustrated me with the “answer” it returned. Mind you, Joe Public out there takes AI
results to be the God given truth of the matter, not to be questioned. About three or four iterations into our back
and forth, Gemini revealed the key. AI
in this use anyway, is essentially a beefed up search engine. It stated that its results were the “consensus
of mainstream historians today”. If you
disregard Jefferson Davis’ “The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government” as
aged or simply put it on even footing with Ty Seidule who has led the attack on
Confederate monuments and largely provided the groundwork for removal of those
including the Reconciliation monument, you are diluting the preeminent first
hand account of the man who led the Confederacy from secession to formation and
thru its war for independence. Then when you give greater weight to Seidule’s
position of presentism and wokeism by adding on additional modern “mainstream
history experts”, mouthpieces like radio personality Mark Levin, an Ashkenazi
Jew whose grandparents immigrated from Europe (England and Ukraine) since that
WBTS period, you can easily see how the search results start to reflect the
same history you were taught in government public schools and which the
majority of US citizens believe in their shallow comprehension, that Lincoln’s
War was a righteous cause to preserve the Union to free the slaves. Tidy.
Remember General Patrick Cleburne’s warning, “Surrender means that the
history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy, that our youth
will be trained by Northern school teachers; learn from Northern school books
their version of the war and, taught to regard our gallant dead as traitors and
our maimed veterans as fit subjects of derision.” The victor writes the history to legitimize
and glorify their position/cause. Where
would US patriotism be today if our citizens were taught in their formative
education that Lincoln prosecuted the war on behalf of his industrialist
cronies to collect tariffs to fund their empire building? Doesn’t sound as good as The Great
Emancipator orating his (revised) “Emancipation Proclamation”, never mind the
pesky detail that it didn’t free any of the slaves in the United States or its
territories. Arie De Young states,
“Although the text of generative AI might seem like original work at first
glance, it draws heavily (entirely) from pre-existing sources of information.
Consequently, determining precisely what these sources are is crucial for
evaluating the accuracy and utility of any product of artificial intelligence.”
(https://emergingcivilwar.com/2026/09/22/history-is-generated-by-the-algorithms/)
He did a query of WBTS battles and generals and checked the sources Gemini
cited in compiling its AI results (facts to Joe Public) and found the most
commonly referenced sources:
The
top ten most frequently cited sources, with the percentage of overviews they
appeared in were:
1. Wikipedia (97%)
2. American Battlefield Trust (80%)
3. YouTube (65%)
4. National Park Service (56%)
5. Encyclopedia Britannica (41%)
6. History.com (36%)
7. Encyclopedia Virginia (22%)
8. Facebook (22%)
9. American History Central (17%)
10. EBSCO (16%)
Wikipedia and Youtube dominating the search results’ cited sources is truly disqualifying. Troublesome certainly. Even the National Park Service with their (1999 Congressionally mandated) campaign to “contextualize” battlefields and historical sites should cause serious pause. Facebook… really? Social media is driven by and based on personal opinions and experiences; how often have you exclaimed, “And they vote” when looking at posts? “Reddit’s appearance in six percent of searches places it higher than the Smithsonian’s three percent, Library of Congress’s two percent, and National Archives’s two percent. That most prestigious and venerable of Civil War publications, USA Today, appeared as a source in one overview.” Where was the National Enquirer? Where was any book by Jefferson Davis or any Confederate General like Longstreet, Early, or Hood? “This gets at perhaps the largest problem of the Gemini AI Overview as a source of history. While it can cite quality websites, and even an academic article on occasion, books are entirely absent from its sources (at least those that it lists). This is not to say that books are the be-all and end-all of historical information, but it is not a contested contention that they form an important part of it. They can get into more depth of detail and complexity than most webpages typically feature. It does seem wrong to exclude the long-time foundation of humanity’s knowledge from contributing to the new frontier of information. AI’s frequently questionable sources, circular citations of other AI-produced material, and total exclusion of books as sources is a black mark that should not be overlooked.” You need only look back at the consensus of the safety and efficacy of the Covid 19 vaccines spouted by the medical community or the consensus of Joe Biden’s 2020 Presidential race victory with an unprecedented 81 million popular votes as legitimate to question mainstream consensus as facts. An unrestrained AI becoming self-aware and running amok is perhaps one concern we may confront in the near future but the use of AI in “educating” (or indoctrinating) the citizenry is maybe even more dangerous.















