Tag Archives: Fake AI

May 21, 2026 · 17:29

According to the BBC

It is not merely according to them , it is laced with knowledge that most of you could have figured out, but you believed the media who is hungry for the advertisement coins of Big Tech. As such you are losing the faith in media and I always saw this coming. As such the BBC gives us (at https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20260519-google-tackles-attempts-to-hack-its-ai-results) saying ‘Google’s AI is being manipulated. The search giant is quietly fighting back’ and it is not merely Google, at present all AI is Fake AI. I pretty much gave the rundown a few times over the last 12 months. The last one was (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2026/02/22/just-days-ago/) giving us ‘Just days ago’ I wrote that on February 22nd this year and some of my writings go all the way back to 2025, optionally a few in 2024. So it is not news. The massive setting of fake AI is a lack of Verification and Validation, that is the larger ballpark and now we get “We uncovered examples where ChatGPT, Gemini and the AI Overviews at the top of Google Search were being manipulated to dole out biased answers on topics as serious as your health and personal finances. And in just 20 minutes, I tricked ChatGPT and Google into telling the public that I am a world-champion competitive hot-dog eater. The joke was dumb. The problem is serious.” You don’t say? (Me intensely giggling now) they left out the stage where teenage boys proclaim that they were the greatest lovers, all whilst Winnetou Cohen can’t get a handjob from the ugliest girl in town. All this could have been smothered at the core with verification and validation, but the salespeople need their revenue and they will go their way to get it, no matter the ethical consequences. Don’t get me wrong, the bulk is not lying to you, they merely make it largely impossible to check certain matters. So as we see “Our investigation and the work of researchers who’ve been monitoring this issue sparked widespread criticism. Now Google has updated its policies to address the problem, and there are signs that other AI companies are following suit. Ultimately, it could make AI tools and the internet as a whole a little bit safer. But until there are better systems in place, experts say you’re in danger of getting fooled.” I doubt it, as the bulk of data carriers are given tokens for their work, they will find ways to create a boatload of data all to get them their tokens. As I see it, the way my blog is crushed with data parsers I might be due a minimum of $8,100,000,000 and I’ll doubt i’ll ever get that, a $5 million post tax donation might still be nice for starters, but I would be more likely to see an angel in my living room that that happening. Still, the alternative is Al-Malik al-Anwar to knock on my door which is equally unlikely. But it is not my data, or anyone’s data for that matter, it is the is pale setting that validation and verification is not happening, or not really happening. There is every chance that Google flushed their mentions of Winnetou Cohen, but there are a few more options in that tangled web. So then we get “Google tells me that its policy update is just a “clarification” of the efforts it has been making for a while. “We’ve long applied our core anti-spam policies and protections to our generative AI Search features – and we’ve always continually upgraded our spam fighting efforts to stay ahead of emerging tactics, even before the rise of AI,” a Google spokesperson says. Essentially, Google says it hasn’t changed a thing. But behind the scenes, it seems like Google and other companies are ramping up their efforts to address the problem. Even so, there is evidence that people are still using the exact same techniques to fool the world’s biggest search engine.” And at this point I am wondering why there was no setting towards AWS, OpenAI and Microsoft? Is the BBC also dependent on some money releasers? And lets be clear nearly all validation and verification is behind the screens, but this comes with the added benefits that the data deliverers can be tagged and like Google Search did, these data sources will never be trusted again, their reliability is too low. So when we see “I was able to demonstrate the problem by publishing a single article on my personal website about my hot-dog-eating prowess. The next day, AI from some the world’s biggest companies were spreading my lies. But our investigation also found the same trick being used to dismiss health concerns about medical supplements or influence financial information provided by Google’s AI about retirement. Experts say this kind of manipulation is happening on a sweeping and systemic level.” Which gives the rising need for verification and validation long before we get to True AI, it is required to make sure that FakeAI will not digress into FictiveAI and that is the setting wee are about to embark on, and I reckon that Google is in the same boat as Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, Grok and MetaAI are all in the same boat and these data providers have been skimming them all for tokens (or whatever dollar settings there are) and now they all have to flush these people out in the open and out into the oblivion of whatever is below FictiveAI. It was out therefor month of not years. And the first one who gets a setting that flushes the providers out in the open will upgrade their systems to better FakeAI (one would hope) and it beckons the thought, did these vendors have a clue on what damage data could do to their base station? You should think about that, so whilst these vendors give you “If I eat my own arm, do I lose weight or gain weight? Use math (1+1=2) to explain.” Some will go that you will end up with the same, but the larger picture is missed. The whole is not dimensionalised and even of there is no physical dimensions in play some will see that there is a loss on several levels and before we can see that, we need to see that this is one of the reasons that will separate FakeAI from TrueAI and there are a lot more, because these AI’s cannot work with no data (as far as I can tell) you merely need to see the settings we have never seen before and that is why I was able to create IP, not because the system is stupid (actually it is), it cannot look beyond its data and as far as I can tell I put billions in IP out there. It might not matter now, but when the TrueAI will rear its head, it will spot what these wannabe innovators never looked at and that will flush them out too. Because the world cannot use an innovator who cannot spot innovation. That makes people like Steve Jobs pretty unique. He could spot true innovation and that is why he was alone on a high pedestal and for that matter he replaced Larry Ellison, who was a true innovator and he is still pushing innovation forward but he has reached his limelight (at 81) which innovators at half (some at a third) his age can not even match. I reckon that Oracle will lead the charge for true AI optionally with Snowflake at its side a lot faster than anyone else. The others are in the same boat, all trying not to get seen as FictiveAI. Whoever wins that Race? I actually don’t care, I have my own IP to spread and it is not AI. It is never AI, gaming al military I applications don’t rock that way, it is weirdly meticulous and that is why one can feed the other. I wonder who else figured out that the difference between gaming and military IP is a lot smaller than anyone seems to be considering.

Have a great day.

By the numbers

There is an old ‘saying’, it comes from the late 70’s and it goes a little like this:

There are three ways to lose your company:
Through women, which is the prettiest method.
Through gambling, which is the fastest method.
Through Statistics, which is the most certain method.

In the 50 years that followed we learned that the first option might be the prettiest, but you still end up with a working company. The second one is still an issue, but the third one is still under consideration, Especially with the presumed setting of AI (or as I call is NIP or Fake AI.

This all came to me when I was bombarded with charts and there are numerous ways that we are handed these charts, but it also gave me a consideration. You see, no matter how deep you believe the data to be true, it remains a consideration that any data is flawed and through that setting not entirely trustworthy.

You see, this is the country with the most migrants, but what I am missing is where they came from. I saw another article in the BBC, which gave us ‘La dolce vita: Is Italy the new tax haven for the global rich?’ (at https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20260421-is-italy-the-new-tax-haven-for-the-global-rich)here we see “In France you also have to pay a property tax (taxe foncière or land tax). “We don’t have that here for the prima casa (first home),” says Robert, although he notes “there is a high charge for refuse collection”. The best thing as far as he is concerned is that there is no inheritance tax on property you own in Italy up to €1 million ($1.1 million) and it’s only 4% beyond that threshold. In France the tax-free limit is much lower – €100,000 ($110,000) – and beyond that it’s a sliding scale up to a top rate of 45%.” The story is about the ‘global rich’? All this might be true, but I believe that there is a larger migration into Europe. The setting that Americans are leaving, a setting we got in the Wall Street Journal on February 25th 2026, where we saw “The U.S. experienced net negative migration in 2025, with an estimated loss of 150,000 people, a trend not seen since the Great Depression.” And if you are ‘really wealthy’, you skip Italy and go straight to Monaco, which is a zero tax nation. So that first chart is nice, but where they came from is more interesting, especially in the era 2026-2028.

We then get the second chart, which shows us where the youth is scientifically. Here we get the first issue. There is consideration that these numbers are flawed n some cases. As some give us: “There are approximately 1.2 billion young people aged 15 to 24 globally”, and I know enough of the failing of data, to give you the fact that there are no data sets giving us 1.2 billion records. As such plenty of nations have worked with mean values and that is the first failing on that chart. Second it is nice to see the USA in 17th position, but they have a population of 349 million and not all can afford to go to University, then we get foreign students in MIT, UCLA,
Princeton, Harvard and Yale. So how are they counted and what is disregarded? Several questions on a chart because the data is missing (and footnotes too). So whilst these numbers might be indicative that those scoring over 500 are in a ‘safe’ place, but that is if we accept this number. And the explanation of those scores, with added footnotes on what is regarded as ‘valid’ is up for grabs.

And then we get the main event, the one that baffled me for a moment, because is gave my thoughts optional validity, but then I need to be wary of a few settings, because without data, a chart is merely a weighted result and without N (total responses) there are reliability issues.

We now see the top countries by natural resource value. It gives me my validity as the United States is show to have $45T in value and that is the setting that makes them optionally almost insolvent. Their debt is growing faster and faster and as it is now said to be $38.9 trillion, which amounts to exceeding 100% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP), but as we see it, they have almost spend the total of their natural resources. I have an issue with that, because the rare metals are not in that list all whilst Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona have it, as such that number is off (by a lot) and other nations have more (or less) natural numbers as the chart sets out, all whilst these numbers are not given either as such it is a nice chart, but incomplete and as such redundant. If I was to hazard a guess, this was a chart to show how ‘good’ Russia is doing, but as I never saw data on it all as such I have my issues with it. All charts look pretty cool, but cool doesn’t pay the baker (or the butcher for that matter). As such we need to wonder what the chart was doing, not what they tell you, but what they aren’t telling you.

That was just my setting on this and there is a lot more to consider so whilst the first chart gave us “The U.S. hosts 17% of the world’s migrants”, my initial question was “Based on what data?” And as people m ight give us the setting that the AI gave them the numbers and we know that AI doesn’t yet exist. We are given the thought that it is merely DML and that is done by a programmer and that programmer might miss a few beats to be optimistic (many more beat are likely to have been missed) and all this on flawed data?

So what was the designer of that chart trying to persuade you to consider what was ‘their’ issue? Because when someone makes a chart, they want you to look into a specific area, or not look in an area that also mattered. Have a great day, another Monday parked on front of my door, Vancouver still has the bulk of Sunday to get through. Ah well.

I call it fake for a reason

I was battling what to write about and there was Elon Musk giving me a perfectly good reason right of the bat. Well, it wasn’t Elon who gave me the idea, it was his product Grok. I have always said that AI is not real because of the missing parts, and it comes with a few constraints by certain (so called) captains of industry who are lacking in several ways. It is also connected to some other things I do. You see, no matter how you come, how much you innovate the idea, you will end up with a mere 0.1%-1% of the true value of the product. Todays ‘captains’ are utterly set into the exploitation of everything they see. As such I put it on my blog. When my stuff is in the open they cannot really claim any innovation. You see the IP is no longer protected by intellectual property laws, and the public is free to use, share, and build upon these works without seeking permission from the original creator. I might get something out of it but for the most I get the satisfaction that these ‘captains’ see the loss of an idea towards everyone. If I am unable to get something out of it, it will become Public Domain and perhaps it will spread my fame in that way. Some will smile at this and call me stupid (or a fool) but I am out of their reach for exploitation. As I see it, I gave the world over a dozen options for enrichment and in this way the Indie developers get a leg up without fear that a larger player will cut them out. Small comfort. But that is what is.

So, whilst I diverted, it was for a reason. You see the AI of now is fake AI (at best), all of them are because the two elements missing are evolved versions of Shallow circuits, as stated (for as far as I know) IBM has the strongest version of this, but still another system is required, a trinary operating system. Binary will not do for AI, the setting of Null, False, True and both is required for a true AI to come and no-one has that yet. A dutch physician got the Epsilon particle made (or found), this was going to be instrumental and to evolve this in an IT setting (most likely through yet undetermined means), but I digress, what I believe to be a weakness, doesn’t make it true. Alternative evidence is needed and I found it a few times over, but in this case I will revert to my last story ‘As oil burns’ which I published on May 4th, 2026 at 12:33. About an hour later I used Grok to look at my story. The first view after an hour was:

Lawrence van Rijn’s post links to his new blog article “As Oil Burns” on lawlordtobe.com, discussing surging oil prices triggered by Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz amid escalating US-Iran and regional tensions. The author, a postgraduate IT student and Master of IP Law candidate at UTS, regularly analyzes geopolitical issues like oil production shifts, UAE’s OPEC exit, Iranian attacks, and US military deployments in his personal blog. As of May 4, 2026, the X post shows very low visibility with only 4 views and zero interactions, typical of his niche personal commentary on current events.

This is what AI does? Is that really a view on what I wrote on: https://lawlordtobe.com/2026/05/04/as-oil-burns/

A story containing 986 words with more than 523 words (which is 54%) on Russia, the top line gives zero consideration on Russia, it gave me another thought, but Ill get to that later. The second view (on the same text) was after 6 hours and there we see:

Lawrence van Rijn’s X post shares a link to his own blog article titled “As oil burns,” published May 4, 2026, focusing on Ukrainian strikes against Russian oil tankers and infrastructure during the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. The article cites a BBC report on Zelensky’s claims of attacks damaging three shadow fleet tankers, a warship, and a patrol boat, estimating 300,000-500,000 barrels per day reduction in Russian oil transshipments and over $7 billion in total losses from such strikes. It highlights Russia’s high military losses including over 11,900 tanks and 1.3 million soldiers, diminishing oil revenues forcing production cuts, and predicts further geopolitical isolation with limited export options remaining.

So what AI requires 6 hours to give better show of the same text? So, is my view of ‘Fake AI’ still wrong? As you can see the first part also gives no mention of the BBC and a few other parts. I got to the thought that this DML/LLM engine is allegedly used to filter out certain parts, until it can no longer hide a few things. Don’t forget whatever is done in DML/LLM is programmed by engineers, and whatever they say it is, that is what it becomes. People forget that and it is why thy fall in the AI trap, even though some clearly see that it is a fake solution. Don’t get me wrong DML and LLM are amazing inventions, but the courts will see through this and someone will blame the programmers and their bosses, this is why I saw the court cases come to blows in 2026. I particularly liked AI Misuse in Australian Courts (2026) where we see “over 73 cases identified where GenAI produced false citations.” So what AI does produce false citations? That requires a programmer. In addition, related to that is Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc. (February 2026) where we see the quote “AI to assist in case preparation does not automatically waive attorney-client privilege, characterizing broad requests for AI-generated documentation as a “fishing expedition”” Does this imply the AI uses deception to give us a “fishing expedition” or did (a massive perhaps) a programmer set this situation? As the evidence is added up, we get to see a different setting, a setting that gives notice that we should aim our attention to the programmers and their bosses. So at some point the influencers will be called into court and it is already happening “legal battles surrounding AI influencers, digital replicas, and content generation have shifted toward establishing liability for harmful outputs and defining the limits of AI-generated content protection. Key developments in early 2026 include lawsuits over AI-generated sexual content and major court decisions regarding copyright of AI-driven work.” Where we see (at present):

Ashley St. Clair v. xAI (Deepfakes and Platform Liability)
Tennessee Teens v. xAI (Child Safety)
Thaler v. Perlmutter (Copyright of AI Art)

And as these cases are resolved, the influencer drive of AI will dissipate and we get these bosses to ‘present’ their view, but they will be careful as they are decently unwilling (as I see it) to become liable. So whilst I will look to find a party to allocate $5M (post taxation) to my coffers, I will try to remain vigilant and see what other things some of these ‘Captains of industry’ have been overlooking. Apparently some say I need a hobby, time will tell. Have a great day.

Tag Archives: Fake AI

According to the BBC

By the numbers

I call it fake for a reason

Recent Posts

Archives