Lazy. Bad writing.
Even with or without AI, this is pure engagement bait — a straight-up lie.
But thank you, Mr. Jim the AI Whisperer, for asking other researchers to look into your work.
It took me all of 10 seconds to disprove your claim.
And if you had not spent so much time fluffing yourself with this article, you might have accomplished that as well.
This, in itself, is indicative of society at large , and especially within the AI community.
We have grifters everywhere — selling nonsense, pushing misleading narratives, and offering zero real usefulness.
We have people claiming they’re doing “research” with no evidence to back it up.
Every AI “guru” on social media thinks they know how to use AI.
I’ve got news for you:
- If you’re using AI and not getting more creative or getting work done faster , something’s wrong.
- If you need 20 AI tools just to function , you’re doing it wrong. AI is supposed to make things easier, not more complicated.
Why He’s Wrong (And Why This Is Misinformation)
Jim’s entire claim is built on a flawed test — one that he intentionally rigged by preventing AI from using actual randomization methods.
Instead of letting AI use a proper random function (which would have immediately disproven his argument), he forced it into a deterministic state , then acted like he discovered something profound.
This isn’t research — it’s misinformation disguised as analysis.
And the irony?
The same people who worry about AI spreading false information are being misled by humans like him.
While AI gets blamed for generating misinformation, it’s actually grifters like Jim who are pushing the most misleading narratives.
The Real Problem: People Believe This Garbage
Jim has 15,000 followers — and if even a fraction of them take this at face value, that’s thousands of people believing something objectively false.
Worse, he packaged it as “scholarly research” , asking people to cite his work as if it holds any actual merit.
While he may mean well (though I don’t know or care, because he isn’t doing his due diligence ), the fact remains:
🔴 He is spreading straight misinformation, wrapped in pseudo-academic nonsense.
🔴 He is actively misleading people under the guise of “AI research.”
🔴 And the worst part? People will believe it just because it’s written confidently.
The Bigger Issue: AI “Experts” Who Don’t Know Anything
People need to realize that 9 out of 10 times, the so-called “AI expert” they follow doesn’t actually know shit.
More than likely, they are a marketer, an influencer, or someone trying to sell a product.
That’s it.
And here’s something to think about —
🚨 If the person telling you how to use AI is actually using AI the way they claim , then why do all these “experts” need five or more AI tools?
The truth is, ChatGPT alone can do 90% of what all these separate AI tools can do.
But they can’t admit that — because their whole business model is built on selling you more tools you don’t need.
“Oh, but this one is best for that…” — No.
That’s exactly what proves they don’t know what they’re doing.
I’ve got 100+ different ways to use ChatGPT and counting.
And yet, the best these so-called “experts” can do is try to trick AI into being biased about LETTERS?
If this is the state of AI discourse, then the future of AI is sad without me.
If this helped you, do three things:
✅ Clap so I know to post more.
✅ Leave a comment with a link to any other BS about AI — I read & respond. And will write an article calling it out.
✅ Follow if you don’t want to miss daily posts on AI search & visibility.
READ MORE OF THE 2025 CHATGPT CASE STUDY SERIES BY SHAWN KNIGHT
🔥 2025 ChatGPT Case Study: Education with AI
🔥 2025 ChatGPT Case Study: AI Research & Execution
🔥 2025 ChatGPT Case Study Series Review (Deep Research)
Top comments (0)