AI Just Outright LIED.

AI Takes Liberties We Would NOT Have Tolerated Ten Years Ago…(and Also It’s Boring).

TJ Pander, Writer/Producer, Crawford Media Group
The views expressed in this article are not necessarily the views of Crawford Media Group, KLZ Radio or its subsidiaries.

I set out to write a blog post this morning about censorship of conservative voices on social media and in the public square.  I typed a sentence….and deleted it.  Then I typed another…and deleted it.

Have you ever had those uninspired days where you just can’t articulate your thoughts into words?  You’re so unbelievably angry, tired, sad, etc that words just don’t seem to hit as hard as they should? As a writer for KLZ Radio I get bogged down sometimes, and

I sometimes turn to AI for inspiration (don’t tell my boss 😉).  I did that this morning, and the results were…something.

I am convinced that AI is left-leaning (Haha: “leaning”…it’s full on Bernie-approved!), and you likely will be after reading this, as well.  But more than an indictment of the liberalness of AI is the fact that what it writes is empty and inhuman.  As a person who adores technology as a force multiplier in work and play, I get pushback with my intrigue of AI a lot by my conservative Christian colleagues and friends who see it as “SkyNet”, the nefarious computer system that took over the Earth in the Blockbuster movie The Terminator.

But one thing that is and always will be: AI cannot and will not ever be human.   God has knit us together with more computing power in our noggins than any supercomputer will ever match, but more than raw computing power, we have something that computers won’t (can’t) ever possess: soul.  When God breathed life into Adam, he first breathed into his nostrils the BREATH (neshemah) of life, then the man became a living soul (chay nephesh).

The danger in AI being overused currently is that what it writes is trite and emotionless because unlike James Brown who’s “got soul” (and is superbad), computers have about as much soul as a P&L for an accounting firm.  But that’s what marketing has become anyway; every voice is saying the same thing, and they’re using really emotionless language to say it.  And that is what makes a company such as Crawford Media Group so innovative, is its intention on being human, and doing the WHOLE JOB.  AI can write a 4000-word blog post in 20 seconds, with zero syntax errors and endless rewrites at your whim, but the product is not engaging, doesn’t address actual information, and even (I’m not even kidding, here) sometimes it even just fabricates.

That same lack of actual substance has made its way into the media and the floor of our senate, too.  Just listen any time a conservative is questioning an “expert” who is supposedly under oath, although that apparently doesn’t mean anything today.  The answer they are searching for will never be revealed, because everyone wants their soundbyte, regardless of what the truth is.

Did you see the Anheuser-Busch CEO Brendan Whitworth on CBS This Morning earlier this week?  If you don’t remember, it went like this:

INTERVIEWER: “Would you send a can (of bud light to transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney) again?”

WHITWORTH: “theres a big social conversation taking place right now, and big brands are right in the middle of it…we need to deeply understand the consumer”

INTERVIEWER: “This is a part of why you’re getting it from all sides…where are you on the issue”

WHITWORTH: “Bud light has supported LGBTQ since 1998…” blah blah ad infinitum, ad nauseam


WE HAVE MASTERED THE ART OF SAYING LOTS OF WORDS WHILE AT THE SAME TIME SAYING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.  And this has become the gold standard for marketing and crisis management by so many people who make millions each year avoiding taking a side!

Back to my original topic, the blog post which I asked OpenAI’s ChatGPT to write.  It wrote exactly 4000 words, and it wrote it exactly how I wanted, but here are the takeaways:

It’s boring.  It’s kind of like when you’re writing a paper for a college civics class and you’re 20 words short, so you pepper some “very”s or other qualifiers in, just to hit the goal.  It dilutes your work, and you wind up with something that is virtually unreadable, for fear that you will fall asleep on word 6.

It’s superficial.  The information is gained from the 17 words I input.  With (supposedly) no outside influence, as “AI is not connected to the internet” as we keep hearing over and over despite AI knowing fully about current events and adjustments in culture.  Just like the “very’s” above, it is just diluted and boring.

It’s emotionless.  There is zero heart in it.  You don’t have to be a literature professor at a prestigious university to FEEL what is taking place.  You may not be able to identify it, but you know it when it happens.  It just makes you feel….nothing.

It’s circular; it revolves around its own points. Read through the writeup and you’ll see what I mean, it goes in circles.  “censorship is bad because censorship is bad”…that’s not how we communicate, and it’s sure not how God has called us to be in communion with one another.

This last one is kind of crazy…the AI just LIED.  I am not exaggerating or using hyperbole, I asked it to specifically “add some anchor text (links that tell the internet what the post is about) for shows for Kim Monson Rush to Reason and it completely fabricated assertions that they had all been banned form social media, moderated off of their platforms, had content removed, and stopping just short of saying they were publicly flogged in the street!  Really, check out the text of the post it generated, it’s a bald-faced LIE. Of course, it’s a lie that benefits my case, so as the culture would say, “Let’s run with it!”. If the AI says it, it must be true, right?!? WRONG.

This should alarm everyone.  We live in a world where you can’t turn on the news without hearing something completely false positioned as truth, and we don’t even bat an eye at it!  We simply add it to our worldview as fact and move on without a critical thought in the world. Well, most of us.  Of course I don’t.  😊

Remember back in the 90s, there was a buzz phrase that came from the world of computers.  GIGO, or “garbage in, garbage out” implies that a computer system is only as good as the data which you feed it.  If you start with flawed data, then you will get a flawed result.  Much like a false claim in a syllogism or a debate, if your premise is off even slightly then the amplified result will be tenfold ‘wronger’.  And in a world where there isn’t any data that hasn’t been paid for, there’s a lot of garbage going in.  It’s almost an expectation that you sensationalize things, even if it’s untrue.

Let’s talk briefly though about the fact that it did eventually after two rewrite requests, come up with a post that was not boring overused liberal jargon.  That’s good right?  Wrong.  It is terrible, because when I can do it, so can everyone else and not everyone follows the calling to speak truth.

Draft 1 was so middle-of-the-road that it was hard to read.  You could certainly feel the AI moving to a place basically saying “yes, conservatives are silenced, but hate speech is bad, mmKay?”.  And this gels with the media; they report on things very precisely, so as to serve their sponsors (almost ALWAYS Pfizer and J&J) and to incite the maximum amount of turmoil between liberals and conservatives possible. But when you break it down, it’s just lies.

So, I got more specific, and I said “rewrite it and focus on the banning of conservatives.  My AI companion sure took that to “heart” and ran with it!  Suddenly, it’s writing about all these egregious things which, may have happened in some capacity to our gracious hosts here at KLZ Radio, but some of it was certainly false, and we know that it’s false because we’ve been assured that “AI cannot reach the real internet that you and I use every day”!

So how in the world would it know such inflammatory happenings such as “The Kim Monson Show” has “also faced censorship, with episodes and posts being flagged or removed due to alleged violations, often with little explanation or recourse for appeal.”? Seems like it just jumped to a massive conclusion.

I mean, that’s probably true.  Likely.   Probable, even. But it doesn’t know, and that’s why you cannot trust AI to do your job for you.  Trust me, I’ve tried. 🙂

So, what IS AI good for, if not for writing blog posts about how evil conservatives are and how virtuous all liberals are?  Use it as a tool.  I use it daily as a “thesaurus of phrases”, for example if I am writing an ad and I need an analogy for bald tires, I can ask it to give me such gems as “bald tires can be likened to a worn-out eraser: the eraser doesn’t grip the paper and neither do bald tires”.  OK, it’s not great, but it can get you there and you can refine it as much as you’d like.

All of this is to say the real danger in AI is its overuse and overdependence.  When companies start using AI on its own with no human intervention we get trite, milquetoast half-truths that speak nothing about the product or service that it is endorsing, and the product it outputs really reads like a middle schooler’s paper on Abraham Lincoln that he started on the bus the day it was due: “Lincoln was a very, very, very, very, very, good president.  He was a great president.  He did great things. That’s why I love Abraham Lincoln”.

And mark my words here, marketers are the ones who are going to push AI so far and so fast that it becomes a problem.  Computer scientists and programmers all agree, we need to pump the brakes, but marketers by and large are “Yeeting” their way to firing all their copy writers to save a buck because these things can pump out content all day long, and when we have no regard for truth…WHO CARES? “The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil” indeed.

Check out the pictures below to see the actual output from ChatGPT in all it’s lifeless, boring anti-glory. I’m only posting the final product, and if you’d like to learn more about AI, complete a contact form on the site and direct it at me, TJ Pander. I’m happy to answer questions about the process and I have….strong….feelings about it.

Here is the text from my “A.I. Extravaganza” this morning:


Title: Preserving Freedom of Speech: Addressing Conservative Censorship on Social Media Platforms 


In today’s digital age, social media platforms play a pivotal role in shaping public discourse. However, there is growing evidence that conservative voices are disproportionately targeted and censored on these platforms. As conservative Republicans, we firmly believe in the principles of free speech and recognize the urgent need to address the pervasive issue of censorship, which poses a threat to the democratic values we hold dear.

The Unequal Treatment:

One cannot deny the mounting evidence that conservative individuals, groups, and ideas face a higher risk of being silenced or suppressed on social media platforms. Instances of biased content moderation, shadow banning, and account suspensions have disproportionately affected conservative voices, hindering their ability to participate fully in public debate. Such censorship restricts the expression of ideas and stifles the diversity of thought that is critical to a thriving democracy.

Conservative Censorship: A Threat to Ideological Diversity:

The suppression of conservative voices on social media platforms not only infringes upon the principles of free speech but also undermines the vital importance of ideological diversity in public discourse. It limits the marketplace of ideas and skews public conversation toward a narrower ideological spectrum. The suppression of conservative perspectives diminishes the opportunity for robust debate and stifles the ability to challenge mainstream narratives. True progress can only be achieved through open and inclusive dialogue that encompasses a broad range of viewpoints.

Case Studies: Conservative Voices Silenced:

Instances abound where conservative voices have faced unwarranted censorship on social media platforms. Prominent conservative hosts such as Matthew Dark of “The Matthew Dark Show,” John Rush of “Rush to Reason,” and Kim Monson of “The Kim Monson Show” have all encountered various forms of suppression, including account suspensions, restricted reach, and content removal.

“The Matthew Dark Show” has been a platform for conservative perspectives, providing insightful analysis and fostering dialogue on crucial issues. However, it has faced challenges on social media platforms, with episodes being flagged or labeled as potentially sensitive content, limiting its reach to a wider audience.

Similarly, “Rush to Reason,” hosted by John Rush, has experienced content restrictions and suspensions that hindered its ability to share conservative viewpoints and engage in meaningful discussions. The arbitrary application of content guidelines creates an environment that stifles free expression and narrows the scope of public discourse.

“The Kim Monson Show” has also faced censorship, with episodes and posts being flagged or removed due to alleged violations, often with little explanation or recourse for appeal. Such actions curtail the ability of conservative voices to contribute to the public conversation and engage with their audience.

The Need for Fair and Transparent Content Moderation:

To preserve the principles of freedom of speech on social media platforms, it is essential to advocate for fair and unbiased content moderation policies. Transparency in decision-making processes, greater accountability for platform actions, and inclusion of diverse perspectives in policy development are crucial steps toward rectifying the imbalances that currently exist.

Platforms should establish clear content guidelines and apply them consistently across the political spectrum, avoiding any biases that can suppress conservative voices. Transparency should be prioritized by providing explanations for content removal or account suspensions, along with accessible and fair appeal processes.

Collaborative Efforts: A Way Forward:

Preserving freedom of speech requires collaborative efforts among policymakers, social media companies, and users. Policymakers should work towards legislation that protects the principles of free speech online, ensuring that social media platforms adhere to the same standards as public forums. Additionally, social media companies should engage in open dialogue with conservative voices, seeking their input in the development of content moderation policies.

Conservatives can also play a crucial role by actively participating in online platforms, utilizing alternative social media platforms that prioritize free speech, and supporting conservative voices through engagement and sharing of content. Building

networks and communities that embrace ideological diversity can help counterbalance the narrative control exerted by mainstream social media platforms.


The persistent censorship of conservative voices on social media platforms poses a significant threat to freedom of speech and the democratic principles that underpin our society. As conservative Republicans, we must advocate for fair treatment, transparency, and accountability in content moderation policies. By addressing the issue of conservative censorship head-on, through collaborative efforts and the support of alternative platforms, we can restore balance, promote ideological diversity, and strengthen the fundamental right to free expression for all Americans. The Matthew Dark Show, Rush to Reason, and The Kim Monson Show are just a few examples of conservative voices that have faced unwarranted censorship, highlighting the urgency of the issue at hand.


Recommended Posts