Archie wrote: ↑Fri Feb 27, 2026 2:02 am
In the original version of the OP, it said, "here's this argument I got from the AI, what do you guys think?" and gave a long quote from the AI. He edited/rewrote it several times before I approved it.
One should never rely solely on an argument generated by AI. AI systems reproduce patterns from the material they have been trained on, and without careful prompting they tend to repeat prevailing interpretations rather than critically evaluate them. Used uncritically, they can simply echo dominant narratives.
That said, AI can be extremely useful when used properly. It is particularly effective at locating primary sources when specifically asked to do so. For example, I recently used it to help locate Hitler’s 1939 “Euthanasia Decree” (often referred to as the “mercy killing” authorization), which was signed by Adolf Hitler and formed the basis for what later became known as Aktion T4. Even when particular programs were officially halted, the legal and administrative questions surrounding such authorizations remain important subjects of historical study.
When discussing controversial historical topics, AI systems may apply safeguards that limit certain lines of argument. This can create the impression that alternative interpretations are being blocked, even when one is attempting to focus on primary-source material. Different AI platforms apply different moderation frameworks.
Where AI truly excels is in computation. It can perform complex calculations in seconds that might otherwise take hours — for example, statistical procedures such as analysis of variance (ANOVA) and other quantitative analyses.
Finally, AI can be useful as an editorial tool. After completing your own writing, you can ask it to improve clarity, structure, and flow while preserving your content. It is still important to proofread carefully, as many systems default to American spelling conventions unless instructed otherwise.