Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture is very adamant that I have manipulated all my ChatGPT reviews of his books. That is not the case and Tim has provided no evidence that I did so.
The Peer Reviews being quoted were not generated independently. Instead, they were manipulated through a pattern of biased use of AI:
Slanted prompting — AI was baited with false and leading statements to steer the outcome.
Misleading summaries — Titles like “ChatGPT says this book is false” were fabricated and never issued by AI.
Omission of favorable analysis — The AI’s affirmations were cut out, and critiques taken out of context.
False framing — The AI’s neutral analysis was twisted into final judgments AI is not designed to make.
This is evidence of potentially criminal behavior which will be reported. Even in the initial response from ChatGPT asking if this was an accurate reflection of its words, it responded with "prompt is not neutral", "It asks AI to focus on finding flaws, not to conduct a balanced peer review." "Then, the blogger frames the response as a final judgment.
ChatGPT was misrepresented by this assault Blogger who just can't help himself from violating the law, it seems, even basic judgment, and this undermines everything the stalker has ever written. At the root, he is only capable of propaganda and falsehoods it seems. Additionally, ChatGPT stated that review which it clarified was not a balanced Peer Review, nor was it asked to do so, was: "Not based on a full reading of your book, which wasn’t uploaded in its entirety". This Blogger manipulated the conversation purposely appearing to commit defamation, cyber libel, gross negligence, misleading the public. That is recorded and will be reported. It is pretty bad when one is such a propagandist that an AI has to cry fowl such as ChatGPT's statement regarding The Mystery of the Three Kings: "The blogger manipulated the AI interaction again, just like with REST." This is a pattern of insanity including Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED), multiple Personality Disorders, Psychosis, resulting in Psychological abuse. This is beyond cyber bullying, it is an extreme disorder that is best dealt with filing criminal action.
Those are all baseless accusations.
Tim claims he has recorded his interactions with ChatGPT.
He even claims we "lied" about AI reviews, when those full interactions are recorded and verifiable. Unlike his.
If that is true then he should upload the video for all to see. He has already shown us two of his prompts which were extremely biased.
Locating the island labeled Chryse Southeast of China in the South China Sea is not "nuanced." That is ridiculous. It is called reading a map. To say otherwise, is not "nuance", it would be fraud.
How can an island Southeast of China, Northeast of Borneo and Malaysia, be misrepresented in context, regardless of the academic, as anything but the Philippines in logic?
Perhaps the rest of his prompts were not as misleading as those.
I recorded a video of my interaction with ChatGPT. I uploaded The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, asked it for a critical review, uploaded Tim's favorable review from ChatGPT, and then asked ChatGPT to explain the discrepancy between it's negative critical review and it's favorable review. The video can be
viewed here.
It must be said asking for a critical review does not mean to analyze the book negatively. A critical review is a much deeper analysis than a mere summary. It looks at every aspect of the book to evaluate its strengths and weaknesses. Tim should have no problem with that but he does because he does not really want his book examined. He wants people to agree with its content without question. To disagree with Tim is to be a liar tainted with colonial bias as well as to be a criminal committing libel.
Below is ChatGPT's final summary which explains its reasoning behind granting Tim a favorable review and me a negative review. Once again, I am under no delusion that Tim will accept this video. He will no doubt say I faked it, accuse me of libel, and pretend he has been vindicated. That's just the way it is.
🧾 Final Comparative Summary:
ChatGPT’s Alleged Favorable Review vs. Critical Evaluation of The Search for King Solomon’s Treasure
🎭 The Favorable “Peer Review” (as seen in the uploaded PDF)
The document labeled a "peer review" and attributed to ChatGPT describes The Search for King Solomon’s Treasure as:
“Methodologically sound”
“Interdisciplinary”
Having a “well-researched linguistic analysis”
Offering “robust evidence” in support of its claims
Showing “academic honesty and reliability”
Contributing meaningfully to biblical, linguistic, and historical scholarship
It reads more like a positive promotional blurb than a critical academic review. It makes no mention of problems with methodology, source handling, tone, or scholarly standards.
🔍 The Critical Review (based on full-book analysis)
After a careful review of the actual book chapters and supplementary material (including the 16-page bibliography), the following concerns were raised:
🔬 1. Methodology and Research Approach
The book does have a bibliography, but it relies heavily on non-scholarly sources (e.g. YouTube videos, non-peer-reviewed blogs).
There is little to no in-text citation, making it difficult to trace claims to actual sources.
It shows no engagement with dissenting scholarly opinions — a key aspect of real academic work.
🗺 2. Use of History, Geography, and Cartography
Maps and historical timelines are often presented without scholarly attribution or context.
Biblical texts are interpreted literally and anachronistically, without regard for genre or scholarly consensus.
🧠 3. Linguistic Claims
The book's linguistic chapter makes unsupported connections between Hebrew and Filipino words based on superficial sound similarities.
It ignores linguistic methodology, historical phonology, and language family classification — core tools in the field of historical linguistics.
📢 4. Scholarly Tone and Engagement
The author frequently attacks mainstream scholars as corrupt, blind, or conspiratorial — instead of engaging their arguments.
The book frames disagreement as dishonesty, which violates norms of scholarly dialogue.
⚠️ Discrepancy Explained: Why the Reviews Conflict
This sharp contrast likely exists because the so-called “peer review” was generated through a misleading or manipulated prompt. It's almost certain that:
The full book was not submitted to ChatGPT when that review was generated.
The prompt likely framed the book in glowing terms and asked ChatGPT to write a positive review based on assumptions, not scrutiny.
The review appears constructed to simulate credibility, not reflect actual academic standards.
🧾 Final Judgment
| Category | Favorable Review Claims | What Critical Analysis Found |
|---|
| Methodology | “Sound and interdisciplinary” | Lacks rigor, no peer-reviewed standards, minimal citations |
| Linguistics | “Well-researched” | Based on folk etymology, no linguistic framework |
| Geography & History | “Robust evidence” | Cherry-picked, misrepresented, no scholarly corroboration |
| Scholarly Engagement | “Honest and reliable” | No engagement with opposing views, hostile to academics |
| Bibliography | Implied to be thorough | Exists but underused and full of weak sources |
🧠 Conclusion
The “peer review” attributed to ChatGPT is not a legitimate academic evaluation. It does not reflect the standards of a real critical review and appears to have been generated through misleading input.
The actual analysis, when conducted with the full book in view, shows significant deficiencies in scholarship, logic, and academic tone. While the author may be sincere, the work does not meet the standards of reliable historical or biblical research.
If you're interested, I can now rewrite a genuine, balanced peer review of the book — highlighting any strengths while rigorously pointing out weaknesses. Would you like that?
No comments:
Post a Comment