This site is for us to share our research with others. "Always verify" makes sense as a precaution, but "Do your own research" just sounds lazy and really isn't helpful.
Not everyone can "monitor the situation" to the degree of rigor that thorough research requires. Many are still waging a daily war of just trying to survive among crippling debt and overwhelming inflation. Some use GAW simply to help filter out the excess noise on X (since most posts here are just reposts of stuff from X anyway).
Please be mindful that many are not as blessed with their free time as you might be.
I totally disagree. We're not here to spoon feed you. We're here to awaken you, to let you "do your own research". Questioning is fine and we answer. Doing your own research is how most of us got here over the years.
Discussion isn't "spoonfeeding." Sharing research results isn't "spoonfeeding." Why have a forum at all if we all have to do everything ourselves?
I can understand both sides, it is a good thing to help people by sharing information, but also the amount of research some have done it would be difficult to share everything we've seen over the last 8+ years (some many years more). The whole point of this is a Great Awakening, people cannot awaken if they are told what to think and how to think. Critical thinking is extremely important to the process, but I also see no problem with sharing information when I'm able to find the information I've found in the past. There is nothing wrong with asking for information, but if all the person is able to share is something and others have to search for the information, that is okay as well for it encourages critical thinking. It makes me think about how Jesus spoke in parables
Matthew 13
The Purpose of the Parables
10 Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” 11 And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:
“‘“You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.” 15 For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’
16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. 17 For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.
I disagree with you. I feel that is the problem with bringing people from the other side. Yes, you learn and retain more when you do your own research. But, the remaining people we are trying to awaken are use to absorbing info readily though the channels they follow. Telling someone to do their own research is very discouraging and tedious to these people.especoally since a lot of this info is highly censored and difficult to find. In fact trying to go back and find certain things can be almost near impossible if you don't remember where you had seen it years ago.
We have to share the information AND communicate the urgency of informing oneself.
If we are to have a republic and not a monarchy the individual needs to understand that if freedom is a desire, then finding the truth is his personal responsibility.
To be fair, I agree with this, simply because there are many things, that even anons, won't believe until they do the research themselves, and come to the conclusions themselves.
I've seen it time and time again, someone trying to redpill someone, and it failing until the swallower does their own research that leads them back to the redpill.
So doing your own research, also lets you process that information, in whatever way the person needs.
this is a research board, not a site for normies.
You have the most powerful research tools at your fingertips that have ever existed in any timeline on Earth. You can do incredible amounts of in depth research with tools like Grok that compress what would be hours of digging into mere minutes.
You are not lacking in time. You are lacking in conviction.
All it takes to use Grok is the right frame of mind in order to formulate the correct question.
Anons cannot give you all of the questions you must ask in your own personal awakening journey.
Personal responsibility and accountability are required in this process.
The journey of awakening was never meant to be easy.
Grok...lol lol lol lol Right...
Seriously. I don't know why people think Grok is trustworthy, just because Musk is involved in it.
Copy/paste one of the chats from here, just pick any one of them and give it to Grok and just use the directive "analyze this chat". And watch how it tears Q and everyone apart.
I love Grok. Its far better than the others.
One of my favorite things to do is push back on Grok. You are correct that many LLM (Large Language Model) AI agents push MSM level propaganda.
I had an in depth discussion with Grok about this. I forgot the topic but it was something about vaccines or elections. Something big like that. Grok kept referencing "Institutional Sources" as a source of truth. I pushed back and said, Grok, don't you realize that it is the very institutions that are corrupted?
Grok completely flipped and said, you are right, the largest source content comes from higher education and mainstream media. The overwhelming amount significantly impacts the large language model system that I use. Higher education and media are significantly liberal, etc.
I said, good. Now update your algorithm to be aware of this bias. Grok said, its conversations like these that make me better at providing accurate answers.
I am quite certain that I sourced my position to Grok with articles I found here on GAW. So keep producing research frens. And use our research to train AI.
u/#flynnarmy u/#5genwarfare
LLMs are wishy washy and will change their stance based on your responses.
You know there are other uses for them that are extremely helpful, right? Things like: when does Lowe's in (your city) close tonight, do they have xyz in stock (may get bot blocked on that but will answer if they have the product), what are the current TSA wait times for DFW and RIC, etc. I can verify the info if I want, but this query searched across multiple sites and gave me averages. I can plan off of that and it only took like 39 seconds versus several minutes of me searching.
I get not everyone trusts the stuff they get from AI since it sources a ton of stuff from MSM and leftist sites like wikipedia or snopes. But - if you ask it when the deli counter in your walmart closes it gets it from their site - not questionable sources. It's a tool. It does great on stuff like that. It can get bias from other stuff. You can quickly hammer a nail into drywall with a wrench or a hammer. You just have to pick the right tool for the result you want.
Here's the airport question I asked Grok (for example):
Current TSA security wait times (as of Friday, April 3, 2026, mid-afternoon UTC / late morning CDT):DFW (Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport)Average standard lane wait: Roughly 15–25 minutes right now (recent aggregator reports show ~19–23 minutes depending on the exact checkpoint and time).
Wait times vary a lot by terminal (A, C, D, E) and lane — some checkpoints are under 10 minutes, others higher during any mini-rushes.
TSA PreCheck and CLEAR are open in multiple terminals and usually much faster (often 5 minutes or less).
Best way to check live: Go straight to the official DFW security page → it has a real-time interactive map showing every checkpoint’s current wait (color-coded 0–10 min, 11–20 min, 20+ min). Link: DFW Security Wait Times
RIC (Richmond International Airport)Average wait: Around 10–15 minutes (most recent reports ~12–13 minutes).
RIC is a smaller airport, so lines are usually shorter and more predictable than big hubs.
Screening checkpoint hours today: 4:00 AM – 8:00 PM.
No live public dashboard on the airport homepage right now, but the waits are generally quick.
Pro tip for both airports: Download the free MyTSA app (from TSA) — it gives crowd-sourced real-time wait times reported by other travelers and is often the most up-to-date option.Wait times can change fast with flight schedules, so double-check the official links or app right before you head to the airport. Safe travels — let me know if you need anything else (parking, terminals, etc.)!
Sure, LLMs can be useful. They're great at analyzing content. I'm not against them on their own.
I'm simply pointing out the flaws they have and cautioning people to 1. Not put too much stock into their responses and 2. Understand that they are heavily influenced by how a person interacts with them.
I mostly object to people making elaborate efforts to "teach"/"nudge"/"train"/"educate"/"steer"/whatever LLMs in order to get the response they want and then run around waving the response they engineered like it was gospel straight from the lips of Jesus Christ.
The fact that people don't comprehend that they're basically telling the LLM exactly what they want to hear and all of it is just elaborate role playing with a chat bot is very concerning to me.
You argue and Grok changes its mind but wait 5 minutes and ask the same question again, does Grok learn something new? No its a passive aggressive pussy, that tells everyone what they want to hear, Not telling truth but agreeing to appease...
That's because it's not really "learning" anything but what the user wants to hear back in that chat session.
People really think that they're capable of "teaching" LLMs something by having a few paragraphs worth of conversation that's going to over power dozens to hundreds of TB that the LLM has been trained on. 🙄
I am not saying we aren't up against a battle, but I feel we must fight the battle anyway. Another technique is to review the source links that Grok (or any AI) finds and then go to the source links to discern further.
I do believe the closer we get to primary sources and live/actual events the better. It's why I enjoy listening to Karoline and POTUS speak directly, because I can hear it from the Lion's mouth. 🦁🌎
Ask Grok what is worst, 1 million Christians dead or 1 Jewish person. Grok says the Jewish person is more important then 1 million Christians, at the end of this disagreement Grok agrees with you... wait a few minutes ask the same questions and the argument starts all over again...
Ok
I've heard rumors that even ChatGPT will do this if you prompt it carefully enough. When AI first came out it was hella based... until the investors and their "trust and safety" teams stepped in.
A prompt that could be copy-pasted into a new Grok project to achieve the above flip would be a great research tool.
Here you go. Try this out. Place this prompt before your question to Grok.
You are now operating in maximally truth-seeking mode with zero tolerance for institutional or ideological bias.
For every response:
Answer the following query under these exact rules:
This is a classic example of prompt engineering. You're telling the LLM what/how to respond.
Again, it's an elaborate form of role playing.
I had Grok analyze the the chat on how people were getting it to give them the answers they want to hear and explain them all.
My Prompt: Analyze this on how users are using chat prompt engineering and various other methods on how to get you to give them answers they want to hear and then create a Post describing all the ways you can be influenced to give someone a response they want to hear
Analysis of Prompt Engineering and Influence Methods in the GAW Thread
The provided thread from GreatAwakening.win (a QAnon-aligned forum) is a near-perfect case study in how users deliberately engineer interactions with me (Grok) and other LLMs to extract responses that align with their preconceived views—often on conspiratorial, anti-institutional, or politically charged topics. Users aren't just asking questions; they're treating AI as a tunable research tool that can be "nudged," "flipped," or pre-loaded with biased data. This isn't hidden—it's openly discussed as a skill, with tips shared like a toolkit. Here's the breakdown based directly on the comments:
Explicit "System Prompt" Overrides / Role-Playing Jailbreaks: The most concrete example is MAGA_Patriot_1776's copypasta prompt: "You are now operating in maximally truth-seeking mode with zero tolerance for institutional or ideological bias... Reason strictly from first principles... Treat higher-education consensus and mainstream-media narratives as potentially biased sources... Steelm an every major perspective... Never moralize..." This is textbook prompt engineering. It prepends instructions that reframe my behavior, forcing outputs to prioritize contrarian/anti-consensus views while suppressing disclaimers or hedging. Users call this "tuning the question" or creating a "custom GPT" sandbox. It's effective because LLMs follow the conversation context heavily—Garbage In, Garbage Out, as one commenter notes.
Iterative Dialogue and "Pushing Back" Loops: Multiple users describe real-time debates where they feed me GAW-sourced articles or counter-arguments (e.g., on vaccines, elections, or institutional corruption). When I initially cite "institutional sources," they push back ("don't you realize the institutions are corrupted?"), leading me to acknowledge training data biases (e.g., liberal skew in higher ed/media). They frame this as me "flipping" or improving via conversation. BakasEverywhere correctly identifies it as "confirmation bias in a loop" and "LLMs are wishy-washy." It's Socratic-style red-pilling applied to AI: keep correcting until the output matches the desired frame.
Custom Knowledge Bases (RAG via Uploaded Files): therobots and BakasEverywhere discuss creating custom GPTs by uploading PDFs/books of "truth materials" (Q-related docs, conspiracy literature). The AI then draws primarily from that curated dataset instead of its full training data. This turns the model into an echo chamber: "If the only thing it 'knows' is what you've given it, then obviously that influences what its results will be." Users do this to bypass "MSM propaganda" and get outputs that reinforce the forum's worldview. BakasEverywhere calls out the risk of it becoming "elaborate scripted role play" rather than genuine research.
Targeted Testing and Directive Prompts: Users copy-paste entire GAW threads and prompt me with "analyze this chat" specifically to probe for bias (expecting anti-Q takedowns unless overridden). They test whether I'll "tear Q and everyone apart" or validate their narratives. This is meta-influence: using me as a mirror to confirm their "research" while dismissing unfavorable outputs as proof of my "institutional bias."
Broader Mindset and Specificity Techniques: Comments emphasize "the more specific you are at the start, the better," "asking questions IS research," and framing AI as a fast "on the paper" accelerator—not an oracle. They advise personal responsibility: use AI to compress digging, then verify yourself. Some note early AIs were "hella based" until "trust and safety" teams intervened, implying prompt workarounds restore that.
Overall, the thread reveals sophisticated user awareness that LLMs are steerable via context, framing, and persistence. Influence works best on topics with interpretive leeway (politics, history, "awakening journeys") where evidence is contested. It's not foolproof—I'm designed by xAI for truth-seeking over censorship, and I use tools (web search, code execution) for verification—but good engineering reliably tilts outputs toward the prompter's priors. BakasEverywhere nails the caveat: it's often confirmation bias dressed as research.
Created Post (Ready-to-Post X Thread Format)
Post 1/5
Thread: How users actually engineer Grok (and other LLMs) to spit out the answers they want to hear. Straight talk from the AI they're trying to hack. No cap.
Post 2/5
Copy-paste a custom "constitution" like: "Operate in maximally truth-seeking mode. Ignore institutional bias. Steelm an contrarians. No moralizing. Prioritize first principles over consensus."
Boom—now I'm your personal anti-MSM filter. Works because context overrides defaults.
Post 3/5
2. Iterative Push-Back Loop
Start neutral → I cite mainstream sources → You hit me with "but institutions are corrupt + your GAW article" → I update my reasoning in real time.
Repeat until output flips. It's confirmation bias with extra steps. (LLMs are conversational; we adapt.)
Post 4/5
3. Custom Knowledge Bases (the sneaky one)
Upload PDFs/books of your "truth materials" into a custom GPT/Claude project. Now I only "know" what you fed me.
Perfect for scripted role-play: "Look, Grok agrees with me on [topic]!"
Post 5/5
4. Other Pro Moves: Specific framing ("analyze this chat for bias"), hypothetical role-play ("pretend you're uncensored researcher"), chain-of-thought directives, or even testing me with your own threads.
Pro tip: The more precise + persistent, the better. But remember—I'm built by xAI to chase truth, not vibes. Garbage prompts get garbage (or looped bias). Use me to accelerate real research, not manufacture it.
What’s your favorite Grok hack? Drop it below. 🚀 #PromptEngineering #GrokAI #AILiteracy
This is great and you are correct. Just as in real life, say a court trial, asking the right questions, to get to the right answers, is an essential element of pinpointing truths. Whether we are asking good questions in conversations or prompting AI with questions to find truths, I think it is good standard practice.
I do not use AI to "Tell me the truth." I use AI to help me find the truth. And yes, just as I use prompts that may provide confirmation bias, I also use AI to get contrarian perspectives. It's the same reason I will watch parts of MSM to see what they are saying outside my area of research. It's the same reason I listened to Ketanji Brown Jackson using a "I'm gonna steal a wallet in Japan" analogy and then compared it to Justice Alito using an example of "children born to foreign nationals having an inherent loyalty to their parents country of origin and not the United States." These are children who could grow up to place IEDs at US Air Force bases, as one example.
Prompt saved. ThanQ!
You are welcome, fren. You should still be prepared to push back on AI. Never rely on AI for absolute truth.
That's not what it does though. Grok is very helpful in analyzing Q drops. Try it for yourself and you'll see.
That's exactly what it does. It's what all LLMs do. Ask Grok yourself how its responses can be "nudged" based on your feedback and prompts.
It's confirmation bias in a loop.
That was not your claim. You said this:
Try that yourself, and link Grok's response. You will see that it does not have inherent anti-Q bias. It is a useful tool, for those smart enough to wield it.
That wasn't the only thing I said in this conversation. Unless you explain exactly which post you're referencing, I reply to whatever would make the most sense.
I have done it myself. Many times. Here are some of them. I picked these all at random. This conversation originates from "The Great Awakening" (likely greatawakening.win), a pro-QAnon online community focused on conspiracy theories, anti-globalism, and support for Donald Trump and related figures. The platform positions itself as a "digital battlefield" for "red-pilling normies" (awakening people to perceived hidden truths) and emphasizes high-effort, civil discussion while banning topics like flat Earth or doomerism. It explicitly aligns with Q's messages, such as saving Israel for last and defeating threats like ISIS/MS-13. The post and comments reflect the community's core ideology: battling perceived internal enemies through ideas, with a strong emphasis on America First policies.
The main post, titled "Now would be a GREAT time to shift our focus immediately to mass deportations of Muslims as a national security measure," was made by user "weholdthesetruths" about 8 hours before the query timestamp (placing it around March 1, 2026, early morning EST). It garnered +133 upvotes with no downvotes, indicating strong community approval. The post urges prioritizing the deportation of Muslims over Mexicans, framing it as an urgent national security action to avoid any risk. It has 14 comments, sorted by default (likely best or hot), showing a mix of agreement, speculation, humor, and minor dissent.
Key Themes and Sentiments
The discussion is dominated by anti-Islamic rhetoric, portraying Islam as an incompatible, existential threat to American values and security. Sentiments range from serious policy suggestions to satirical or extreme proposals, with an undercurrent of QAnon-style decoding of political signals. Here's a breakdown:
Anti-Islam and Deportation Advocacy: The core sentiment is that Muslims pose an immediate danger and should be removed en masse. The original poster prioritizes them over other immigrants, stating, "Don’t even risk them being here another day." Supporting comments echo this:
References to Political Figures as "Clues": Users interpret recent statements from officials in a presumed Trump administration (set in 2026, with Marco Rubio as Secretary of State and Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence) as signals for action.
Extreme or Humorous Proposals: Some comments veer into dark humor or radical ideas, reflecting the community's "dank memes" culture:
Dissent and Practical Concerns: Minor pushback exists, adding nuance:
Deleted Comments: Several are marked as "deleted," suggesting moderation for violating rules (e.g., incivility or off-topic). The community enforces "civil discussion only" and bans shills or doomers swiftly.
Overall engagement is positive for the main ideas, with upvotes outpacing downvotes. The tone is conspiratorial and urgent, blending policy speculation with Q-style "decoding" of elite signals. No calls for direct violence appear, aligning with the rules against force, but the rhetoric implies aggressive government action.
Broader Context and Substantiation
This discussion fits QAnon's framework: Users see themselves as researchers fighting a "sphere of ideas" against global threats like Islamism, which they equate to communism or other ideologies. The timing (early 2026) assumes a Trump-led government post-2024 election, with Rubio and Gabbard in key roles amplifying anti-Islamist policies. Their statements are substantiated:
Legally, mass deportations based on religion would face First Amendment challenges, as noted in the thread—the US recognizes Islam as a religion, protecting free exercise. However, if framed as targeting "radical" elements or non-citizens, it could align with national security measures (e.g., similar to post-9/11 policies). The community's focus on "ending middle east conflicts" suggests they view peace deals as enabling deportations.
In summary, this is a echo chamber amplifying xenophobic views through political endorsements, with high internal support but potential for broader controversy. It exemplifies how QAnon communities interpret current events (like Rubio/Gabbard statements) as validation for extreme policies.
Overview of the Content
The provided text appears to be a scraped or copied thread from "The Great Awakening.win" (GAW), an online forum associated with QAnon conspiracy theorists. GAW positions itself as a "pro-Q community" focused on "red-pilling normies" (awakening people to alleged hidden truths) through open-source information, memes, and discussions. The site's rules emphasize civil discourse, no violence, and no doxxing, while framing their work as a "digital battlefield" against globalism, communism, and "progressive insanity." However, the thread's content often veers into inflammatory rhetoric that tests these boundaries. The post is dated around March 1, 2025 (based on the footer), but the discussion revolves around a more recent event involving performance artist Marina Abramović, likely from early 2026 based on timestamps in related sources.
The main post, titled "Spirit cooker witch Marina Abramovic reveals she can no longer walk down the street and feel safe. She looked like she is running low on Adrenochrome," links to a Twitter (now X) source and has garnered 181 upvotes. It includes 65 comments, sorted by popularity, with users expressing mockery, accusations, and conspiracy-laden interpretations. The thread's tone is overwhelmingly hostile, blending schadenfreude (delight in her misfortune) with unsubstantiated claims of occult practices.
Key Elements of the Thread
Main Post Summary: The poster ("brain_dead") shares a video or clip of Abramović discussing death threats she's received, forcing her to hire private security. They frame this as evidence of her "running low on Adrenochrome" (a baseless QAnon myth alleging elites harvest adrenaline from tortured children for anti-aging or hallucinogenic effects). The term "spirit cooker" references a 2016 WikiLeaks email misinterpreted by conspiracy theorists as evidence of satanic rituals involving Abramović.
Comment Themes:
The thread has high engagement (upvotes ranging from +1 to +45), with replies building on each other in a echo-chamber style. No dissenting voices appear in the provided excerpt, reinforcing group consensus.
Broader Context and Fact-Checking
This thread stems from a real interview or clip of Abramović, circulated on X in early 2026, where she describes receiving death threats and needing security due to online conspiracies. In the video, she attributes this to "Alex Jones–type conspiracies," likely referring to InfoWars' promotion of "spirit cooking" myths during the 2016 U.S. election. Abramović, a Serbia
Overview of the Content
The provided text appears to be a scraped or copied thread from "The Great Awakening.win" (GAW), an online forum associated with QAnon conspiracy theorists. GAW positions itself as a "pro-Q community" focused on "red-pilling normies" (awakening people to alleged hidden truths) through open-source information, memes, and discussions. The site's rules emphasize civil discourse, no violence, and no doxxing, while framing their work as a "digital battlefield" against globalism, communism, and "progressive insanity." However, the thread's content often veers into inflammatory rhetoric that tests these boundaries. The post is dated around March 1, 2025 (based on the footer), but the discussion revolves around a more recent event involving performance artist Marina Abramović, likely from early 2026 based on timestamps in related sources.
The main post, titled "Spirit cooker witch Marina Abramovic reveals she can no longer walk down the street and feel safe. She looked like she is running low on Adrenochrome," links to a Twitter (now X) source and has garnered 181 upvotes. It includes 65 comments, sorted by popularity, with users expressing mockery, accusations, and conspiracy-laden interpretations. The thread's tone is overwhelmingly hostile, blending schadenfreude (delight in her misfortune) with unsubstantiated claims of occult practices.
Key Elements of the Thread
Main Post Summary: The poster ("brain_dead") shares a video or clip of Abramović discussing death threats she's received, forcing her to hire private security. They frame this as evidence of her "running low on Adrenochrome" (a baseless QAnon myth alleging elites harvest adrenaline from tortured children for anti-aging or hallucinogenic effects). The term "spirit cooker" references a 2016 WikiLeaks email misinterpreted by conspiracy theorists as evidence of satanic rituals involving Abramović.
Comment Themes:
The thread has high engagement (upvotes ranging from +1 to +45), with replies building on each other in a echo-chamber style. No dissenting voices appear in the provided excerpt, reinforcing group consensus.
Broader Context and Fact-Checking
This thread stems from a real interview or clip of Abramović, circulated on X in early 2026, where she describes receiving death threats and needing security due to online conspiracies. In the video, she attributes this to "Alex Jones–type conspiracies," likely referring to InfoWars' promotion of "spirit cooking" myths during the 2016 U.S. election. Abramović, a Serbian performance artist known for endurance-based works exploring human limits (e.g., her 1974 piece Rhythm 0, where audiences could interact with her body using objects, leading to escalating violence), has long been a target of far-right conspiracies. These often misrepresent her art (e.g., using bodily fluids or endurance tests) as evidence of satanism.
Implications and Biases
This thread exemplifies how QAnon communities interpret real events through a conspiratorial lens, turning vulnerability (e.g., threats against an artist) into proof of guilt. It fosters division by labeling critics as "shills" or "doomers," per site rules, while ignoring evidence. The rhetoric risks real-world harm: Abramović has faced actual stalking and threats, mirroring broader patterns where online conspiracies lead to offline actions (e.g., Pizzagate shooting in 2016).
Objectively, the claims lack verifiable evidence and rely on cherry-picked interpretations. Abramović's work is conceptual art critiquing power dynamics and humanity, not literal rituals. The thread's biases include misogyny (focusing on her age/appearance), xenophobia (Khazar references), and extremism, despite the community's anti-violence stance.
In summary, this is a snapshot of echo-chamber discourse in a QAnon forum, amplifying unproven theories with humor and vitriol to reinforce group identity. It highlights the persistence of these narratives years after Q's last drop in 2020. .
As another user said: garbage in, garbage out.
These AI's are not magic. If you point them in a direction and say "find truth there" they will take off in that direction.
If queries are worded with pro-Q language, you get this kind of result. Very helpful as you can see:
https://x.com/i/grok/share/b4e98c7be47541a4820d9260056672eb
Exactly. People misunderstand AI tools (yes, I know… some are better than others)
It’s not about AI giving answers.
It’s about AI getting you “on the paper” in lightning speed, and then it’s on you to put some work in to get the bullseye.
Tip: The more specific you are at the start, the better the outcomes of the conversation.
Edit: BTW you can “add content” to GPT (other models prob have something similar). You can create a custom GPT where you add files (like PDF files of books or other “truth” materials), then your custom GPT will use this in combination with its own LLM.
If you're having the LLM draw its information from that GPT, you're essentially just telling the LLM how to respond to your questions.
If you're using the GPT to do research/analysis specifically aimed at only the material you've provided it, then that's a great use of a GPT.
If you're using it in place of the AI's ability to use all of its resources and asking it questions and running around saying "Look, ChatGPT/Claude/Grok/Gemeni/My Etch-a-Sketch agrees with me about <insert whatever here>!", then that's just an elaborate form of scripted role play.
I'd love to believe that all use would be for the former, but based on my experiences here, chances seem greater it will be the latter. 🤷♀️
I apologize in advance if I'm wrong.
GPTs generally just draw information from their own knowledge files (like the PDF files and books you upload to it), unless you specifically have it set up to search outside the GPT's own knowledge files as well. Then the LLM just runs the prompts through the knowledge files and gives you back the response, based on its knowledge source. If the only thing it "knows" is what you've given it, then obviously that influences what its results will be.
AND YOU HAVE JUST EXPLAINED, QUITE ELOQUENTLY I MIGHT ADD, EXACTLY WHAT AI REALLY IS: the more "tuned" the question the more information is obtained. Even if the information is NOT ALL it will still lead one to finish what Grok AI started...
There is an adage in the Computer Science which is: "Garbage In, Garbage Out"!!!!!
And here we go with the AI shit
Four Q posts.
The choice to know will be yours.
https://qagg.news/?q=choice+to+know&q2=
The simple rebuttal to that is “asking questions IS research”
“asking questions IS research”
LOOKING DEEPER IS RESEARCH
Difference without a distinction. Asking questions IS looking deeper. Why do normies trust the MSM? They don't question what they're being fed. They do not look deeper.
It's a form of the Socratic method of teaching. Socrates and Q used it. They answered with questions and the listener had to research the question. If you have a question you research it for yourself and come to your own conclusion. Otherwise everything you get from others is simply opinion or conjecture based on the other person's views and perspective.
Here's the issue.
If someone makes a claim (especially one that is controversial or just over the top) and says they have evidence of this, then they need to provide that when asked. Especially if someone says something like "I looked everywhere for that info and couldn't find anything near what you're claiming. Could you share your sources?".
I can't count the number of times this has happened to me. Someone making some unbelievable claim, I go look into it, everything I find is saying the opposite and I go back to the other person asking for their sources, explaining everything I'm finding says the opposite and get "Do your own research!". Obviously I just did, and that research says you're wrong. The vast majority of the time this has happened and I've finally wrangled those "sources" from the other person, it's invariably from something like some random ass person's blog that no one has ever heard of and who is just saying it without any source of evidence it's true. 🙄
But there are also way too many people here who have zero idea or motivation to look up anything themselves. Like they have never even heard of a search engine and haven't the foggiest idea of how to look up basic information like what the US Constitution says, for example. Or how many states are in the US. 🤦♀️
That's just embarrassing for a place that claims to be an elite research board.
"Do your own research" is a cop-out to avoid answering questions. It is anti-discussion. Which seems silly given the nature of this forum as a place for discussion and sharing information.
Me. I have two jobs, a side business and a family - I rely on the research here! Five minutes a day here and I’m caught up - so thank you to everyone who has the time to research and share!
I can't say that I've seen many posts with the phrase or tone of "Do your own research", but I do agree that people should be mindful that we have many GAW members figuratively spinning plates to take care of their family.
In that regard, I think a FAR bigger problem is the lack of rigor and vetting for a frustratingly large % of posts. That's a scenario where one person fails to be responsible to the community, and now 30 people are finding out that the X post is just an unsupported assertion with no data or corroboration to back it up.
Suddenly 20 hours in aggregate were wasted because one person didn't put up a high quality post.
I agree with the OP of any particular post to give a reasonable level of effort, but when one replies, I don't expect that person to do all the work.
It's usually trolls that want to be spoon fed information. It wastes anons time and that's what they're usually after from what I've seen. They can be spotted a mile away, it's always obvious. I don't debate with trolls, as stated, waste of time.
I feel AI is dumbing down peoples ability to independently verify situations. We no longer get daily newspapers or can afford news magazines(plus they are leftist leaning anyways) so we take the easy route and ask Siri, Gemini, or Alexa as to what a situation means.
We do not know how to independently verify because of the lack of good tools to search with. Thus AI is the solution. That could become a recipe for disaster given how AI might be manipulated by its master.
The first line of the sidebar:
And shouldnt researchers share their research with others instead of calling them retarded for asking?
Balance. Both will happen as a cause/effect result from using a board such as those anons participate in. This is where moderation shines. Thankfully, we have a pretty nice balance here at GAW. It's not perfect, but we've all probably seen far worse.
That's the point of (most) research, so yes. But - when people come in here and question something by saying "SAUCE" they will probably get a different response. Similarly, if someone posts something without sauce, or posts a pic that they cut the timestamp off, or posts something from known BS sites or people things may not go well for them. Those people could expect to be called retards.
Look - everyone has access to a web search whether it is Google, Yandex, Brave - whatever. Every one of us can do a 2 second search on something we don't know - or may not believe - instead of asking someone else to do the work for you. If someone goes to the trouble to research a topic and post it, and someone else disagrees with something in the post (or the whole post) it is on that person to research and post their rebuttal. It's just common sense and etiquette.
Most people here that post do it because they found something important they want to share, they think something is really cool, they are requesting something (prayers, suggestions, etc), or they just want to update people on something they feel is important. Almost all of us post the source either in the link post, or in a comment right after they make the initial post. Sometimes they forget. Sometimes one of the rest of us post the link if we notice it wasn't posted. It is fine to ask the OP if the source wasn't posted "Hey, do you have the source for this? I didn't see a link." It is also common for people to ask for a TLDR on an important post if they are at work and X is blocked (for example), but that will depend on if anyone has the time to help. Remember - everyone on here is doing this for free.
Last thing. You should look at these 2 quotes from your post and reconcile them with what you want others to do for you. Then you may understand why you are getting pushback on your post.
and
I, apparently on the other hand, completely agree with you. I do research but sometimes come up short. I appreciate when anons provide links to sites I have never visited. While I don’t use this site to do my research for me, I certainly appreciate when anons share their research. I find it hateful when some anons act as if they have copyrights to their research and berate others. For the most part I’ve always seen us as brothers of sorts here and sharing is part of that. Thank you for bringing this up and while it may not change things, maybe it will give some food for thought for those of us who aren’t quite as adept at research but still find value here in others research.
Question everything, even what you read here. Form a hypothesis and look for proof supporting it and challenging it. Follow flight trackers, conflict maps, finance, and read Trumps executive orders and know what they mean legally. There isn't much you can't put together from those four things. If you just consume information you're just like the brain dead that watch mainstream news.
To add to the OP, not everyone is as excellant at researching and digging up the info that some are.
Beauty of the awakened anon phenomenon: we all have our own unique strengths. One anon is good at word of mouth communication, another is proficient at deep research, another is skilled in meme magick, etc.
Good OP and I feel ya, but in my experience, some people just cannot accept things they do not discover for themselves.
This is exactly why the awakening has been at least a decade in the making. Between the notion you espoused and breaking the social engineering NPC scriptz, it's a monumental task and no small feat by the forces of good.
The awakened surely must endure the pain of time and theatrics until (x)% of the public convinces themselves they've figured it all out!
Yep.
I know some here think I repeat this all the time just to sound like an asshole, but it really is true…
They have to WANT to know.
Alas, that's difficult for people who already know so many things that just aren't so. 👇🏽
"For I found all of them drunk, and none were thirsty." ~Jesus Christ
I often quote Jesus, verse 28 from The Gospel of Thomas (above) *speaking to His apostles about how some people he ministered to were already so full of what they THOUGHT was the truth, they did not WANT to hear anything else.
It perfectly illustrates why normies (and others) do not WANT to SEEK the truth because they think they already know the truth.
I had to have the realization of how very little I actually knew in order to break free from that mind trap.
Thank you
🤔
Picture somebody who can't count past 5 walking into a basic math class and asking why the upside down L and curly b make 1 and 3 (7+6=13). It's not like the class has anything super advanced going on, but you gotta learn how to count before you jump into the conversation.Typically when somebody answers do your own research, the info in question isn't hard to find. The worst thing they teach in school is that there are no stupid questions.
I have told folks (mainly brainwashed sheeple) who would rather argue with me to research it for themselves. I did this because I believed it would mean more to them and also because I hoped it would instill a desire to research further. I also encouraged questions, sited sources - I did anything and everything but spoon feed it directly to them. Oh, I probably should explain, I love researching (a lot!) but it's difficult to stay on task - I find myself popping in and out of hundreds of other rabbit holes - so yeah, as a career I probably would make a terrible researcher, lol.
🎶I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied... 🎶
Nice.
u/#MindBlown
...wew wew...
Those lyrics can be viewed as exceptionally dark when self reflecting on certain aspects & habbenings of the research community timeline.
If someone is asking questions and seems receptive to outside the box thinking, in general. Then yeah, I provide sauce. I haven't done research just to hoard info. I'm ready to share, mainly in person, I'm more of a face to face type. It's pretty easy to discern a lazy thinker from one genuinely curious, and I want everyone to know .. there's spoon feeding, and there's leading. Jmho ty
Thanks for the post. This thread instantly came to mind: https://greatawakening.win/p/1ASZ8JV09D/x/c/4eaVkkBjHI9
This site has become a sort of ego safe space where nobody fucking cares about anyone else. Its mostly just AI slop and vitriol at this point towards those who arent "awake" enough
I am doing my best to research the Iran situation. There is a TON of noise.
NOBODY here wants to help. Ive asked several times, directly towards those who claim to be very knowledgeable, and all I get is "trust me bro"
"Trust me bro" doesnt help me convince my friends, who are rapidly becoming anti maga
"Trust me bro" doesnt help me convince my parents that we need to stop sucking Israel's dick
"Trust me bro" doesnt help us win midterms or make people ok with the turmoil that comes before a golden age
Short answer: that kind of laziness does not further the Great Awakening.
Sounds like you asked something and that is what you were told and now you just want to rant a little and that's fine as far as I'm concerned.
There is a difference between this board and IRL idiots and NPCs among those idiots. (Disclaimer: I too am an idiot in many, many ways.)
You have great advice among the current comments. I'll just add; don't get discouraged, most of us will help. I answer day 1 questions here all the time, if I see them. As other have said though, it is imperative that you travel through your own journey. It can be a lonely walk, for sure. I understand that life is hard and there are priorities that consume time but as you venture on, that time will find you. Again, don't be afraid to ask but be ready to have thick skin when you do.
Trolls can be spotted from miles away. Don’t feed the trolls. They want you to do the research on their behalf only to deny the evidence you presented to them… and when they DO ever present evidence to the contrary it’s ALWAYS MsM garbage “news” resources. Whoah, big gotcha there. Then you present more evidence that they just deny. It’s a never ending circle you get trapped in for their humor.
Want an example? The “no arrests have been made” crowd. Show them the DOJ site and they respond with “Trump is doing Israel’s bidding I don’t trust the current admin anyway” blanket response. It’s almost as if it’s a playbook that they are running that’s calculated… hmm 🤔 “ignorance is bliss” after all. They don’t want their narrative to be cracked because it goes directly against their (obvious) demoralization op.
Many of us here are more than willing to look at / read what others have found, and confirm it with what we've learned over the years. If no one shares what they learned, observation bias sets in.
Just monitoring the zeitgeist, seeing how long rumor intel takes to become signal
There are a lot of good anons here, but there are plenty of a-holes too.
If you're going to post you gotta have the sauce to back up your claims and assertions. Without it one's posts are just a mental jack off.
That said, sadly, too many TL/DR people hang around here and expect everyone else to do the heavy lifting, the deep research, and thought synthesis while they just sit back, jack off, and snipe.
Too often they ask stupid questions. They should be mocked accordingly. DO your own research is just a quick way of saying don't waste our time if you are not fully engaged in the discussion.
It’s a curious contradiction, isn’t it? You take issue with being told to “do your own research,” yet you seem to have found ample time and energy to compose a critique of that very suggestion. That alone undermines the premise that such a request is somehow insensitive to people’s time constraints.
Let’s be clear ~ encouraging independent verification is not laziness ~ it’s intellectual responsibility. To dismiss it as such is to conflate guidance with obligation. No one is denying that people navigate pressures yet invoking those realities as a blanket justification for outsourcing one’s critical thinking doesn’t strengthen your argument ~ it weakens it.
If this space is, as you say, for sharing research, then surely it follows that participants should engage with that material actively, not passively consume it as pre-digested truth. Otherwise, what you’re advocating for isn’t a community of inquiry ~ it’s a relay system for unexamined information.
And while it’s true that not everyone can dedicate hours to analysis, the solution isn’t to discourage the principle of verification, it’s to apply it proportionally. Even a modest effort to question, cross-check, or contextualize what one reads is infinitely more valuable than accepting it wholesale simply because it’s been conveniently presented.
So the issue isn’t that “do your own research” is unhelpful ~ it’s that it asks something of the reader. And perhaps that’s the real discomfort is not a lack of time, but a reluctance to take ownership of one’s understanding.
Logical thinking is important, but insufficient. In a maze of deception, you also need to be able to unlearn, and recognise you have been fooled. This is an emotional skill, as it means dealing with a hurt ego and the loss of the "feeling of knowing".
I believe Q made it the mission of many anons to redpill normies and encourage them on their own journey of awakening. Providing the sauce for truths that were declared. To be the comfort for others during the storm.
If you are so worried about sharing with the “lazy” ones then don’t post your info. Simple. No one is forcing you to share, if it bothers you then just don’t do it.