Back in August 2021 a now lost to the ether comment section over at Ricochet was soiled with some of the typical talking point twaddle from an MSNBC-programmed member-bot:

“I have not found Powerline to be a reliable source of information…”

In response, I issued The Powerline Challenge:

Provide just one example of a Powerline post on a serious news event or topic that, beyond the editorial position of the author (which you may or may not agree with), does not provide sufficient linkage to recognizable sources of information to support (and/or allow the reader to dig further into the details used to establish) that position and judge for themselves (i.e. an intellectually curious or simply non-lazy person could easily follow the “data”). [Note: Half credit only for those who take the easy route and nominate a post by Mr. Mirengoff. (I kid. I kid.)]

For the record, no one – least of all the author of the inane quote above – rose to the occasion.

I bring up this little bit of history just to introduce the following destruction of Google Bard (something I assume is more comparable to a MSNBC-programmed member-bot than most want to admit) by John Hinderaker after asking it “Is Power Line a reliable news source?” The win by TKO is entertaining:

WHAT DOES GOOGLE THINK OF YOU?

In short, the obvious fact is that AI (just as with MSNBC-programmed member-bots) tends to just make $#!t up. But the comparison through a wonderful calibration question – “What do you think of Dan Rather?” – drives home the TKO. The result:

Artificial intelligence, in its present form, at least, is one more tool by which liberals in the tech sector try to advance their agenda at the expense of conservatives and the American people.

But anyone familiar with any common MSNBC-programmed member-bot surely learned that long ago.

___ ___ ___

AFTERWARD

Just for complete documentation over here at my lonely little outpost, I will include the original Powerline Challenge post in its entirety as published on August 23,2021:

The Powerline Challenge

Since the author of the following quote has refused the opportunity to back it up, I want to call upon the Ricochet masses to – for entertainment purposes only – give me just one example to support this:

“I have not found Powerline to be a reliable source of information…”

The Challenge: Provide just one example of a Powerline post on a serious news event or topic that, beyond the editorial position of the author (which you may or may not agree with), does not provide sufficient linkage to recognizable sources of information to support (and/or allow the reader to dig further into the details used to establish) that position and judge for themselves (i.e. an intellectually curious or simply non-lazy person could easily follow the “data”). [Note: Half credit only for those who take the easy route and nominate a post by Mr. Mirengoff. (I kid. I kid.)]

Now, I’m not saying this is an impossible task but be warned: The follow-up exercises on other sites will allow for direct comparisons on which to base the appropriate level of “skepticism” regarding the reliability of the information imparted. I suspect that the case for Powerline Skepticism will be laughably shallow. But, like that one time before, I could be wrong…

P.S. You are disqualified from the competition if your definition of “reliable source” would include CNN…i.e. you still don’t recognize the following CNN editing as the “fine people” hoax that is was:

P.P.S. If your name is Dan Rather, you are encouraged to enter as many times as you like. We all could use the laughs.