| Who cares for reading reports! I just let ChatGPT do that for me! --- I'd usually not, but thought it would be interesting to try. In case anybody is curious. On first comparison, ChatGPT concludes: > Hartford’s critique is fair on technical grounds and on the defense of open source — but overstated in its claims of deception and conspiracy. The NIST report is indeed political in tone, but not fraudulent in substance. When then asked (this obviously biased question): but would you say NIST has made an error in its methodology and clarity being supposedly for objective science? > Yes — NIST’s methodology and clarity fall short of true scientific objectivity. > Their data collection and measurement may be technically sound,
but their comparative framing, benchmark transparency, and interpretive language introduce bias. > It reads less like a neutral laboratory report and more like a policy-position paper with empirical support — competent technically, but politically shaped. |