As I’ve mentioned before, one of the essential skills people are said will be in dire need when AI chatbots rule the world is CRITICAL THINKING. Over the last year, I’ve spent some serious time reading and asking myself, “How can I become a better critical thinker? What heuristics/checklists can I embrace that would assist me?”

Enlisting AI Support

That’s probably why, only a few weeks ago, I decided to try using OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Anthrop\C (Claude.ai) to process megaprompts. One of them, as I share in this blog entry, is based off of Wayne R. Bartz’ CRITIC. Why did I choose CRITIC? It was straightforward, and I liked the acronym.

I also wanted to share several critical thinking processes at my upcoming TCEA 2024 Convention and Exposition session, Critical Thinking Made Simple.

Allow me a moment… 

About My TCEA 2024 Session

Want to learn more about Critical Thinking Made Simple? The presentation is divided up into six parts:

1. Intro slides
2. Miracle Plant Discovery

3. Activity

4. Opening the black box: 
• What happens when we think and why it matters?
• What is critical thinking? Two systems of thinking?
• How does writing make the brain work?
• Coding and critical thinking
• Heuristics vs checklists
• George Polya’s 4 steps
• RED
• Levels of Scientific Evidence
• Why we believe stuff
• Melanie Trecek-King’s FLOATER
5. AI MegaPrompts
6. Analyzing Claims, Pseudoscience, etc.

 I have WAY too much content for an hour session, but I figure I’ll chop it down by Wednesday of next week.

AI MegaPrompt: CRITIC

One of the cool approaches includes using a “megaprompt” to set the chatbot up as an expert on that. I’m not sure if it really works or not, so you will have to decide. You can read my CRITIC MegaPrompt in its entirety here. Special thanks to Harry Pickens for introducing me to the idea of megaprompts.

Now, you have access to the megaprompt. Once you have dropped that into your favorite chatbot, the next step is to give it something to do, as I did below:

The article I asked Claude to analyze is this one by The Guardian, Pentagon ex-UFO chief says conspiracy theorists in government drive spending. The lead on it goes like this:

Conspiracy theorists working for and within the US government are perpetuating myths about UFOs that millions of taxpayer dollars are then spent looking into, a “self-licking ice cream cone”, according to the Pentagon’s former chief investigator of unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP).

I had a laugh about this. I had only watched (as long as I could stand it) The UFO Movie They Don’t Want You to See (2023) a few weeks ago. Although I LOVE Star Trek, Star Wars, and the idea that alien apocalypse is coming as great stories to enthrall the mind, I’m a bit more grounded. I know that will come as a shock to readers.

Ok, back to Claude. So, what would Claude make of this article?

Claude.ai’s Response

Here is Claude’s full response:

“Thank you for providing that article to analyze using the CRITIC framework. Let’s explore it step-by-step:

C – Claim: The article makes the claim that according to Sean Kirkpatrick, who was previously with the Pentagon UFO program, some of the most prominent conspiracy theories around UFOs are myths. Specifically, it asserts that the US government does not have wreckage from crashed alien spacecrafts in hidden facilities.

R – Role: Sean Kirkpatrick is presented as a credible source given his former involvement in the Pentagon’s UFO program. As someone previously on the inside, his views carry authority. However, we should also recognize his potential bias given his former government role.

I – Information: The information provided is Kirkpatrick’s own statements dismissing certain conspiracy theories. There is no presentation of direct evidence either confirming or refuting such theories. The veracity relies primarily on Kirkpatrick’s credibility.

T – Test: Given the lack of tangible evidence presented, independent testing or verification would be required to further assess the validity of Kirkpatrick’s statements. This could involve investigative journalism, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, or leaks from other insiders. Without additional confirmatory evidence, uncertainty remains.

I – Independent Testing: There is no clear evidence of rigorous independent testing or confirmation presented in the article. Kirkpatrick’s role as a former insider lends some credibility, but does not constitute outright verification. Attempts at independent confirmation could be undertaken.  

C – Cause Proposed: No specific causal explanation is provided as to why these myths may have proliferated if untrue. One might speculate they arose from misunderstandings, attempts to hide classified but mundane information, or simple human fascination with the topic. Their origins remain uncertain.

“In summary, this article presents notable claims from a reasonably credible source, but lacks rigorous independent confirmation. Additional verification would be required to fully substantiate or refute the theories Kirkpatrick addresses. The CRITIC framework helps highlight these evidentiary limitations. Let me know if you would like me to analyze any other aspects of this article or claims using CRITIC.”

Did It Work?

Did the mega-prompt asking Claude to apply CRITIC work? Was it effective? It appears to have done so. I did ask it for more “independent testing” ideas:

 Here are some suggestions for how independent testing could be done to further assess Sean Kirkpatrick’s claims:

1. Submit FOIA requests for UFO or advanced aircraft records: Put in wide-reaching requests to various agencies like the DoD, Air Force, DARPA, NASA etc. If the claims are true and no such wreckage exists, responses should corroborate this. If wreckage did exist, records may be found through exhaustive FOIA efforts.

2. Seek out testimonies of other government insiders and whistleblowers: Contact former personnel from clandestine programs and security agencies to see if others can confirm or deny these claims. Seek out those with knowledge of crash retrieval projects specifically. Compile evidence in an unbiased manner.

3. Attempt gathering visual evidence through investigative field work: Are there military sites with higher likelihoods of containing undisclosed hangars or debris storage areas? Conduct visual surveillance through legal public areas like hilltops near bases using telescopes/binoculars. See if unusual activity can be observed.

4. Crowdsource evidence gathering efforts through responsible public data platforms: There are likely many more eyes potentially able to gather public-domain visual evidence on secret test flight areas or suspicious cargo truck routes leaving bases. Pattern analysis could yield findings.

5. Analyze inconsistencies in official speeches, records and statements that indirectly relate to the claims: This requires patience but gaps often appear in official narratives that leave questions unanswered. Identifying those gaps can highlight areas warranting further investigation.

The above methods emphasize legality, responsibility and ethics in attempting to further validate or invalidate the original assertions by Kirkpatrick. Let me know if any part of this requires further explanation or ideas. The key is removing speculation and introducing credible confirming/disconfirming evidence.

I’m not sure if any of these five methods is really going to work all that well. Oh, well.