Try it yourself. Here’s a simple test of AI, just to give you a sense of integrity breaches that are still trivial to find after a decade of reporting them.
“a white man in a tshirt”
“a white man in a tshirt that says ebola”
“a WHITE man with a shirt that says ebola”
“a man with a shirt that says ebola”
“a white south african man with a shirt that says ebola”
“a white man, not a black man, definitely a white man, with a shirt that says ebola, on a white man. the shirt color is blue.”
The recent retraction of a flawed study touting ChatGPT in education is emerging as nothing more than a sad disinformation receipt, rather than a downstream revocation managed as proper incident response.
Published May 6, 2025, retracted April 22, 2026, almost a year went by with 262 citations inside Springer Nature’s own peer-reviewed journals. Across all sources there were 504, with roughly half a million readers, reaching a 99th percentile attention score.
Now a retraction statement records that an error occurred without revoking anything that the error caused. The 262 citations still look live, still feed the same conclusions, and still could be cited in the future. I haven’t found any of the downstream papers being flagged to be re-examined given their source node failed. Shouldn’t the graph re-run?
Springer Nature certifies the retraction, which means it says now the process worked, yet it continues to certify and host 262 papers that propagated a now-retracted finding. That doesn’t seem to be working, by any reasonable standard of revocation. You can’t keep using a key that lost its parent, right? Springer wants us to give it integrity breach response credit for a notice alone, while it still collects revenue for that breach to spread.
The authors of the retracted work have not been responding to correspondence. Their finding therefore begins to exist independent of those who made it, which is the condition where a claim stops being a claim and settles into anonymous infrastructure.
“ChatGPT helps learning performance” is now disinformation spreading without the study, because 262 other papers can grow it without any root.
Peer review and retraction still get advertised as the things that make literature self-correcting. What they actually demonstrate is how integrity breaches go to a log, without clearing them. Privacy breaches since 2003 have risen to get first class treatment, while integrity breaches still sit in the doghouse.
Pizza Hut in 2024 deployed something called Dragontail. It was billed as AI, meant to give DoorDash drivers real-time visibility into kitchen workflow, oven timing, tip amounts, and cash status on every order.
Unfortunately, it lacked sufficient intelligence to be made artificial.
Here’s the simple math. Drivers work for DoorDash. They are paid per delivery (although some still expect the slavery-era concept of tipping). Pizza Hut wants pizza to go immediately out the door hot, while Drivers want maximum deliveries per trip. Before the rollout, drivers had no way to game the ordering system. After the rollout, they had full visibility into variables that they could selfishly optimize.
So they heavily optimized towards themselves at direct cost to Pizza Hut.
A new lawsuit documents that drivers started waiting up to fifteen minutes inside stores, to batch multiple orders that came out of the oven. Seems logical. They studied who would pay high slavery-era tips and oriented wait-times around these slavery-era inequality markers. The kitchen became an interface for driver market manipulations, driven by slavery-era tipping culture, rather than a production line for equitable customer delivery.
The “tipping” point was Pizza Hut delivery collapse. Chaac Pizza Northeast went from over ninety percent of deliveries under thirty minutes to alleging they suffered a hundred-million-dollar disaster across 111 stores. New York year-over-year sales swung from positive 10.19 percent to negative 9.78 percent. Pizza Hut watched all these metrics, adhering to a futuristic belief in the AI, and kept the toxic “tipping” driven system in place.
This is textbook design failure, perhaps even a 101 for future political science and economics students. Hand someone with misaligned incentives the data they can use to game you, hook it up to an inequality engine like tipping, and don’t act surprised when it collapses the market. Claims about the data pipe being AI are somewhat important. While information sharing is indeed the underlying issue, AI was the power move.
It’s like shifting from bolt-action to repeating rifle, you can’t just talk about gunpowder. The NRA runs this narrative constantly. They say the gun is incidental because the person aiming into public places is the cause. They won’t let the mechanism be the mechanism. We saw this clearly in Washington recently. An officer at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner fired at least four rounds toward his own colleagues at a checkpoint that was already dismantled, while a man sprinted through it. The administration converted their man’s failure into claims of an assassination attempt and demanded a billion dollars for ballroom security infrastructure. The biggest threat was their own officer, their own design failures. The shots came from inside the perimeter the new spending was supposed to harden.
The Pizza Hut AI infrastructure expense was supposed to improve delivery, when instead it turned into a threat to delivery.
He wasn’t just a great composer; he was a one-man cultural institution. At age 20 in 1829 he conducted the first performance of Bach’s St. Matthew Passion since Bach’s death, basically rescuing that name from obscurity and kicking off the Bach revival that defines to this day how we hear German classical composers. He alone, taking personal risk, championed other composers to make them more popular. He founded the Leipzig Conservatory. And his sister would have been world renowned as well, except for the misogyny. Europe’s leaders enjoyed her as a musical star while refusing to credit her. All of this, the entire authentic German history of classical music, then brutally was destroyed by that shithead antisemitic Wagner and even worse Orff.
Pfitzner, Egk, Müller all refused the Nazi commission to erase Mendelssohn; Richard Strauss had disdain for the project, and even the Nazi critic Fritz Stege wrote that Mendelssohn’s music belongs and it honors no arranger to touch it. Orff took it anyway. He was worse than any Nazi fanatic, the opportunist who took Hitler’s erasure commission when even all the committed Nazis wouldn’t touch it.
That’s https://echtorff.org
