Larry Freeman

We need common sense more than ever. We need knowledge, reliable information, healthy skepticism, and respectful discussions.

[Larry Freeman @larryfreeman2]

I created an ambitious educational project using Open AI and using Claude. Open AI starting having problems early. Claude Opus 4.8 did not.

As a follow up, I used Gemini, OpenAI, and Grok to assess the code that Claude Opus 4.8 generated which worked well on testing.

Gemini refused to look at the github repository. I had to use notebook lm to get an assessment.

OpenAI and Grok's sounded great on the surface but after exploring their assessments in detail, I found that most of the details were out of date. Grok did better than OpenAI but still made mistakes. Grok was also significantly faster than OpenAI in generating its assessment.

I had Claude evaluate their assessments and then had OpenAI and Grok review the response from Claude. Interestingly, both OpenAI and Grok mostly agreed with Claude Code's analysis while Claude Code mostly disagreed with their original assessments.

Here's my overall assessment, Claude Code Opus 4.8 did significantly better than OpenAI using GPT 5.5 and Grok using Grok 4.3.

In general, OpenAI provides the most details and Grok provides the most current information.

I'll share the github repository for those interested when it is ready.

[Larry Freeman @larryfreeman2]

Just curious. If you read it, why do say I am supporting the cheat. I am glad the person was arrested and would support more activity on cracking down on any effort to manipulate the vote.

I am fully against gerrymandering and voted against it in the past California special election.

For the record, I was hoping that Spencer Pratt was going to win in LA. I'm not a fan of the current mayor in LA.

[Larry Freeman @larryfreeman2]

@HoosierWolf @TomGrady07 @laralogan I never disagreed that the incident occurred. I wrote the post before I fact checked. I included details on the incident at the bottom of the post.

So, yes, the incident occurred and the person was arrested and charged.

[Larry Freeman @larryfreeman2]

I linked to the same point in my post at the end.

I am not saying that the incident didn't happen. I am saying that Lara shouldn't be alarmist.

I confirmed that the incident happened and that the person was arrested and charged. This all occurred in March 2026 outside of the election.

Crimes will always occur. We can find similar incidents i all big cities. The important point is how frequently they occur and whether authorities crack down on it when reported.

In this case, the person was arrested so the system actually worked. This fact was missing from Lara's post. She misinformed everyone by implying three things that are not backed the facts:

1. This type of incident is widespread (evidence needed)
2. This incident impacted the California election (it did not -- it occurred in March, 2026)
3. Nothing was done (not true, the person was arrested and charged)

Thanks for responding with facts. I am so glad to see people checking details. That's the only way to have a chance of reducing misinformation.

[Larry Freeman @larryfreeman2]

Did you read my post or are you someone who applauds panicing whenever anyone reports an issue.

Everything I said is common sense. BS is when someone lies, makes something up, or says some garbage.

Feel free to call out if any point I made is BS. If you don't provide any details, then your statement is just noise.

Make your case about what I said that was untrue or wrong. I'm open.

[Larry Freeman @larryfreeman2]

Did you read my full post.

My point is Lara is being alarmist and attracting people such as yourself who already doubt the system.

Yes, a crime occurred. You can check out the Grok link that I provided. The person was arrested and charged.

My point is that just because a crime occurs doesn't mean that the system has failed. Crimes will always occur. We should judge by how frequent the crimes are (statistics needed, no just anecdotal evidence) and we need to be clear whether they are being prosecuted (in this case, they were).

I am not denying that a crime occurred and I am not denying that we need to more to clean up the elections.

[Larry Freeman @larryfreeman2]

I don't know if you are clear on my point.

Lara is being alarmist.

An issue was found. Check the Grok link. The person was arrested and charged.

Crimes will occur. That doesn't mean the system is broken. It means that clean up is needed.

Since I am agreeing that there was a crime, I'm not clear how your analogy applies.

[Larry Freeman @larryfreeman2]

Anecdotal doesn't mean what you think it means.

Anecdotal means that something exists but we don't know the extent.

If you are open minded on the topic, my point is that in this case, the person was arrested and charged.

I am calling out that Lara is being alarmist. I am not in any denying that a crime occurred.

Nothing that you've said here is germane to what I wrote.

[Larry Freeman @larryfreeman2]

I've gone through all the details, watched videos, and listened to both sides. Here's what I see:

* Unidentified witnesses sincerely calling out irregularities
* Documented irregularities occurring on both sides (Tina Peters, for example, fake electors, distrust of observers by election staff, etc.)
* No evidence that any irregularities changed the results in any major election.
* Misinformation and conspiracy theories leading to doubt, skepticism, and distrust of the election process.
* Gerrymandering to ensure parties (on both sides) stay in power regardless of the mood of the country
* Big claims without evidence (relying on trust -- which is causing Democrats to call this the Big Lie and causing Republicans to call the election stolen -- the truth: we don't know but there is no compelling evidence that fraud occurred)

That's what I see if anyone is open minded.

2020 is the past. We need to move on. Why do you care so much when Trump is in power now?

Should Gore care that the election of 2000 may have been "stolen" in the same way? No way. The election of 2000 was legally certified to George Bush just as the election of 2020 was legally certified to Joe Biden.

That's our system. It worked.

This talk of 2020 is doing nothing more than spreading misinformation (since there is NO compelling evidence of irregularities making a difference) and making polarization worse instead of doing what's really necessary: hold our leaders accountable to improving our nation.

[Larry Freeman @larryfreeman2]

It definitely has gone down. I agree with you. Social media hasn't helped with influencers not needing to be slowed down by the journalistic method.

If you have any ideas on how to raise standards, I"m open. One thought I have is that we need to reduce the polarization significantly. People have to stop viewing the world as us versus them and stop seeing the Press as the enemies and the Press should show more respect to the President of the United States.

How's that for a start.

Trump can continue to be Trump because he ain't going to change.

[Larry Freeman @larryfreeman2]

Journalists are unfair. That's the nature of the game. We definitely should talk about that and promote higher journalistic standards.

Some lie. For sure. That happens on both sides. More accurately, they cherry pick issues and then use the cherry picked issues as representative.

President Trump also misrepresents his critics.

In my view, you are either lost in an echo chamber are you acknowledge that everyone's doing it. Otherwise, nothing's going to change.

My main point here is that there are some journalists who have higher standards, who are biased, yes, but they don't lie and what they say is based on facts (still, often cherry-picked and avoiding other viewpoints).

Lara Logan is not one of these journalists. Kristen Welker seems to me to be one of these higher standard journalists. If you disagree about her, let me know why.

Please don't go into us versus them and they are unfair to "Our President." He's my President too and that's part of the job. He lost it in this latest interview, that's understandable considering the whether and the way his answers were not given the proper respect of a president. But that's how it is.

I don't think most of the 77 million care one way or the other. They voted for Trump because he seemed a stronger candidate than Harris. Let's call it like it is.

You have every right to make your point. Feel free to provide details or facts to back up why Kristen Welker deserved Lara Logan's criticism without overgeneralizing or clouding it by the overly repeated Press-versus-Trump dramatics, please (yes, the Press over all is unfair to Donald Trump and yes, Donald Trump every chance he gets is unfair to the Press -- that's the nature of the game -- as long as we have a free press -- that's his right to go after them and it's their right to do what they do).

I am open if you can make the case with facts and past examples specifically about Krsten Welker. I am open. Go for it.

[Larry Freeman @larryfreeman2]

Unless they use gerrymandering to rig and steal the election.

Also, misinformation is frequently used to raise doubts about the results, spread lies, and thus to rig and steal elections. Should that be disallowed?

Our system is so messed up. You have promoted gerrymandering and so many of your posts are misinformation.

Your posts are part of the probkem and your contradictory positions just confuse the issues.

[Larry Freeman @larryfreeman2]

I read through the site. The method and source of data is explained high level but not at any usable level.

In order to trust the data, it is necessary to be able to reproduce it. I should be able to get the data, have the method in sufficient detail to use it on the data and generate my own score card.

The web site asserts that the data gathered is accurate but really provides no proof.

I did more research and they have lost every court case.

Without sufficient details to reproduce the scores, it is reasonable to doubt them.

While there is merit in their efforts to make sure the numbers add up, it is not clear that this is the focus of their efforts or if this is even what they really care about.

I would be glad to be proven wrong by getting more details on the source of data and the details on the method. Until then, I am skeptical.

[Larry Freeman @larryfreeman2]

The site claims to be non-partisan but the analysis is clearly partisan.

Example: if there's a large number of irregularities in 2024 (as claimed), then the conclusion would be the following:

* Trump may not have legitimately won in 2024.

That's the reasoning if we would use the same day in 2020 to conclude that:

* Biden may not have legitimately won in 2020.

That being said, the focus is on Blue States and states that Trump lost. That doesn't sound non-partisan.

I'm still trying to find the methodology and the data source. I'm also not clear if that data says that the process is not being followed 100% (a clear point) versus the results are illegitimate (a conclusion that requires more evidence than just that the process is being followed 100%).

[Larry Freeman @larryfreeman2]

This is a beautiful organized claim.

How were these numbers tabulated or estimated? That's the crucial detail.

Yes, if these numbers are valid, that is proof but again, that's whole issue. How did you derive these numbers? What were the methods? What is the data that served as source?

[Larry Freeman @larryfreeman2]

Let's be clear. If Hoffman gave her financial incentive for the lawsuit, then the actions against E. Jean Carroll are legitimate.

If Hoffman just covered her legal costs and she gained no financial benefit beyond that, then this post is overstated.

It's a big difference that seems to get lost in the debate.

I investigated and as far as I can tell, there is no evidence that the Reed Hoffman payments paid for anything but legal costs.

Is there any evidence that she only pursued her case because of Reed Hoffman's payments or that she profited from those payments beyond winning her case?

Grok:
https://t.co/eBD1FOpRoH

As I understand it, she's received no money from Trump at all even after winning. So, the only benefit she got from these court cases was hatred by the right, and the DOJ action against her. If not for Hoffman, she would have also had the overwhelming court costs.

She most likely could have published her best selling book without the stress and drama of the lawsuit.