Chat GPT Warning
I was playing about with the AI tool Chat GPT the other day. Besides assuring me that Napoleons' plan to invade England was called Operation Sea Lion (I kid you not!) it also threw up this:
"Franz Anton Walliser (1st Nassau Regiment): Walliser was a Nassau officer who captured the French Imperial Eagle of the 105th Regiment at the Battle of Waterloo. His actions were vital in securing the eagle and the regiment's flag."
Now I know the capture of 105eme eagle is contentious, but I thought it was between Cpl Stiles or Capt Alexander Clark!
A quick perusal of the list of Nassau officers in Gareth glover's Waterloo Archive reveal no obvious candidate for Walliser. A quick Google search only reveal an immigrant from France to US born in 1801.
When challenged, the AI retreats to:
"There is no widely recognized historical account or source that attributes the capture of the French 105th Eagle to Franz Anton Walliser or the 1st Nassau Regiment.
The capture of the French Imperial Eagle by various Allied forces, including British and Prussian troops, is well-documented in historical accounts and records of the Battle of Waterloo. However, specific details about individual soldiers or officers involved in these captures can be challenging to ascertain due to the chaotic and intense nature of the battle.
I appreciate your patience and understanding, and I apologize for any inaccuracies in my previous responses. It's essential to rely on well-documented historical sources and accounts when discussing specific events in history, and I regret any confusion that may have arisen from my previous responses."
A useful warning for anyone tempted to use Chat GPT, or who fears AI will put historians and researchers out of a job!
My question is, does anyone know where Chat GPT got him from? A work of fiction perhaps?
@Hans - Karl Weiß I agree that all sources should be viewed with the agenda of the author in mind, regardless of the language it was written in.
However, notwithstanding that all generalisations will have their exceptions, there are some differences. Few systematically set out to self justify and slander quite like the writings of St Helena. Whilst all sides have their heroes few have attracted hagiographers like Napoleon.
British sources often fall into unjustified xenophobia. There are no shortages of petty rivalries or chips on shoulders. They tend to shy away from self criticism, lies therefore are often by omission. It's often about what they don't say.
By contrast Hanoverian reports and accounts tend to be much more open to expressing errors. Prussian and other German sources need to be seen in the light of later political climates.
I could go on, but as these generalisations broaden they collapse under their own weight.
What generative AI struggles with is identifying intent and weighing evidence. It tends to accept things at face value and prioritises the fitness to the story over disconfirming or inconvenient facts. Genty, Thackeray, Forrester or Hugo become equal fodder with Siborne, Houssaye or Pflug-Hartnung
We should always return to and weigh up the sources, rather than blindly following where others have trod or restricting oneself to that conveniently in our mother tongue. This is where Anglo-phones have been increasingly well served of late. Authors like Mulwijk, Field, Franklin, Glover, Mittlache etc etc have been instrumental in broadening the narratives around my own narrow interest in the 100 days.
I think though that some are too quick to assume that an individual's nationality will predispose them to a certain or erroneous point of view. I share a country with a certain ennobled historian, not his views on "Napoleon, man of peace"!