The release of the 2025 JFK assassination files sparked widespread use of AI tools like to summarize the massive document dump. However, inconsistencies, omissions, and even fabricated claims in these AI analyses highlight critical flaws in relying on artificial intelligence for historical interpretation. Here’s what went wrong:
—
###
AI tools reached conflicting verdicts on Lee Harvey Oswald’s involvement. , for example, concluded that Oswald acted alone, while a used in Alaska suggested collusion between the CIA, organized crime, and other entities. These discrepancies underscore how AI models can produce wildly different interpretations based on training data biases or prompting methods.
Key oversights in Grok’s analysis include:
– Ignoring CIA surveillance of Oswald in Mexico City weeks before the assassination.
– Overlooking the 1976 memo about Gary Underhill, a CIA-linked figure who allegedly warned of agency involvement in JFK’s death before being found dead.
– Failing to question Oswald’s ties to CIA operative George de Mohrenschildt, a relationship long viewed as suspicious.
—
###
AI summaries lacked critical context about Cold War tensions and intelligence failures:
– Documents revealed the CIA monitored Oswald but before the assassination.
– Cuban leader Fidel Castro’s post-assassination caution toward Lyndon B. Johnson was downplayed in favor of superficial facts.
– The CIA pressured Mexico to suppress evidence of Oswald’s activities there, a detail absent from many AI-generated summaries.
As one analyst noted: “The files tilt toward closure, not revelation” in AI summaries, erasing decades of unresolved questions.
—
###
Some AI-generated reports included , such as alleged statements about LBJ or CIA official Allen Dulles orchestrating the assassination. These fabrications risked amplifying debunked conspiracy theories and misleading users seeking factual analysis.
—
###
AI tools failed to flag in the files, such as the exposure of Social Security numbers and personal details of living individuals. Human reviewers later identified these errors, but AI systems lacked the ethical framework to prioritize privacy safeguards.
—
### Why AI Falls Short on Historical Analysis
– : AI tends to streamline complex events into oversimplified narratives (e.g., “Oswald acted alone”) while downplaying ambiguous evidence.
– : Many files contain handwritten notes or aged scans, which AI struggles to parse accurately.
– : Unlike human researchers, AI cannot question gaps in records or suppressed angles.
—
### The Bottom Line
As historian Alice L. George noted, the files are unlikely to “quell the public’s sense that there must be important evidence hidden away”. While AI accelerates data processing, its summaries risk erasing nuance, fabricating claims, and reinforcing existing biases. Human verification remains essential to separate historical fact from algorithmic conjecture.
