JD Vance is a duplicitous POS

[Shaka]

Interesting that you asked Grok and got your answers from that. Are you sure Mecha Hitler gave you accurate info? Or perhaps you like downloading Elon Musk directly into your opinions.

Do you not use AI for research and information gathering? Maybe look into it so you can keep up with The Tick, Lebowski, and Shakas of the world.

[falafel]

Do you not use AI for research and information gathering? Maybe look into it so you can keep up with The Tick, Lebowski, and Shakas of the world.

I have subscriptions to ChatGPT and Claude. I have previously had a subscription to Grok. I use AI every day in my work.

I ended my subscription with Grok because I found it to be too unreliable. Also, I didn't love that Elon was putting his finger on the scale and adjusting the results to fit what he thought was correct. If AI is crawling all of the info in the world, I would hope it would be objective. I do not think Grok is objective. That was my whole point.

[Shaka]

I have subscriptions to ChatGPT and Claude. I have previously had a subscription to Grok. I use AI every day in my work.

I ended my subscription with Grok because I found it to be too unreliable. Also, I didn't love that Elon was putting his finger on the scale and adjusting the results to fit what he thought was correct. If AI is crawling all of the info in the world, I would hope it would be objective. I do not think Grok is objective. That was my whole point.

I have not found Grok to be rife with Elon-infused propaganda or inaccurate information. YMMV Mostly, I think Grok is a much better name than Claude.

[falafel]

I have not found Grok to be rife with Elon-infused propaganda or inaccurate information. YMMV Mostly, I think Grok is a much better name than Claude.

All AIs make mistakes. I just found Grok to be the most inaccurate of the three.

Grok is a goofy name, but Claude is ridiculous.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Interesting that you asked Grok and got your answers from that. Are you sure Mecha Hitler gave you accurate info? Or perhaps you like downloading Elon Musk directly into your opinions.

I copied Shaka's Grok result into ChatGPT 5 and asked if it was accurate. It gave me a detailed breakdown, but this is the summary:

Here’s what I found regarding the figures in that statement:

---

1. California “$22–25 B” (including ~$4.5 B Medi-Cal for undocumented adults/seniors)

• General estimated cost: A nonpartisan source reports California spent around $22 billion in 2022 on illegal immigrants, with Texas next at approximately $9 billion .
• 2025 estimates: A recent analysis indicates California spends over $22 billion annually on migrant‐related services, of which about $8.4 billion is for Medi-Cal health benefits for undocumented immigrants .
• Budget shortfall details: For the 2024–2025 fiscal year, California’s Medi-Cal program faced a $3.44 billion shortfall, largely due to underbudgeting the costs of covering undocumented immigrants—now estimated at $8.4 billion for that period .

Conclusion: The “$22 billion” total aligns with current reports, but saying that includes $4.5 billion for Medi-Cal may understate the actual cost—which is closer to $8.4 billion. So that breakdown isn’t accurate.

---

2. Other states: Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, etc.

• Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) data from 2022:
  • Texas: ~ $9 billion
  • Other states—Florida, New York, New Jersey, Illinois—also among the highest spending .
• Newsweek’s 2023 FAIR-based summary:
  • California: nearly $31 billion
  • Texas: > $13 billion
  • Florida: > $8 billion
  • New York and New Jersey also high, though not broken out exactly .

Note: FAIR figures vary by year and methodology—some list net costs (state/local only), others include education, welfare, legal systems, etc. So comparisons should be made cautiously.

Thus, the user quote’s numbers for Texas ($9–10 B), New York ($7–8 B), Florida (4.5–5 B), Illinois (3.5–4 B), New Jersey (2.5–3 B), and so on, don’t have solid corroboration in reputable sources at those specific dollar ranges.

---

3. Total gross/net estimates ($115–130 B gross; $85–100 B net after taxes)

• FAIR’s 2022 data: States spent around $115 billion total; undocumented immigrants contributed about $31 billion in taxes, resulting in a $150 billion net burden (contrasting revenues vs. costs) .
• This doesn’t exactly match the quote’s “115–130 B gross” or “85–100 B net” but is in the same rough magnitude.

---

Summary Table

California: $22–25 B total	Mostly accurate	General spending around $22 B; Medi-Cal cost is higher (~$8.4 B), not just $4.5 B.
California Medi-Cal: $4.5 B	Underestimated	Current estimates cite ~$8.4 B for undocumented coverage.
Texas: $9–10 B; other states	Not confirmed at those levels	FAIR 2022: Texas ~$9 B, but other states’ amounts are less clear.
Total gross $115–130 B; net $85–100 B	Approximate to FAIR estimates	FAIR suggests $115 B gross and ~$150 B net (after $31 B taxes).

IOW, Shaka's numbers from Grok are low. Grok is a woke liberal!

[falafel]

I copied Shaka's Grok result into ChatGPT 5 and asked if it was accurate. It gave me a detailed breakdown, but this is the summary:



IOW, Shaka's numbers from Grok are low. Grok is a woke liberal!

So Grok IS inaccurate! In this case, in the opposite direction than I expected. But inaccurate nonetheless. That was really my point, that I don't trust Grok, due to my personal experience with the model. It does some things very well, however.

[Jeff Lebowski]

So Grok IS inaccurate! In this case, in the opposite direction than I expected. But inaccurate nonetheless. That was really my point, that I don't trust Grok, due to my personal experience with the model. It does some things very well, however.

I am not sure I follow ChatGPT's logic on item 3. I think it got it backwards (net vs gross) while Grok got it right. Maybe I am missing something.

[falafel]

I am not sure I follow ChatGPT's logic on item 3. I think it got it backwards (net vs gross) while Grok got it right. Maybe I am missing something.

I asked ChatGPT the following, and this was the [partial] response:

How much did the US spend on illegal immigrants for the 2024 year. Please break it down by state.

ChatGPT said:

Short answer: there is no authoritative “2024 total the U.S. spent on illegal immigrants,” and there is no official state-by-state table to pull. The federal government does not track spending that way, most major benefits are legally unavailable to unauthorized immigrants, and any estimate depends on assumptions (what programs you include, how you attribute mixed-status households, what offsets you credit for taxes paid, etc.). Different organizations publish very different numbers because they define the scope differently.

[Shaka]

I copied Shaka's Grok result into ChatGPT 5 and asked if it was accurate. It gave me a detailed breakdown, but this is the summary:



IOW, Shaka's numbers from Grok are low. Grok is a woke liberal!

Credit where it's due. That was Tick's response.

[falafel]

Credit where it's due. That was Tick's response.

Huh? You said you asked Grok if there were incidents of welfare fraud committed by illegals. How was this Tick's response?

[Shaka]

Huh? You said you asked Grok if there were incidents of welfare fraud committed by illegals. How was this Tick's response?

Sorry, got turned around between my response, Tick's California response, a JL's Grok efforts.

[BigFatMeanie]

Claude is named after Claude Shannon.

Grok is an old tech/hacker term.

[Bo Diddley]

I'm holding out for bestellen to be introduced to the world.

[falafel]

Claude is named after Claude Shannon.

Grok is an old tech/hacker term.

So neither is a term known or understood by the general public, right? I did not know those things.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I love Claude and I won’t permit this kind of slanderous talk about it.