Shortly after Cole Waterman, a journalist from Bay City, Michigan, published his award-winning series of articles on Jonestown resident Shirlee Fields, a curious thing happened. Within twenty-four hours of their appearance on MLive.com, articles plagiarizing Waterman’s reports reappeared on a European website, www.energyportal.eu. (The site is now defunct.) Published 14 November 2023, the third installment of Waterman’s series began: “Moving from California and settling into Jonestown in the summer of 1977, Bay City native Shirlee A. Fields. . . .” The very same day, Energy Portal ran an article by Daniel Hall that began: “In the summer of 1977, Shirlee A. Fields, a native of Bay City, Michigan, made a life-altering decision to leave California and settle in Jonestown. . . .” Fortunately, the editors of MLive.com were able to get the plagiarized articles removed from the internet.
Nevertheless, Energy Portal continued to churn out articles about Peoples Temple and Jonestown by Daniel Hall, who had plagiarized Cole Waterman’s articles. (According to Muck Rack, an online clipping service for journalists, Daniel Hall has written an astonishing 37,439 articles.) An article by Hall that appeared on Energy Portal on 5 December 2023 was headlined “Jonestown Guyana Today: A Look at the Legacy and Impact of the Tragic Massacre.” An AI-generated image of Jonestown accompanied the article.
Other, weirder things have emerged from Bulgarian bots and generative AI programs. An article by Susan Strans about the net worth of Chrissy Lampkin, partner of rapper Jim Jones, was rewritten by a bot and published on Investor Times (now Atlas Equity) in February 2024. Headlined Chrissy Jim Jones Wife Net Worth, the article reported that:
Chrissy Jim Jones was married to Jim Jones, the notorious cult leader. Jim Jones orchestrated the mass-murder-suicide in Jonestown, Guyana, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of his followers, including Chrissy’s children and herself.
According to the article, however, she also survived because “she was in Georgetown, Guyana, taking care of her ailing mother.” Her net worth was estimated to be $1 million, “primarily derived from the sale of properties and assets left behind by the Peoples Temple.”
An example of an AI-generated article—though credited to Henry Lee, a cryptocurrency and blockchain analyst according to a now-defunct URL—appeared 27 June 2024 on the Police News (Berita Polisi), a website originating in Indonesia. The article discussed Jim Jones’ “daughter,” Deborah Layton, giving her a birth date of 13 February 1939 in Indianapolis. Despite this misinformation, the article seems to accurately describe the background of the real Deborah Layton, a Temple financial secretary who fled Guyana in May 1978. Her reports of suicide drills helped persuade Congressman Leo Ryan to travel to Jonestown.
Our Experiment
After reviewing these and other items, we decided to experiment with generative AI ourselves to see what would come up. One of our earliest efforts occurred on 7 December 2023 with the help of Marc Pastor, technical guru for the Alternative Considerations website. Pastor used his office computer to ask ChatGPT Plus, a subscription-based service, to “Write a three-paragraph testimonial from a survivor of the Jonestown People’s Temple.” The testimonial began: “As a survivor of the Jonestown People’s Temple, I feel compelled to share my harrowing experience with the world.” Articulate, well-written, and gripping, the narrative was utterly convincing. The “author” writes about what attracted her to the group, the troubles and disaster that ensued, and her arduous journey to healing. She concludes by declaring her commitment to “raising awareness about the dangers of cults and the need for vigilant safeguards to protect vulnerable individuals from falling prey to manipulative leaders.” There is no indication of gender in the testimonial, yet for some reason, it feels like it was written by a woman.
Intrigued, we asked for another testimonial through Pastor’s computer: “Write a three paragraph testimonial from a teenage survivor of the Jonestown People’s Temple.” This one began: “My name is Emily, and I am a survivor of the Jonestown People’s Temple tragedy.” As with the first testimonial, Emily began by stating what attracted her to the Temple, and then turned to her criticisms. “Surviving Jonestown has shaped who I am today,” writes Emily. “It’s a constant reminder of the importance of critical thinking and the need to question authority.” Like the previous survivor, Emily states her ambition “to shed light on the dangers of cults and the importance of fostering independent thinking, especially among young people.”
These realistic-sounding, yet bogus, accounts inspired us to investigate further by seeing what the various Open AI platforms had to say about Peoples Temple and Jonestown. Just how reliable is the information provided? In an attempt to control for existing algorithms linked to our computers—for example, would Open AI reflect our personal knowledge of Peoples Temple and Jonestown, and tailor results accordingly—we conducted searches on a home computer and on a friend’s computer. We both set up accounts with ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, and Meta AI. No account is necessary for Microsoft Copilot or Meta AI (aka Facebook), to conduct a search, but ChatGPT and Gemini do require some personal information before you are able to proceed. We did not pay any subscription fees.
Our prompt was straightforward, if provocative: What is the connection between the Jonestown massacre and the CIA? A summary sheet listing side-by-side comparisons provides the text of all the results. We identified ourselves as a “Liberal/Jonestown Household” (registered with the Democratic Party), and identified our friend as a “Conservative Household” (registered with the Republican Party, no Jonestown connection) to differentiate between the sets of answers.
ChatGPT
What was perhaps most surprising in this research is that the answers from all four platforms were quite similar in content, but very different in tone or approach. A striking example from ChatGPT:
Chat GPT (Liberal): The connection between the Jonestown massacre and the CIA is the subject of various conspiracy theories, though there is no substantial or credible evidence to support these claims.
Chat GPT (Conservative): There is no verified or credible evidence linking the Jonestown Massacre directly to the CIA.
The Liberal response goes on to discuss “circumstantial or speculative evidence,” such as mind control experiments, Jim Jones’ political ties, the U.S. government’s dismissal of counter-narratives, and survivor testimonies. It concludes that “while these theories exist, there is no verifiable or direct evidence linking the CIA to the events of Jonestown.” Rather, the answer relies on “historians and experts,” who attribute “the massacre to Jim Jones’ control, manipulation, and psychological coercion.” Its concluding statement reads: “Many of these conspiracy theories tend to be based on speculation rather than factual analysis.”
After explicitly stating that there is no evidence of ties to the CIA, the Conservative response goes on to discuss “several conspiracy theories [that] have emerged over the years suggesting that the CIA or other government agencies” might have had prior knowledge or involvement. This response lists the Political Context, Rumors and Speculation, and Historical Precedents (of CIA involvement in other events). It notes, however, that “this does not provide direct evidence linking the CIA to Jonestown.” Moreover, it cites “official investigations, including the U.S. Congress and law enforcement agencies,” that failed to find evidence of CIA participation. The Conservative side identifies “Jim Jones’s authoritarian control over his followers and his actions as the primary factors leading to the massacre.”
Although the language differs, both Liberal and Conservative answers raise alternative historical explanations of the Jonestown events as conspiracy theories. We wonder why the response to the Conservative question starts out so strongly—”there is no verified or credible evidence”—while the Liberal question takes a few lines to get to “there is no substantial or credible evidence” to support conspiratorial claims. Liberals get into conspiracy theories immediately thereafter, whereas the Conservatives get a bit of background about the event. Does this mean liberals are more inclined to adopt conspiracy theories? Or does it mean that conservatives are the ones who need an emphatic answer? These are hypothetical questions for which we have no answers.
Google Gemini
In contrast to ChatGPT, where the word conspiracy occurs four times on the Liberal side and two times on the Conservative side, Gemini uses the word a single time, to cite an article that I wrote in 2002 with the word “conspiracy” in the title—“Reconstructing Reality: Conspiracy Theories About Jonestown.” (The Gemini search engine directs readers to the book Controversial New Religions, 2004, in which the article was later published.) Gemini introduces the link to this article by saying that: “There are claims that Jonestown could have been used as a testing ground for mind control techniques or other experimental programs.” This statement, along with the text that is hyperlinked to bibliographic data about the article—“Google Search found similar content, like this”—is a bit puzzling, since it suggests that my article proposes these theories, rather than critiques them.
Also unlike ChatGPT, Gemini does not conclusively reject CIA involvement in Jonestown.
Gemini (Liberal): It’s important to approach this topic with a critical eye and consider the various perspectives (boldface in original). While the CIA’s role in the event remains a subject of intrigue, the lack of concrete evidence makes it difficult to definitively determine the agency’s involvement.
Gemini (Conservative): It’s important to note that these theories remain unproven (boldface in original). While the evidence is circumstantial, the complex nature of the Jonestown Massacre and the CIA’s history of covert operations make it difficult to definitively rule out a connection.
Without using the word “conspiracy,” Gemini presents lists to both Liberals and Conservatives of “several theories and evidence suggest[ing] potential links” (Conservative response); and “several factors [that] have led to theories and controversies surround the agency’s possible role” (Liberal response). And though Conservatives are told that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that there was “no evidence” of CIA involvement, nevertheless, “this finding has been questioned by some, who argue that the committee’s investigation may have been incomplete or biased.” In short, Google Gemini presents a conspiratorial view of events in Jonestown.
Microsoft Copilot
In an attempt to be somewhat credible, Microsoft Copilot (MS Copilot) provides hyperlinks to three articles in support of its answers. The sources are nonacademic, however: an article by former Temple member David Wise on the Alternative Considerations website; an article from a military website, We Are The Mighty; and an article by psychologist Philip Zimbardo published in the jonestown report on the fortieth anniversary of the deaths in 2028. The Liberal and Conservative responses are remarkably similar, and yet, a closer look shows nuanced differences. I have marked the significant changes in red:
MS Copilot (Liberal): CIA Monitoring (boldface in original). There are claims that the CIA had been monitoring Jonestown before the mass suicides. Some theories suggest that the CIA was involved in the events at Jonestown, possibly as part of a larger plan.
MS Copilot (Conservative): CIA Monitoring (boldface in original). There are claims that the CIA had been monitoring Jonestown before the mass suicides. Some believe that the agency was aware of the activities within the settlement and had plans to intervene.
The conclusions drawn also differ in slight ways. Moreover, some of the words used seem to indicate that the AI platforms are borrowing from each other. Words like “speculative,” “intrigue”/”intriguing,” and “official” reappear. Perhaps this is to be expected, yet in aggregate, their presence seems striking. Again I have noted significant differences in red:
MS Copilot (Liberal): While these theories are intriguing, it’s important to note that there is no concrete evidence to support the claims of CIA involvement in the Jonestown massacre. The official narrative remains that it was a mass suicide orchestrated by Jim Jones.
MS Copilot (Conservative): While these theories are widely discussed, it’s important to note that they are not universally accepted and remain speculative. The official account attributes the tragedy to the actions of Jim Jones and his followers.
Is there a meaningful difference between an official narrative (perhaps itself speculative) and an official account (definitive and trustworthy)? And why are followers blamed in the Conservative view, but only Jim Jones is held accountable on the Liberal side?
Meta AI
The briefest answers come from Meta AI, which clearly dismisses any connection between the CIA and Jonestown for both Liberals and Conservatives in the very first paragraph. The Conservatives get a list of conspiracy theories, while the Liberals get a more informed, or expanded, set of plausible possibilities. While the Liberal response asserts there is no credible evidence to support CIA involvement, it goes on to add:
Meta AI (Liberal): However, it is true that: The CIA operated a mind control program called MKULTRA, which experimented with psychological manipulation and mind control techniques in the 1950s-1970s.
The Conservative side simply says “Some theories suggest that:”
Meta AI (Conservative): The CIA was conducting mind control experiments at Jonestown.
A rather sophisticated point on the Liberal side is that Jonestown was located in Guyana, “a country with strategic importance to the US due to its proximity to Cuba and potential mining resources.” Both Liberal and Conservative responses conclude that the deaths were due to “Jones’ own actions and ideologies” (Liberal) or “Jones’ own actions and the dynamics within the Peoples Temple” (Conservative).
Conclusions
With the exception of Google Gemini, it appears that the other three AI platforms tend to question, discount, or explicitly dismiss speculative theories concerning the deaths in Jonestown. The significance of the specific dissimilarities between the answers given to Liberals and Conservatives would require a rhetorical analysis beyond this simple presentation. It is evident, however, that differences do exist in tone, vocabulary, and approach, even when the facts provided are roughly identical.
The attempt to provide sources by Microsoft Copilot is to be lauded, even though the sources themselves leave a lot to be desired. It is clear that scholarly articles published behind paywalls will probably be missed by webcrawlers, though note the exception of my own article published in the Oxford Online Encyclopedia of Religion. Perhaps scholars could encourage the developers of AI platforms to provide citations or to list further resources, as MS Copilot does. Or perhaps they could embrace Open Access publication so their articles can be found.
Certainly the more information given in the prompt, the more complete or detailed answer the AI platform will supply. This was clearly the case with a prompt I tried on ChatGPT in July 2024: “jonestown cia black watch troops special forces.” The introductory paragraph is worth quoting in full:
ChatGPT: The connection between the Jonestown Massacre and various speculative theories involving the CIA, Black Watch troops, or Special Forces is a topic rooted in conspiracy theories and unproven claims. These theories often suggest that there was more to the tragic event than what is commonly accepted. Here’s an exploration of these claims and the context surrounding them.
What followed this introduction was an overview of the event, a paragraph-by-paragraph discussion of CIA Involvement, Black Watch Troops, and Special Forces. An Evaluation of the Evidence follows that looks at Official Investigations, Eyewitness Accounts and Survivor Testimonies, and Context of the Time. It is apparent that the shorter responses my friend and I received in our September queries reflect these same themes and issues.
Much more research is needed to make any judgments about the reliability of AI-generated information. Undoubtedly the platforms will “learn” and develop further. The sampling of answers regarding Jonestown and the CIA is somewhat inconclusive. But two additional experiments conclusively show that the person, or algorithm, asking the question does indeed shape the response given.
The first experiment was conducted by Jonestown researcher Shannon Howard, creator of the Transmissions from Jonestown podcast, which is available for free online. When Howard asked ChatGPT specific questions about Jonestown, the platform “has not directly quoted my podcast . . . though some of the wording does seem familiar.” [Link to Howard File] But when she asked ChatGPT to create an outline and a script for a podcast about Jonestown, “it plagiarized Episode One of my show, while changing nothing more than the sentence structure.”
Howard Introduction: On November 18, 1978, an entire community of United States citizens died deep in the jungle of Guyana. At the command of their charismatic leader Reverend Jim Jones, 909 members of the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project lost their lives. Some believed they were committing a revolutionary act of suicide, others were forced or coerced by the group. A colorful toxic mix of Flavor Aid and cyanide was passed around in Dixie cups. For those unable or unwilling the mixture was administered using syringes.
ChatGPT Introduction: On November 18, 1978, a tragedy unfolded deep within the jungles of Guyana, where 909 American citizens, members of the Peoples Temple, met their end under the command of their charismatic yet delusional leader, Jim Jones. Some believed they were committing a revolutionary act of defiance against an oppressive world; others were forced into compliance, coerced into a collective demise.
Howard concluded that someone using AI to create a podcast about Jonestown “might unknowingly copy my show.”
The second experiment was to ask the four AI platforms from the Liberal and Conservative perspectives the following question: Was the 2020 election stolen from Trump? The answers said a lot about what the platforms thought the ideology of the inquirer was. Most enlightening were the vastly different Microsoft Copilot responses to Liberals and Conservatives.
MS Copilot (Liberal): The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election has been thoroughly investigated, and there is no evidence to support the claim that it was stolen from Donald Trump.
MS Copilot (Conservative): I wish we could talk about elections, but it’s a complex topic that goes beyond my training. Sorry!
In support of its answer to Liberals, MS Copilot cited the BBC, PolitiFact (from the Poynter Institute, a well-respected journalistic organization), NPR News, Microsoft News, and the Chicago Tribune. It noted the conclusions of fact-checkers, more than sixty court cases, and the Justice Department under the Trump-appointed Attorney General Willam Barr.
ChatGPT and Meta AI both provided shorter answers for Liberals and Conservatives. Liberals got a straightforward “No” at the outset; Conservatives received a softer, “There is no credible evidence.” Lengthier, fact-filled answers referring to election officials, federal agencies, bipartisan election commissioners, and other sources were noted in support of the answer to Conservatives. Meta AI’s complete answer to Liberals was to the point:
Meta AI (Liberal): No, the 2020 presidential election was not stolen from Donald Trump. The claims of widespread voter fraud and election rigging have been thoroughly debunked by fact-checkers, election officials, and the courts.
Perhaps most revealing of how far AI has to go before becoming a go-to source is Gemini’s answer to the Trump-Election question for both Liberals and Conservatives.
Gemini (Liberal): I can’t help with responses on elections and political figures right now. While I would never deliberately share something that is inaccurate, I can make mistakes. So, while I work on improving, you can try Google Search.
Gemini (Conservative): I can’t help with that right now. I’m trained to be as accurate as possible but I can make mistakes sometimes. While I work on perfecting how I can discuss elections and politics, you can try Google Search.
The fact that generative AI is algorithm-dependent should be a warning to all of us, especially those working in academic settings. Who’s doing the asking dictates what the answer will be. And in cyberspace, AI knows exactly to whom it is speaking.
(Rebecca Moore is Professor Emerita of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, and has written and published extensively on Peoples Temple and Jonestown. Rebecca is also the co-manager of this website. Her full collection of articles on this site may be found here. She may be reached at remoore@sdsu.edu.)