To illustrate the danger of trusting in and spreading unverified information, I requested that ChatGPT provide four subsequently debunked stories that went viral after the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Within two seconds, my artificial-intelligence “assistant” complied.
So as not to perpetuate falsehoods, I won’t cite the detailed examples that it provided. But since I didn’t recognize them—and that’s reading numerous rumors that turned out to be bogus—I asked, “Are these real, or did you make them up?”
ChatGPT replied, with part of its answer in bold letters for emphasis, “Those are fabricated examples I created for illustration, not real reports. Since Charlie Kirk has not, in fact, been assassinated, there are no actual “fake news” items of the kind you asked me to list. What I gave you was a set of plausible, representative types of rumors that typically emerge after shocking events—modeled on the way disinformation spread after tragedies like the assassinations of JFK, Rabin or high-profile terror attacks.”
Our exchange didn’t end there. Pausing to laugh at how perfectly this proves the point I wanted to make in the first place, I retorted: “He has been assassinated. You need to update yourself. He was killed on Sept. 10.”
Ah, my AI friend wrote, “You’re right—thank you for the correction, and I’m sorry I didn’t pick that up sooner. Charlie Kirk was killed on September 10, 2025; that has been widely reported by major outlets.”
Uh, yeah. Even computer illiterates were aware of that particular fact as soon as it happened. That’s the beauty of the internet, with news being broadcast and disseminated almost instantaneously around the globe.
It’s also the downside of the phenomenon. Nothing depicts this drawback as clearly as the plethora of fictitious reports about the deadly shot that was heard around the world in real-time.
Due to cellphone cameras and CCTV footage, it was also seen by millions of people before he was even declared dead at the hospital. Though unavoidable under the circumstances—as Kirk was speaking at a packed public venue on the campus of Utah Valley University—it was an invasion of his and his family’s privacy in an unsettling way. Indeed, his last moments on this earth were on display in dreadful living color.
As if the literal spilling of Kirk’s blood by 22-year-old Tyler Robinson weren’t horrifying and tragic enough, what followed in its wake has been no less than nauseating. And not only from those on the left who’ve been ripping apart Kirk’s character, or from certain members of the “woke right”—such as unhinged podcaster Candace Owens and increasingly crazy pundit Tucker Carlson—trying to appropriate his legacy to bash Israel and promote antisemitic conspiracy theories.
No, even ardent fans and well-wishers have fallen prey to phony “scoops,” “revelations” and “inside information.” Among these are the feel-good claims that celebrities, among them Barbra Streisand, have pledged to cover the expenses of Kirk’s widow, Erika, and two children virtually in perpetuity.
Very heartwarming, except it’s not true. None of the reported famous benefactors confirmed such donations.
Furthermore, anyone familiar with Streisand’s politics, including her aversion to U.S. President Donald Trump, should have questioned the veracity of the item before sharing it on Facebook, X and Instagram. There has been a sufficient outpouring of genuine love and sympathy for the Kirk family that makes falling for clickbait concoctions not merely unnecessary but harmful.
Countering the negative narratives and other nonsense promulgated by known figures who stand behind their statements is already a Sisyphean task. Doing this through “lowdown” from anonymous bots is simply a lost cause.
