AI: The lazy rich brother playing “Telephone”

Sam Elonious.

March 19, 2026. Tuesday, March 17, I spent way too much time creating an index for my Substack. The goal: Some form of navigation. My primary Substack has more than 360 posts. And Substack search still leaves a lot to be desired.

I was inspired to do this because of a recent Substack announcement regarding the newly-acquired ability to add new pages, and hence navigation at the top of our Substacks. It looks great. On the desktop. Apparently they haven’t figured out how to have any sort of navigation tool on their app, which most people use when they read Substack posts. [After I tagged Substack and Hamish McKenzie for the third and final time, this began my long odyssey away from Substack and back to this Web site.]

As I created the index, I noticed that Christoph Probst—one of my favorite White Rose people—has far too few posts dedicated to his life and family. I made a mental note to correct that and thought that perhaps starting with an essay about Christl’s decision to buy a slave to help around the house would make an excellent topic.

Curious regarding other writing on that matter, I Googled: Christoph Probst Sklavin. As you can tell, I expected more hits from German authors than U.S. Nothing. Re-Google: Christoph Probst slave.

Search result (AI): Christoph Probst was not a slave, but a 22-year-old German medical student and key member of the “White Rose” anti-Nazi resistance group, executed by guillotine on February 22, 1943. Alongside Hans and Sophie Scholl, Probst was arrested for distributing leaflets denouncing Nazi crimes and calling for opposition. [Punctuation sic.] [Source: Facebook +2]

Key Details on Christoph Probst:

Role in Resistance: He was a close friend of Hans Scholl and involved in drafting the anti-Nazi literature that urged sabotage of the armaments industry. [No source.]
Arrest and Execution: Following their arrest at the University of Munich, Probst and the Scholls were condemned by the “[People’s Court]” in a show trial and executed the same day at Stadelheim Prison. [No source.]
Background: Born in 1919, he was a husband and father of three children at the time of his death. [No source.]
Legacy: Probst is honored as a courageous moral resister against the Hitler regime. [Source: GDW-Berlin +6.]

Although some rhetorical commentary has described German citizens under the Nazi regime’s absolute control as becoming “slaves to the Reich,” Probst was an active resister, not a forced laborer. [Source: Facebook +2.]

The above is such a hodge-podge of right and wrong, I am not even going to address it here. However, there's larger issues at play concerning Wikipedia corrections. Since I may not do so, according to Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia does not accept confirmed experts or primary sources. Only secondary sources. Argh.

But really, Google? Facebook as a “legitimate” source? I checked the non-Facebook sources. There were only two. First was GDW-Berlin, which is generally accurate, just short on information. That is the Gedenkstätte Deutscher Widerstand, or Museum of German Resistance, located in Berlin. So not wrong, just woefully incomplete.

The other non-Facebook sources? A post on Threads. Two high school projects. And a dumbed-down “history” Web site for high school students.

Second, Google AI completely missed the point. In the good old days—say one or two years ago—it was possible to “Google” something with minimal query input. Like Christoph Probst slave.

Third, Google search itself missed the point. It returned no results with both Christoph Probst and slave or Sklavin in the text. And yes, I re-searched with +“Christoph Probst” +slave, and saw the exact same search results.

Since Google search and Google AI misread my query, I tried a far more specific search: Christoph Probst bought a slave.

To my shock and surprise, not only did it return a result, but the result featured… my Substack that included a brief mention of the slave transaction.

According to a recent book referenced in a Substack post by author Denise Elaine Heap, the German anti-Nazi resistance member Christoph Probst and his wife Herta “bought” a slave from a forced labor market during the Nazi era to help the family with their three children.

The search results discuss Christoph Probst (1919-1943) as a medical student at the University of Munich and as a member of the White Rose resistance group, who was executed in 1943 for distributing anti-Hitler leaflets. The specific detail about him buying a slave comes from a book about his life entitled “…damit Deutschland weiterlebt!”: Christoph Probst (1919-1943). The post references conversations with family members who were open about the “hard things” from that period, including the detail about the forced laborer.

The referenced essay is entitled The Definition of Love. [Google has not caught up with its references now that I have moved posts from Substack to our Web sites.] I guess I am supposed be happy that Google AI did me the courtesy of linking to my Substack post on the topic.

But what should I make of the other two sources it provided? The first was one of those awful Facebook posts mentioned above. The second is a link to an article in Plough, an article that forced Christoph Probst into that periodical’s religious mold. Christoph Probst would have hated that magazine. It does not reflect his values or belief system in the least.

Note too that just because the leaflets were named White Rose does not mean that the friends called themselves that. The Facebook post cited as a source is from the otherwise excellent Facebook page for the Auschwitz Memorial. They should stick to Auschwitz and the genuine horrors perpetrated in that place. They know little to nothing about White Rose resistance.

I guess the power of their name influenced Google AI to decide they were a reliable source about Christoph Probst and White Rose resistance, even though they aren’t. Too much of their post, featured by Google AI, is either slop, wrong, or meh.

Just for the heck of it, I Googled Christoph Probst, without anything else. My blood pressure immediately spiked. At least Google AI didn’t try to create a biography of one of my favorite White Rose people.

Instead, Google AI simply highlighted the sources it deemed most credible: Instagram, Alamy, Facebook, a video generated by AI, and Wikipedia.

As an aside: In case you wonder wonder why I never, ever include some of the well-known photographs of our White Rose friends. Google AI featured the iconic photograph of Hans and Sophie Scholl with Christoph Probst, the morning that the soldier students headed for the Russian front.

That photograph is copyrighted by Jürgen (“G.W.”) Wittenstein, who was NOT part of White Rose resistance! Before his death, he sold his White Rose photographs to Getty Images. Yes, including that one. Getty can be slow about prosecution for copyright infringement, but once they do…

The Scholl photographs are copyrighted by Scholl Archives. That, despite the fact that Hans and Sophie Scholl died well over seventy-five years ago. Those photographs should be public domain, according to German copyright law. But I don't have enough money to fight them.

Even though those archives now reside with the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich, the Scholl heirs retained copyright. And they do indeed enforce it. Like Getty, they may be slow about enforcement. But if you have any money at all, they will find you.So: Google AI engaged in a bit of copyright infringement when it returned search results for Christoph Probst.

My blood pressure spiked even more when I read the Wikipedia article for Christoph Probst, followed by the one for White Rose resistance. Because of Wikipedia’s screwy rules, I cannot edit (correct) those articles, because 1) I may not refer to my own histories, and 2) I may not refer to primary sources. Those are Wikipedia rules. D. F. Lovett and Stephen Harrison , this is my Wikipedia gripe!

Therefore, the articles continue to cite books by Richard Hanser (pre-Protokolle, beautifully written, but based on Inge Scholl’s fiction); Annette Dumbach and Jud Newborn (nearly 100% wrong, details here); Inge Scholl (fiction, ignoring the 47 documents she received from White Rose people—I have a full set of those documents and the outline she used to write her book); Barbara Schüler (details here); Detlef Bald (my book review, echoed in the book review by Johannes Tuchel of Gedenkstätte Deutscher Widerstand); and, the gawdawful Breinersdorfer movie, yes, in Wikipedia as a source for White Rose resistance! (detailed review here). Wikipedia even allows cites from a book that has been withdrawn from White Rose literature by the author.

Wikipedia also allows cites of essays and speeches by Jürgen Wittenstein, who not only was not part of White Rose resistance, but was an NS-Führungsoffizier (NSFO). The NSFO rank could only be granted personally by Adolf Hitler or Heinrich Himmler. NSFO rank permitted the officer to shoot suspected traitors on sight, without arrest or trial. And yes, I have the document that proves that Wittenstein was NSFO. To know more about Wittenstein: Evolution of Memory. His memory improved as scholarship improved.

Once my blood pressure was back to normal, I doubly understood something that I’ve known, but could not articulate as well as I’d liked:

With the current interface of social media, AI, and Wikipedia, errors proliferate and propagate.

An influencer with a large following can say something that is incorrect. Like kudzu in Mississippi, before long the Internet is covered with misinformation (if the error was unintentional) or disinformation (if it’s propaganda or false marketing).

When, for example, Jud Newborn writes that he is the first person ever to talk about Hans Scholl’s pedophilia and homosexuality, he has the full force and power of the Museum of Jewish Heritage behind him. According to his Web site, he was its Founding Historian and co-creator.

He posted an article about the Scholl siblings, which was picked up by the Smithsonian online magazine. In that article, the Smithsonian perpetuated his claim that he was the first person ever to write about Hans Scholl’s homosexuality etc. Which, I daresay, quite a few people read on February 22, 2023.

I protested to the Smithsonian, gave them correct information, and to their everlasting credit, they edited Newborn’s article. Smithsonian removed Newborn’s first-ever claim, added that Eckard Holler was the first person to write about it in 1999 (true!), and referenced the Center for White Rose Studies (yea!) as having published the transcripts of Hans Scholl’s bündische trials in English translation. Only it wasn’t CWRS, it was Exclamation! Publishers. And they linked to CWRS, not the bündische publication. Don’t understand why they didn’t, because I gave them that information.

As a result, we got exactly zero enquiries or sales of that publication (to purchase, click here). And if you read Hans Scholl’s Wikipedia page, you find the following:

Scholl was arrested in 1937–38 because of his membership in a forbidden Youth Movement organisation. Hans Scholl had joined the Deutsche Jungenschaft vom 1.11.1929 (d.j.1.11) in 1934, when he and other Hitler Youth members in Ulm considered membership in this group and the Hitler Youth to be compatible.

During the trial, Scholl was also charged under Paragraph 175, the paragraph in the German Criminal Code that criminalized homosexual behavior. Under questioning, he admitted to having had two separate sexual relationships, one with Rolf Futterknecht, and one with Ernest Reden, who had also made advances on his brother Werner. Futterknecht had been the one to inform on Hans.

Scholl made a positive impact on the judge, who dismissed the choice to join the youth groups as the “youthful exuberance” and “obstinate personality” of a “headstrong young man.” The judge then dismissed the homosexual allegations as a “youthful failing.” Hans was allowed to leave the trial with a clean slate. Ernest Reden, on the other hand, was sentenced to three months prison and three months in a Nazi concentration camp for the relationship.

After Scholl’s trial, no one spoke of the allegations against him. The only people who knew were his parents and his older sister, Inge, who never spoke about the charges.

That section of the Hans Scholl Wikipedia article cites the following sources:

Bryant, Christopher (27 February 2013). “LGBT history month heroes – day 27”. Polari Magazine. Archived from the original on 22 November 2013. Retrieved 6 August 2024.
Freedman, Russell (2016). We will not be silent: the White Rose student resistance movement that defied Adolf Hitler. Clarion Books. Boston. ISBN 978-0-544-22379-0. OCLC 922639609.
Frey, Reed (2019). “Conscience before Conformity: Hans and Sophie Scholl and the White Rose Resistance in Nazi Germany by Paul Shrimpton”. Newman Studies Journal. 16 (1): 124–125. doi:10.1353/nsj.2019.0012. ISSN 2153-6945. S2CID 201765330.
Newborn, Jud (17 February 2023). “Hans and Sophie Scholl were once Hitler Youth Leaders. Why did they decide to stand up to the Nazis?”. Smithsonian Magazine. Archived from the original on 17 February 2023. Retrieved 6 August 2024.
Scally, Derek (30 January 2018). “Anti-Nazi resistance hero was a bisexual Nazi youth, book reveals”. The Irish Times. Retrieved 6 August 2024.
“The Three Trials of Hans Scholl”. 26 March 2022.

As you can see, Newborn was cited, not I. His Smithsonian article had legs, despite the Smithsonian’s corrections and update. It’s literary kudzu.

The Bryant article says this: Scholl’s homosexuality, and the part it played in the evolution of his political consciousness, was not revealed until the 2006 essay ‘Solving Mysteries: The Secret of The White Rose’ by Jud Newborn. The question of Scholl’s sexuality was then explored in greater detail by [Author] in his 2009 biography Sophie Scholl: The Woman Who Defied Hitler. [Author] revealed that when the Gestapo tortured the pair in February 1943, Sophie cited Hans’ trial for homosexual activity in 1938 as “the most important reason” for her dissident politics.

Another Newborn cite, plus a cite of an author who has agreed to remove his book from White Rose literature and should not be cited.

The Scally article, linking to The Irish Times, cites Robert Zoske, a Lutheran pastor in Hamburg who I feel fairly certain should have cited my book. His book was published in 2021, nineteen years after my histories appeared. I am ordering from AbeBooks and will publish a book review, including places where he should have cited me.

And “The Three Trials of Hans Scholl” was penned by James Peron on Medium, based on Zoske’s book.

You may wonder why this annoys me so greatly.

When I wrote my White Rose histories—2002!—I directly addressed the then-taboo issue of Hans Scholl’s homosexuality and pedophilia, as well as his addiction to crystal meth.

The Scholl family immediately went on the offensive, attacking my histories in the German press. They ginned up support for their assaults, including the German press and at least one trade journal. One Scholl ally called me “Gestapo,” simply for writing the truth. Another Scholl ally penned a supercilious screed condemning me—not my work, but me personally—because, as he said, it’s not allowed to write negative things about German heroes from the Holocaust. In every case, they attacked me personally, never my work.

When a German PhD student plagiarized my histories (one colleague told me it’s the German translation of my histories!) for his dissertation at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munchen, a Scholl ally attacked him, writing in October 2006 that he was simply joining the crusade I had begun.

Ironically, the PhD student even plagiarized my defense in the German press, where I had responded that Germans need to stop treating the Scholls as Halbgötter [demigods]. That student used exactly that word in his September 2006 Spiegel interview. “Hören wir endlich auf, das Bild von Halbgöttern zu zeichnen,” he said. Let us finally stop portraying them as demigods. In 2002, a German newspaper entitled an article, “Waren keine Halbgötter”—they were not demigods—in a renewed attack on me. They refused to print my entire response, choosing only a fragment of a letter. That fragment, the one about Halbgötter.

Therefore when writers who came considerably after me claim to be “the first” or “the only” or similar, and Wikipedia, Grokipedia, Google AI, and others cite their essays, posts, and books, it is hard not to be aggrieved.

Influencers and online periodicals like the Smithsonian ensure that the errors and misquotes and false attributions proliferate, spread like wildfire. Students, teachers, and most especially Wikipedia and its sloppy cousin Grokipedia ensure that the errors are propagated, become entrenched.

And AI, especially Grokipedia and Google AI, take all that garbage, place it in a blender, and spew out slop. That students cite. And teachers let them.

The cycle won’t end until guardrails for intellectual property theft are in place.

The cycle won’t end until Wikipedia understands that secondary sources must be scrutinized.

The cycle won’t end until the historical process is applied, fairly, evenhandedly, weighting all those words and winnowing the chaff, and until advisory committees for PhD students check the bibliography for completeness. That PhD would have looked different had just one single professor done so. Clearly, my work was well-known, if only in attack articles.

Hey, I guess I am supposed to be thankful that if someone (currently) types in an actual sentence from one of my posts, Google AI can find it and links to it—for now, not to someone who’s plagiarized it or misused it.

AI has become little more than the lazy rich brother playing Telephone. You know, the one who purposely misstates what the person next to him in the circle said, guaranteeing that the message will be distorted.

I think we should name that lazy rich brother SamElonious.

"Conversation" between Vance Frost and me, March 2026 (worth keeping!)

The rules let secondary sources in and keep primary documents out. That's not a design flaw, that's the design. Built for scale, not for someone who's been sitting on the actual material for twenty years while a high school project gets indexed next to her work.

The Halbgötter thing. That's a bibliography nobody opened.

Google put Instagram as a top source for Christoph Probst. Nobody on that team is sorting captions from documents. Why would they. The guy scrolling past at midnight sure won't.

--Vance Frost

The Wikipedia rules exclude not only me, but anyone who is The Expert in their field. For me, White Rose resistance. For a scholar named Christian Tilitzki, philosophy professors in Germany during the Weimar Republic and Third Reich.

People editing history on Wikipedia generally don’t read real scholarship. They go for pop culture history, like Jud Newborn and others who cash in on movies based on historical events to churn out books. Wikipedia accepts those writers. But not the experts.

Even more frustrating for me, however, are the PhD advisory committees that no longer check bibliographies for completeness.

I find myself wondering what the end game is. Destruction of genuine knowledge destroys the foundation.

--Me.

You're right about the committees. That's the part with no excuse, because a committee is people, not policy. But here's the thing, the correction path isn't through Wikipedia or through them. Your Substack already showed up when the query got specific enough. That's the mechanism. The slop dominates broad searches but it can't compete on detail. Every post you write with a primary source in it is one more indexed answer that wasn't there before. That's the only pipeline that actually scales without permission.

The Tilitzki parallel is worth its own piece, honestly.

--Vance Frost

I wrote about Tilitzki on my primary Substack, Why This Matters, and in that article linked to my book review of his work. His approach was so innovative. As with White Rose resistance, philosophers of the Nazi era reinvented themselves postwar. It’s hard to separate fact from fiction, because historians and biographers tended to take the reinvented personas as real.

So Tilitzki used *personnel files*. Those files contained dissertation, CVs, hiring-firing often with interviews, PR and newspaper articles, disciplinary actions, curricula, courses taught. He used that as his foundation. Stunning in its simplicity.

--Me.

Personnel files. Right. The published work was what philosophers chose to say about themselves after the war. Tilitzki read what the institution recorded before anyone had a reason to revise anything.A file like that doesn't need the subject's cooperation. Or their permission to be accurate.The disciplinary actions part, that's where the real distance opens up between the CV and the person.

--Vance Frost.

Brilliant, isn’t it?

--Me.

Thank you, Denise! Which part caught your eye?

--Vance Frost.

I read Tilitzki’s work looking for information about Von Rintelen, who claimed to have been fired for anti-Nazi beliefs. His personnel files showed that was a lie on three or more levels. He was a close personal friend of and advisor to Adolf Hitler! If anything, that friendship had preserved his position long past the expiration date of his particular interest.

Which then made me dig into Tilitzki’s writing about Kurt Huber, long credited as the philosophy professor who inspired White Rose students with his lectures on Leibniz’s theodicy. Only, Huber didn’t teach the Leibniz courses. His rival did.

And then it hit me that the White Rose + Huber + Leibniz theodicy legend wasn’t created by anyone who was there. Rather it was invented by people trying to deflect from Huber’s hardcore Nazi beliefs. Huber was anti-Hitler, not anti-Nazi.

Without Tilitzki’s work, the record may never have been substantively challenged.

--Me.

Denise, that's the mechanism nobody wants named. The record wasn't wrong, it was edited after the fact by people who needed a cleaner version. Personnel files sat in drawers while the published history got rewritten around convenience. Anti-Hitler is a position you can rehabilitate. Anti-Nazi means the whole architecture goes, and that version had no sponsors after '45.Theodicy as the origin of resistance sounds better than a faculty rivalry. Not an accident.The rival teaching those courses is a thread worth pulling.

--Vance Frost.

If you ever have cause to visit Gettysburg, we should continue this conversation F2F!

--Me.

Denise, if I'm ever near Gettysburg you'll be the first to know. That conversation deserves a longer table than a comment thread.The battlefield alone would sidetrack us for hours.

--Vance Frost.

Questions? Comments? Speak your mind below. Before doing so, please log in using the email address that corresponds to your orders or newsletter subscription. Note: MARKDOWN is the app's label for formatting shortcuts.

If you enjoyed this post and would like to leave me a tip, I would be grateful! Buy Me A Coffee!

Return to Common Table index.

Image credits: Sam Elonious--Shopify, public domain for platform users. Other images--Screenshots all as March 18, 2026. Yes, I kept a copy (JPEGs).

No part of this post may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the copyright holder, except for the “fair use” of quotations that are properly cited and credited, including identification of the translator if applicable. No part of this post may be included in any Large Language Model without proper licensing from the copyright holder, Denise Elaine Heap.