🧠 Why We Warn Against Using AI to Evaluate Our Investment Offering — And Why That’s Not a “Red Flag”

In recent discussions, some commentators — including AI-generated content — have implied that our warning not to use AI or heuristics to evaluate our investment strategy is somehow a “red flag.” The suggestion is that discouraging the use of tools like ChatGPT must mean we’re “sensitive to scrutiny” or “hiding something.”

We’re writing this to debunk that claim clearly — and to show why our stance is not only reasonable, but necessary in today’s environment.

❗ What We Actually Said

We advise readers and prospective investors not to rely on AI, pattern-matching tools, or heuristic models to evaluate our investment structure. Instead, we encourage people to:

• Read the documents

• Ask direct questions

• Understand how our structure works — in full context

That advice is simple. It’s responsible. And frankly, it’s becoming essential.

🔍 Why We Give This Warning

AI models — even sophisticated ones like ChatGPT — work by recognizing and replicating patterns.

That means:

• They may lump us in with other unrelated companies or scams simply due to superficial similarity (e.g., high yield, no fees).

• They may apply stock “red flag” language — like “hidden fees,” “lack of transparency,” or “too good to be true” — even if we have openly disclosed our structure and terms.

• They sometimes fabricate quotes or misattribute content from other sites, passing it off as something we said.

In fact, this has already happened.

🧯 A Real-World Example of AI Getting It Wrong

In one case, an AI-generated critique of our offering:

• Claimed we were hiding fees by earning a “spread” — despite our offer being a fixed-return instrument where the spread is openly acknowledged and structurally irrelevant to investor yield.

• Misquoted us with a fabricated sentence that does not exist anywhere on our site.

• Suggested that our very warning against using AI was itself “suspicious.”

This is exactly what we mean when we say AI isn’t qualified to evaluate our offering.

💡 So Let’s Be Clear:

Rejecting AI as a source of financial evaluation is not a red flag — it’s good due diligence.

If you want to evaluate our offering:

• Read the actual legal documents

• Review the terms directly

• Ask us questions

• Consult with qualified professionals (attorneys, CPAs, investment advisors)

That’s how serious investors make decisions.

🛡️ Our Commitment

We believe in direct communication, clear disclosures, and realistic expectations. We understand that skepticism is healthy — and we welcome thoughtful questions.

But we also believe:

• Pattern-matching summaries are not a substitute for legal documents

• “Too good to be true” is not an argument — it’s a lazy cliché

• Fabricated quotes are unacceptable

• And most importantly: Respect for investors means expecting them to think critically — not rely on AI shortcuts.

✅ Bottom Line

We stand by our warning against using AI to evaluate our investment — and we hope this post explains why:

Because we respect our investors enough to want them making informed, intelligent, human decisions — not machine-generated assumptions.