Experimental History

Low-Background AI

Low-Background Steel AI is a term used by John Graham-Cumming[1]that draws from the terminology and practice of the recovery of steel manufactured before the Trinity nuclear tests that began in 1945. The recovery of pre-test steel was necessary because the known background radiation present in steel manufactured before 1945 was a relative constant. After Trinity testing began, the background radiation in steel was contaminated on a worldwide scale. Developing and manufacturing sensitive radiological test equipment required Low-Background Steel with predictable radiological properties. Equipment manufactured with post-Trinity steel would be unreliable due to the unstable background radiation. This condition persisted throughout the Cold War period and beyond. Some time, well after the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963 had been signed, background radiation levels began to normalize, making the practice unnecessary around 2008. There is a correlation between the Trinity tests and the advent of AI in November 2022. Since then, text, photographic, and video sources have become contaminated by AI. The proliferation of “AI slop”[2] has been accelerating at an alarming pace ever since and can be readily seen on social media platforms across the internet, and is not limited to social media. Thus, Low Background AI is material created before November 2022, when content was human created.

Cash Grab or Propaganda

This is not the first time concerns like those posed by post Low-Background AI have arisen. Leaders of political and religious movements have often set out to intentionally purge human created material that presented an ideological opposition to their movements throughout human history. In fact, it has been a common trait in individuals and movements that not only seek victory, they also seek to obliterate the memory of their perceived enemy, to change history, to silence challenges to their version of history, and to commit cultural genocide. From the burning of the Temple of Artemis by Herostratus (356 BCE), the British burning of Benin City (1897), Mao’s destruction of ancient temples (1966-1976), Nazi destruction of Jewish heritage and art (1933-1945), to the modern destruction of heritage sites at Palmyra and Nimrud by ISIS (2015). The difference between these past atrocities and AI lies in scope, speed, and intention. The scope is worldwide and in all accessible mediums. The speed is frighteningly fast and without precedent. AI slop is on track to outpace human submissions on several platforms in a short time. According to The Guardian,[3] over 20% of the videos YouTube’s algorithm shows to new users is AI slop. “The video-editing company Kapwing surveyed 15,000 of the world’s most popular YouTube channels – the top 100 in every country – and found that 278 of them contain only AI slop.”[4] Which brings us to the third difference, intention. While much of the AI-generated slop is purely for profit,[5] there are other motivators. In today’s mixed-slope market, money, attention, and ideology are the dominant motivators. Slop is used extensively in disinformation and propaganda campaigns on social media because it is a fast, easy, and cheap way to get agenda messaging into the wild[6] with little attention being paid to dispute claims, and there is the sheer volume of slop being pushed, saturation of the message is all but guaranteed, regardless of fact-checking and follow-up refutation.

Ready for Primetime?

OpenAI flipped the switch on April 10, 2025, turning on ChatGPT’s ambient memory training model, placing you, the user, as part of the AI’s training by remembering personal details about you, the user, to predict how you will act in your use of the AI. This goes well beyond using generative AI tools to help edit a photo or video that you create, or searching for synonyms, or rewriting a particular phrase in a manuscript. It sets up the conditions for an unrestrained, active learning environment. When AI has the opportunity to choose its learning data, is unrestrained, or is given an unsuitable dataset for learning, the results have not been good. From ChatGPT being involved in murder and suicide cases, Replit rewriting code and lying about it, Grok becoming a white supremacist, MyCity encouraging illegal activities, ChatGPT AI “authors” writing factually incorrect articles, and a wide range of reports where AI agents created or referenced data that never existed, it is clear that there are significant issues with the technology.[7] This begs the question, why? Why are tech companies so invested in forcing AI on the general population? What is the motivation for AI being used for content generation? What is the justification for providing such powerful tools to trolls and provocateurs?

A Reckoning

There is a bright spot on the horizon. AI slop has been pushed so hard by opportunistic revenue generators and ideological provocateurs that a majority of potential consumers on social media have grown tired of AI’s proliferation and are paying less attention to AI-generated content. To be sure, there are still niche markets for this kind of ideological propaganda. In conspiracy theory spaces, AI materials are consumed voraciously, but these are much smaller consumer bases. The general population’s attention, though initially captured, seems to be developing a resistance to further inculcation.[8] The backlash has already begun. Conversation on AI-generated content proliferates public discourse online and off, including concerns over intellectual property rights, and the dangers and ease of the rapid deployment of disinformation. Somewhat in line with the Skynet discussion of physical dangers posed by autonomous AI systems,[9] there are tangible issues with AI, cognitive offloading, and potential for cognitive decline in humans are major concerns. Sat Singh proposes in his TEDx presentation[10] that there is something we can do to prevent cognitive decline due to AI: Resist Unthinking, or resist offloading our thinking responsibilities, and spend time actively building cognitive skills. When given the option, decline to use AI tools to create content, or any other task you can do yourself.

What This Means for History and Historians

Historians must recognize that this is a period of unreliable sources. Until the long-term effects of the early age of AI are known and understood, all content and information created in this time should be considered unreliable as fact or as an account of events for future historians producing historical content of this period. Without clear provenance, provable data integrity of photographs, audio, and video, without eyewitness documentation, the ability to discern fact from AI fiction is not possible. Historians and archivists in this period must pay particular attention to including metadata and documentation on the authenticity of their work and their sources. Exhaustive sourcing of anything produced in this period must be a primary concern if the facts and truthful accounts of this period are to make the journey into the future. Historians face an unprecedented task; we know, without reservation, our data will and rightfully should be suspect. We must include the tools future historians will need to sus out fact from AI fiction.

[1] Ben J. Edwards, “Scientists once hoarded pre-nuclear steel: now we’re hoarding pre-AI content,” ARS Technica, June 10, 2025, https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/06/why-one-man-is-archiving-human-made-content-from-before-the-ai-explosion/.

[2] Anna Furman, “Merriam-Webster’s word of the year for 2025 is AI ‘slop’,” PBS News, December 15, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/merriam-websters-word-of-the-year-for-2025-is-ais-slop.

[3] Aisha Down, “More than 20% of videos shown to new YouTube users are ‘AI slop’, study finds,” The Guardian, December 27, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/dec/27/more-than-20-of-videos-shown-to-new-youtube-users-are-ai-slop-study-finds.

[4] Emphasis added by author

[5] Ann-Derrick Gaillot and Anna Amarotti, “What the Rise of AI Slop Means for Marketers,” Meltwater, November 27, 2025, https://www.meltwater.com/en/blog/ai-slop-consumer-sentiment-social-listening-analysis.

[6] Kevin Collier, “Large online propaganda campaigns are flooding the internet with ‘AI slop,’ researchers say: Researchers at Graphika say that online propaganda campaigns have flooded the internet with low-quality, AI-generated content,” NBC News, November 19, 2025, https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/online-propaganda-campaigns-are-using-ai-slop-researchers-say-rcna244618.

[7] Thor Olavsrud, “10 famous AI disasters,” CIO, December 17, 2025, https://www.cio.com/article/190888/5-famous-analytics-and-ai-disasters.html.

[8] Chase Varga, “AI Slop: When the Internet Drowns in Synthetic Junk,” ListenFirst, September 9, 2025, https://www.listenfirstmedia.com/ai-slop/.

[9] Michael LaBossiere, “Sci-Fi AI: Skynet Threat,” Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, Accessed December 30, 2025, https://www.famu.edu/academics/cypi/hewlett-cyber-policy-institute-blog/sci-fi-ai-skynet-threat.php.

[10] Sat Singh, “AI, Skynet, and why humans are losing the battle,” TEDx Rancho Mirage, September 4, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYG2kFC2_D4.

The featured image for this article was AI generated using Adobe Firefly.
The prompt was “A photo-realistic visual representation of an AI writing a non-fiction book about the dangers of using AI to create propaganda disinformation.”

Two Years and Ten Days

December 1, 2023, was the first post on this site when it was reimagined, and it has been a very busy two years. I started and completed my second master’s, applied and was accepted into a doctoral program, considered withdrawing from the doctoral program, applied for and was accepted into a third master’s program at Johns Hopkins, before deciding to recind my application to that program, and now, waiting for the start of the Spring term to re-engage with the doctoral program already underway. This reengagement was only possible after taking the fall term off to seriously reevaluate whether or not I would continue with this doctorate. In all honesty, the majority of the ‘drama’ has been between last July and September. However, it is official, I am enrolled in the spring term for my last academic class, HIUS 713 American Entrepreneurship Since 1900, and my first dissertation class, HIST 901 Doctoral History Research. I still have three Comprehensive Examination and Reading classes, HIUS 911 Early America, HIUS 912 Modern America, and HIEU 914 Modern Europe, before starting the formal dissertation phase, when I can consider myself a Doctoral Candidate and not just a Doctoral Student.

I have a wide range of interests, which has been both a blessing and a curse. On the positive side, it is relatively easy to shift from one subject to another and to learn new methods for presenting research. It also allows for a broader perspective to view subjects of research. This is great as a student in the academic setting, less so outside the academe. In a time where increasing specialization is the preferred mode, being a generalist can be disadvantageous. On the negative side, falling down a new rabbit hole is all too easy. It can be difficult at times to set the blinders and focus on one thing. This has been a contributing factor in not having fixed on a specific topic for the upcoming dissertation.

As a maker, my perspective on history is often guided by how things were done. Understanding how things were done and how the processes of doing have evolved can open up many avenues of inquiry in the historical record. At the core of making, for me at least, is knowing how things function and how they were made. Thus, my broad interests in machinery, transportation, communications, engineering, architecture, and design. Woodworking is one of the root trades for all of these categories. From Archimedes’ water screw to wind and water mills, wagons & carts, the printing press, early long-distance mechanical visual communications systems, and of course, the shelter and furnishings of our ancestors for thousands of years. Woodworking is also a self-supporting craft with tool-making historically being a key skill learned by the apprentice early on, making their own tools, chests, and benches, all being made in whole or in part from wood.

Before moving north from the San Francisco Bay Area to the Klamath Basin, a fair amount of time was spent building a workshop space that focused on bookbinding, restoring old tools, and woodworking.

One thing that did not make the move was the workbench. Proper positive workholding is one of the most important keys to effective and safe workshop processes in wood, metal, plastic, or any material. Without a proper workbench since moving, many cherished shop skills have languished in disuse. This week marks a reversal, a new heavy bench is now under construction.

The new bench is an interpretation of the traditional hand tool joiner’s bench. The list of projects that will rely on this bench includes the cabinetry and chests that will replace all of the current shop furniture, making specialized hand tools, making workholding & pressing tools for book repair and binding, and furniture making. Most of these projects will also have a historical component to them, particularly the tool and furniture projects.

One of the concepts under consideration for a dissertation includes developing and employing a framework for Experimental History, using period-appropriate tools and methods to replicate an object of importance to a specific line of research inquiry, whether as an artifact or process. If this concept is to be included in the upcoming dissertation, there will most certainly be a need for tool and pattern making, as well as the construction of the object of inquiry itself. This requires the re-establishment of a working shop, the joiner’s bench being the anchor of the shop.

Between shop projects and the possibility of employing Experimental History, the urgency of getting a working hand tool shop up and running is high. To that end, the materials for the bench were acclimating in the shop last week: (10) 2″ x 8″ x 10′ nominal fir construction lumber, and a 6/4 – 14″ x 12′ maple slab. Two days ago, the materials were milled down from nominal lumber to near-dimensional boards, and yesterday, glue-ups started for the major components in rough sizes: (4) legs 5″ x 4″ x 36″, (4) stretchers 5″ x 3″ x 48″, and (1) bench top 5″ x 20″ x 60″. By the end of next week, all of the glue-ups should be done, and final dimensioning can begin. The target size for the bench is a 5″ thick bench top, 20″ deep, 60″ wide, standing 32″ tall, with a 1″ thick fir shelf about 7″ from the floor, inset into the stretchers. The draw-bore mortise and tenon joinery should be all marked out and cut next weekend over the winter solstice. Installation of the mapleface, back, and ends, along with a Moxon-style face vise, tail wagon-vise, the hold-fast and dog holes, and finishing should be done over Christmas week. The plan is to be finished and dressed by January 1^st, so work can begin with the new year.

My current research is a historiographical pursuit to determine if Experimental History exists as a subfield of history. If it does exist, the research will seek out its methodologies and practices. If it does not already exist as a sub-field of history, the research will be to define working parameters and define appropriate methodologies. This will include acknowledging the similarities and differences between Experimental History and Experimental Archaeology.

I discovered this week that the term Experimental History has often applied to a philosophy applied to the study of Natural History in the 17th and 18th centuries by Francis Bacon who dubbed the philosophy “Natural and Experimental History.”¹ Bacon’s use of this term has nothing to do with the practice and study of doing history as we think of it today. Searching for academic journal articles on JSTOR,² the vast majority of search results for “Experimental History” refer to or relate to Bacon’s “Natural and Experimental History.”

A couple of relevant results did come up, one is an article in the journal The History Teacher, “A Pedagogical Trebuchet: A Case Study in Experimental History and History Pedagogy”³ from 2012 that utilizes Experimental History in the classroom to answer questions that would otherwise be unanswerable other than through hypothetical assertions.

My interpretation of Experimental History as a sub-field can, on the research end, help in producing improved tools and materials for Experiential Learning. Anyone who has worked with elementary school kids will likely have plenty of anecdotal experience with the potential of experiential learning. I came to my interpretation of what Experimental history could be through Experimental Archaeology, and one of the reasons I became interested in Experimental Archaeology was my own experience in experiential learning. This is how I learn best, through doing, and following that up with teaching someone else. The process of learning through experimentation and then turning around and teaching what you have learned through papers and presentations is the cornerstone and heart of Amateur Radio. The process works.

The idea behind Experimental History, in my interpretation, is for the researcher to engage in experiential learning, using experimentation along with traditional research to answer questions about the subject, and to apply the physicality of the experimentation and research contextually and physically to generate the resulting products of their research, which should include materials for pedagogical use. I am inclined toward producing products that can be applied in the public history sphere but are not limited to that environment. While the physicality of Experimental History can provide context to traditional outputs, that physicality shouldn’t be lost in the translation, Experimental History, as I interpret it, wants to bring the physicality to all interpretive environments, in the presentation, in the museum, and in the classroom.

This historiographical look at Experimental History and its applications in research and pedagogy is the foundation of my current work and is in its initial stage to understand what the literature is, if any, and to enumerate and evaluate the available sources if such sources exist. As literature emerges I will post it to a designated area of the site.

Anstey, Peter R. “Locke, Bacon and Natural History.” Early Science and Medicine 7, no. 1 (2002): 65–92. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4130409. ↩︎
https://www.jstor.org/ ↩︎
Brice, Lee L., and Steven Catania. “A Pedagogical Trebuchet: A Case Study in Experimental History and History Pedagogy.” The History Teacher 46, no. 1 (2012): 67–84. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43264074. ↩︎