Who Is Really In Control Of the Appraisal Institute.

[RCA]

Yes, YOU stated the correct role. Clause did not, even though it was readily available. As I noted before, my main point was to illustrate the problem with posting output from LLMs without verification.

I am sorry that pointing out that error put you into full Zoe mode.

You don't have a clue how neural networks operate. They train on extrapolating past data to results. They work on reducing errors. The Neural Network software progressively builds a deep network of neurons that contain highly complex logic, which is hidden within a black box. For the AI system, facts are only indirectly perceived and are not really facts. They are always predictions of truth with a certain degree of reality. The result is rarely close to 100% accuracy. But rather it is happy to achieve the same accuracy as a person could achieve with the same data. Although, of course, they often do much. Better than people.

You fail to admit your own errors. At least the AI system does not have that problem.

I don't have to "defend" AI. It is what it is.

LinkedIn statements of "current position" are not that accurate. Many of the current positions listed on LinkedIn have likely changed since the individuals updated their profiles, indicating that they have either changed jobs or been fired. Many people are very slow to change their profile. And many positions are, depending on the company, quite tenuous. The 16-year position has more weight than the 1-year. position.

Now ask yourself what it really means to be a current director, VP, or CEO, or any officer at the Appraisal Institute. How frigging meaningful is it? Just look at the past list of officers, including Cindy Chance. They come and they go.

Does it really mean that much to say someone has been in a leadership position for a year or at the Appraisal Institute? I know plenty of people, so-called full-time employees, especially nowadays, who get a job and then get laid off after a year.

The depth of neural connections in a neural network can be pretty deep. It trains based on the probability of truth, because facts are hard to come by in this day and age.

It's a black-box that aims at the most probable truth. Its actual logic is hidden from us. And it could be hidden behind 256 layers, each containing perhaps 30 neurons, but eventually compressed into a compact form and sent to a highly efficient set of GPUs for processing.

SO, I conclude you just don't know very much at all about training or programming neural networks. Please take a course at least - which means you will have to do some Python and train your own neural networks: Forward propagation to make a prediction, compare the prediction to the actual result, calculate the difference (error), then start your backward propagation to calculate the partial matrix derivatives and use those to modify your old matrix weights to generate a new result closer to the actual results, maybe run it 20,000 times until you are satisfied you can't improve the accuracy on your set of maybe 200,000 inputs or whatever. You may create some very deep and complex neural networks, but you will never be able to figure them out, although I suppose it is possible, but it would definitely be an unpleasant exercise.

That's why we have MARS for appraisal - because we need to be able to explain the results.

 

[RCA]

You don't have a clue how neural networks operate. ...

I would note that in the case of training a neural network to predict various characteristics of people from LinkedIn profiles, they would possibly try to get access to employment records from 10 large companies that show their employment history, reviews, raises, promotions as of some date, and then capture their Linkedin Profile on that date and try to predict from the LinkedIn profiles various things in their employment history. Certainly the companies could do this themselves with their own employees, and many large companies we can be sure do: After all, with a good model, they might be able to target the most promising cadidates on LinkedIn for their openings. It's hard to say what kind of data OpenAI, Anthropic and Grok have access to. Grok would certainly have access to many employee records. But what kind of access could they get to other data? I don't know. But in any case, the "Current Position" on LinkedIn would not be taken as a fact, but as a "predictor" for the current position. And the model would try to determine how it could use that predictor and any others to predict the most likely current position for an employee with a specific company and the expected accuracy or error rate of such a prediction.

 

[RCA]

Yes, YOU stated the correct role. Claude did not, even though it was readily available. As I noted before, my main point was to illustrate the problem with posting output from LLMs without verification.

I am sorry that pointing out that error put you into full Zoe mode.

How did you know I didn’t verify it by the way. I clearly quoted it. I already knew otherwise per the OP. Again, you are very sloppy in making any kind of argument.

 

[Non Sequitur]

The Executive Committe controls the insta-toot. Here's why:

Post from LinkedIn:

"...snip...
This week, The President of The Appraisal Institute put out a release that she was appointing a “Project Team” to study the “Election Process” of the Executive Committee. The President said that she was appointing these people, but she would not be directing them “in any way”.

First of all, I will say that I am not expecting to get a call to be on that Team.

The four quasi-volunteer Executive Committee positions come with annual stipends ranging from $100,000 to $150,000. Over a four-year period, anyone “elected” can expect to collect $500,000 plus enjoy the perks of travel to conferences, free registration to professional events, and an open-ended call to service that doesn’t include many onerous requirements.

Many within our organization hope to end their careers on this four-year gravy train. We have an election process that can be manipulated so that those in power can help pass on the positions to their friends within the organization.
...snip..."

 

[TC]

I am sorry that pointing out that error put you into full Zoe mode.

 

[Non Sequitur]

As an AI member you could simply ask how much money AI has donated to ADI.

As an AI member you can simply ask how many dues paying members exist and the breakdown of the numbers (CR, CG, designated, candidates, etc.)
As an AI member you can simply ask how much money has been spent on PAREA.
As an AI member you can simply ask how much money PAREA Mentors are being paid.
As an AI member you can simply ask how much money has been spent on defending and settling lawsuits.
As an AI member you can simply ask how much money has been spent on Executive Committe stipends, travel, and perks.
As an AI member you can simply ask how much money has been spent on wining and dining REVAA.
As an AI member you can simply ask how much money was made off of the FNC stock options.

And as a member, you will be told to pound sand.

 

[Elliott]

Perplexity: "There is no credible evidence that Claude (Anthropic’s AI assistant) has taken over the Appraisal Institute or is in charge of any other institutions, nor any substantiated claims that drug cartels control the Appraisal Institute. Anthropic owns and operates the Claude AI platform, which is deployed in educational and government contexts through official partnerships, but does not exercise institutional control outside its operations as an AI solution provider.
Claude and the Appraisal Institute
• The Appraisal Institute is an independent non-profit organization serving the real estate appraisal industry.
• Recent news about the Appraisal Institute involves internal lawsuits and allegations of workplace misconduct, but there is no mention or suggestion of control by Anthropic or Claude.
• Claude is developed and maintained by Anthropic; its deployments in institutions are based on contractual access, not takeover or management.
Claude’s Influence in Other Institutions
• Claude is being adopted by universities and some government agencies for educational and administrative purposes.
• Its role is strictly as a software tool, delivered through partnerships or campus programs, not as a management entity.
Drug Cartel Involvement
• There is no public reporting or evidence suggesting drug cartels have any relationship or control over the Appraisal Institute.
• Drug cartels’ documented activities focus on trafficking, violence, and illicit finance, not on professional organizations like the Appraisal Institute."

Now I can get back to football.

 

[Non Sequitur]

Perplexity: "There is no credible evidence that Claude (Anthropic’s AI assistant) has taken over the Appraisal Institute or is in charge of any other institutions, nor any substantiated claims that drug cartels control the Appraisal Institute. Anthropic owns and operates the Claude AI platform, which is deployed in educational and government contexts through official partnerships, but does not exercise institutional control outside its operations as an AI solution provider.
Claude and the Appraisal Institute
• The Appraisal Institute is an independent non-profit organization serving the real estate appraisal industry.
• Recent news about the Appraisal Institute involves internal lawsuits and allegations of workplace misconduct, but there is no mention or suggestion of control by Anthropic or Claude.
• Claude is developed and maintained by Anthropic; its deployments in institutions are based on contractual access, not takeover or management.
Claude’s Influence in Other Institutions
• Claude is being adopted by universities and some government agencies for educational and administrative purposes.
• Its role is strictly as a software tool, delivered through partnerships or campus programs, not as a management entity.
Drug Cartel Involvement
• There is no public reporting or evidence suggesting drug cartels have any relationship or control over the Appraisal Institute.
• Drug cartels’ documented activities focus on trafficking, violence, and illicit finance, not on professional organizations like the Appraisal Institute."

Now I can get back to football.

What about REVAA?

 

[RCA]

Look, the Appraisal Institute is over the hill. Those embedded into the AI will not change because they are old, entrenched and SIMPLY DO NEED TO. There is so much inertia in the current appraisal system, that as it continues to collapse, it will take enough time that the leadership, by and large, can continue what they are doing.

Thus, what will happen is that a new appraisal organization will surely develop.

I suggest:

1. This new organization will be international. Located primarily in North America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia. The countries where it is located will be primarily independent coutnries know for low corruption and high standards. I would suggest these countries:
Top 8 Countries with Lowest Corruption (2024):

1. Denmark - Score: 90
2. Finland - Score: 88
3. Singapore - Score: 84
4. New Zealand - Score: 83
5. Switzerland - Score: 81 (tied)
6. Norway - Score: 81 (tied)
7. Luxembourg - Score: 81
8. Sweden - Score: 80+ (consistently high scoring)

Interestingly, the least corrupt states in the US are Washington and Oregon, excluding Portland and Seattle. In fact, the best-rated town in the US suggested by Claude was Corvallis, Oregon, with a suggested rating of 75!

So, one of the best towns in. the US to locate a new appraisal organization would be Corvallis Oregon. I would also suggest Santa Rosa, CA, which has become a rather charming town, -- although it has had a few problems. Claude recommened an anti-corruption score of 67-70. - But Santa Rosa reminds me, nowadays, so much of Eugene, Oregon back in the 60's. The charming classical "middle America" town. My wife and I may wind up moving there, as it is not far away and home prices are nearly half what they are in Pacifica.

Chicago's anti-corruption score is a whopping low 35-40!! And this is the headquarters of the Appraisal Instiute!

Based on the corruption assessment framework I've been using, here's my analysis of Chicago:

CLAUDE:

"Chicago Anti-Corruption Score: 35-40 out of 100​

Scoring Rationale:​

Massive Negative Factors (-):

• Historical Corruption Legacy (-15-20 points): Decades of documented corruption, machine politics
• Federal Conviction Rate (-8-10 points): Illinois consistently ranks among most corrupt states by federal convictions
• Systemic Issues (-8-12 points): Multiple mayors, governors, and aldermen convicted or indicted
• Ongoing Investigations (-5-7 points): Continuous federal probes and corruption cases
• Political Machine Culture (-5-8 points): Entrenched patronage and influence-peddling systems
• Complex Governance (-3-5 points): Multiple overlapping jurisdictions create accountability gaps

Limited Positive Factors (+):

• Federal Oversight (+3-5 points): Intensive FBI and federal prosecutor attention
• Media Scrutiny (+2-3 points): Strong investigative journalism tradition
• Reform Efforts (+2-3 points): Some anti-corruption measures implemented
• Economic Resources (+1-2 points): Major city with resources for oversight

Why Chicago Scores So Low:​

1. Track Record:

• Four of Illinois's last seven governors went to prison
• Multiple Chicago mayors under investigation or convicted
• Aldermanic corruption scandals are routine

2. Structural Problems:

• Weak ethics enforcement historically
• Patronage hiring still influences operations
• Complex web of agencies and authorities

3. Cultural Issues:

• "Pay-to-play" culture deeply embedded
• Political connections often necessary for business
• Public cynicism about government integrity

Comparative Context:​

Chicago vs. Other Cities:

• Corvallis (72-75): 32-40 point gap - enormous difference
• Santa Rosa (67-70): 27-35 point gap - major difference
• US Average (65): 25-30 point gap - significantly worse
• International: Would rank with moderately corrupt developing countries

Chicago's Position in Corruption Studies:​

Based on actual research I found earlier:

• Illinois consistently ranks as one of America's most corrupt states
• Chicago area frequently appears in "most corrupt cities" lists
• Federal corruption prosecutions per capita are exceptionally high

What the Score Means:​

35-40 out of 100 indicates:

• High corruption risk for any institution
• Regular scandals affecting government operations
• Influence peddling as standard practice
• Weak institutional safeguards against corruption
• Public contracts subject to political considerations

For Your Institution:​

Chicago would be an extremely poor choice for locating an anti-corruption sensitive institution. The corruption risk is so high that it would likely:

1. Undermine institutional credibility
2. Create ongoing operational risks
3. Expose institution to political pressure
4. Generate negative publicity by association
5. Complicate government relations

Bottom Line:​

Chicago's score of 35-40 puts it in the "High Corruption Risk" category - roughly equivalent to many developing countries with known corruption problems. For comparison:

• Denmark: 90
• Corvallis estimate: 72-75
• Santa Rosa estimate: 67-70
• US Average: 65
• Chicago estimate: 35-40

The 30+ point gap between Chicago and even the US average represents a qualitatively different operating environment where corruption concerns would be a constant institutional challenge."

 

[RCA]

I would be reluctant to accept most current US appraisers into a new appraisal organization, as they have, not all, but by and large, been mentored into a corrupt mindset. - I know that sounds damned awful. But if you have worked in an appraisal organization, I am sure you have heard other appraisers talk about whether they could "push some value any further", - far enough to satisfy some contract price. And Chief Appraisers are constantly testing newbies to see how far they can push them - because that is what their livelihood depends on. It's a very old system. You can tell, even by posts on this forum, that such appraisers are way, way, way beyond redemption.

And don't talk about any appraisers from Chicago.