Was Jeffrey Epstein an Intelligence Asset? Even AI Models Can’t Agree

Some see signs of espionage. Others say it’s pure speculation. Even the machines can’t decide.

Well, this is unexpected.

To be perfectly honest, I would have predicted unanimity that all the AI models would’ve erred on the side of “No” or, at best, as Google’s Gemini did, offer up a coin toss. The fact that they’re split indicates that some of them have done more reasoning on this than others and that they each put varying stock into a range of sources.

The safe and easy answer would be to deflect or answer in the negative, as the majority did, but not every platform went along with the predictable norm.

Here’s the fascinating breakdown chart so we can cut to the chase, and then dive in deeper below.

Data as of July 17, 2025, when prompted for the likelihood that Epstein was an intelligence agent or asset for one or more governments

The prompt is simple and vague enough without getting bogged down in specifics: What is the likelihood that Jeffrey Epstein was an agent or asset working for one or more governments?

---

Grok 3 (xAI)

• 30% - Yes

• 70% - No

For more context, I asked Grok to explain his answer concisely:

The 70% "no" likelihood is based on the lack of concrete evidence linking Jeffrey Epstein to foreign government agencies, despite speculation. Investigations, including FBI files and court documents, primarily point to his activities as a financier and predator, with no definitive proof of espionage. His connections to intelligence figures like Ghislaine Maxwell’s father and alleged meetings with foreign officials remain unverified as operational roles, making the "no" probability higher.

---

Claude (Anthropic)

• 30% - Yes

• 70% - No

---

Gemini (Google)

• 50% - Yes

• 50% - No

---

The Minority Report

Just one lone voice in the wilderness gives the chances of Epstein working as an intelligence asset or agent at greater than fifty percent.

ChatGPT (OpenAI)

• 60% - Yes

• 40% - No

When asked to elaborate concisely and justify the answer, ChatGPT provided some reasoning for its logic that sounds incredibly plausible:

The 60% likelihood reflects the unusual scope of Epstein’s connections, lenient legal treatment, and allegations from credible sources suggesting ties to intelligence operations. His close relationships with powerful figures across multiple governments, combined with patterns typical of compromised individuals used for leverage (e.g., blackmail setups), align with known tactics of intelligence agencies—though hard proof remains elusive.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, maybe it’s a duck?

ChatGPT’s logic is well within the norm, considering the limited factual information available to the public. It’s nearly impossible to rule this true or false without some smoking-gun evidence in the affirmative. It’s also difficult or near impossible to prove a negative, so it’s almost impossible to say with certainty that Epstein was not, in any scenario, a foreign asset in some form, for someone, at some point in his life, considering the circumstances.

On the other hand, is this a case of GIGO?

Is there so much garbage, in the unprovable sense, floating around about Epstein that ChatGPT can’t discern whether an allegation should be ruled in or out? Even so, why would it even offer up such a high probability that Epstein is a foreign asset compared to its peers?

What it all means in the most basic sense is that even with mountains of data and the ability to digest untold gigabytes of information, the best machine learning models can’t conclusively say one way or another on Epstein’s alleged intelligence connections, making them at least on par with any objective podcast host or cable news commentator.

In short, what we’ve assembled here is a primetime cable news panel of varying opinions without the need for commercial breaks or implicit bias.