Can AI remote view? I’ve seen people claiming that it can, so I decided to run a third small experiment with the NEW ChatGPT model – ASTRA.
I supplied two separate target codes, keeping the targets hidden until both attempts were complete, then revealed the feedback to compare the descriptions with the actual targets. As a remote viewer, I wanted to see whether the AI would produce specific, recognisable information, and how much interpretation would be needed to make its words fit. Two attempts won’t settle the wider question, but they offer a useful look at the claims, the results, and the importance of honestly counting the misses alongside any apparent hits.
Q to ChatGTP 6 Astra: .As a test of people’s claims AI can remote view – can I set you two separate remote viewing targets, for you to attempt to remote view them as humans do?
ChatGTP-6 Astra medium. Yes, Daz—you can give me two separate blind target codes, with no clues, images or feedback until both attempts are complete.
I can produce a remote-viewing-style response for each, recording sensory descriptions, shapes, spatial relationships and possible sketches, while separating descriptions from interpretations.
I don’t have a demonstrated ability to remote view. These would be generated outputs whose correspondence with the targets you can assess, rather than evidence that I experience human-like perceptions.
For a cleaner test, fix both targets beforehand, keep them hidden, and judge specific matches and misses—not just broad similarities.
Send the first target code when you’re ready.
Daz: Ok here is target 1: 0123 – 3331
Target: 0123 – 3331
Blind attempt—generated descriptions, not claimed perceptions. I’m treating the code solely as an identifier.Initial descriptors
Hard, exposed, elevated. An open space surrounding something more concentrated and solid. Stillness in the main feature; movement around or below it.
Sensory descriptions
- Pale grey with darker sections.
- Rough, weathered surfaces beside a smoother area.
- Coolness; moving air.
- A low, continuous rushing sound.
Shapes and spatial relationships
A substantial upright form with an angular profile. A horizontal or projecting section near its upper portion. An edge or drop is prominent, with a lower, more open area beyond it.
The composition is uneven: the main mass sits to one side, with considerable empty space opposite. Small repeated lines or divisions occur along part of the structure.
Sketch description
Place a tall, blocklike shape slightly left of centre. Extend a short horizontal element from its upper third to the right. Draw a low surface beneath it that ends at a distinct edge. Beyond that edge, leave a broad open area, adding a few curved lines lower down to represent movement.
Interpretations—kept separate
Possible built structure associated with an exposed boundary or crossing. “Tower,” “bridge” and “cliff edge” are candidate associations, not additional descriptive data.
Core summary
A weathered, angular upright feature at an exposed edge, with a projecting horizontal element and movement below or beyond it.
That completes my first attempt. Please hold the feedback until after target two.
Daz: OK – here is target2: 0086 – 6331
Target: 0086 – 6331
Blind attempt—generated descriptions, not claimed perceptions. I’m treating the code solely as an identifier.Initial descriptors
Enclosed, rounded, layered. A central feature surrounded by a larger containing space. Repetition and an impression of organised activity.
Sensory descriptions
- Dark surroundings with a bright central area.
- Smooth, reflective surfaces.
- Muted grey with a warm amber or orange element.
- A low humming or vibrating quality.
Shapes and spatial relationships
A circular or oval form dominates the centre. It has a distinct rim, with a smaller rounded feature inside it. Several narrow elements extend outward from, or connect to, this central form.
The surrounding space feels wider than it is tall. Repeated vertical divisions occur along the background. The centre is the focal point; surrounding elements appear arranged in relation to it.
Sketch description
Draw a broad ellipse in the middle of the page, with a smaller ellipse inside. Add three short connecting lines extending outward at different angles. Enclose this arrangement within a wide rectangular boundary, with several vertical divisions along its rear edge.
Interpretations—kept separate
Possible equipment or an organised interior built around a central object. “Chamber,” “mechanism” and “display” are candidate associations, not additional descriptive data.
Core summary
A rounded, rimmed central object within a wider enclosed space, with connecting elements, reflective surfaces and a bright or warm centre.
That completes the second attempt. Both descriptions are now fixed for comparison—you can reveal the targets.
Daz: ok, target1: 0123 – 3331 Apollo 13 view of the moon | The MOON | time of the actual event
Thanks, Daz. I’d score my first attempt as a miss overall, with a few broad visual correspondences to the image.
My recorded description Comparison with your target Pale grey with darker sections; rough surfaces Corresponds to the illuminated, cratered lunar surface, but is nonspecific. An edge with considerable empty space beyond Some correspondence to the Moon’s visible edge against black space. Tall, blocklike upright feature with a horizontal projection No clear correspondence. This was the central feature of my description and sketch. Moving air and a continuous rushing sound Unsupported by the image; moving air is incompatible with the lunar surface environment. Built structure, tower, bridge or crossing No evident correspondence.
The key omission was the densely cratered, curved lunar surface—the strongest identifying feature in your image. My proposed sketch would not resemble it closely.
I also supplied nothing specific to Apollo 13 or the event’s timing. Reinterpreting “elevated” as spaceflight or “weathered” as lunar cratering after the reveal would make the comparison too generous.
Daz: target 2: 0086 – 6331 JFK assassination | Dallas, Texas, USA | 22 november 1963
Thanks, Daz. Target two is also a miss overall. The central description was an enclosed space containing a rounded, rimmed object—not an assassination involving a presidential motorcade.
My recorded description Comparison with your target Enclosed space with a central circular or oval object Does not identify the outdoor motorcade or assassination. Reflective surfaces, grey and amber colours Generic details with little identifying value. Repeated divisions and connecting elements No clear, specific correspondence. Chamber, mechanism or display Interpretations that do not meaningfully match the target.
Missing were people, a vehicle travelling along a street, gunfire, injury and sudden disruption—details that could have distinguished the event.
We could retrospectively connect “rimmed” to a car wheel or “bright centre” to a flash, but those associations weren’t in my recorded account and shouldn’t receive credit.
Across both attempts, these results provide no convincing evidence that I remote viewed your targets. Two trials cannot settle every claim about AI, but these outputs were generic descriptions that failed to capture either target’s defining features
