Alternate History AI is an educational history simulation. Scenarios explore how decisions, institutions, conflicts, and social conditions shaped historical outcomes. The site does not endorse conquest, slavery, discrimination, political violence, war crimes, terrorism, genocide, or harm against any person or group. Sensitive subjects are included for historical analysis and critical thinking only.
How we research, write, review, and fact-check the counterfactual history on Alternate History AI.
Alternate History AI is a history education platform created and maintained by AI Sure Tech, a software and content development team based in the United States. The site was launched to explore a simple premise: that serious counterfactual analysis — asking "what if?" about key historical turning points — is a powerful tool for understanding why history unfolded as it did.
Our editorial work is a collaboration between human researchers and editors who bring subject-matter knowledge in world history, and large language model AI systems that assist with drafting and synthesis. Every article published on this site passes through human editorial review before publication. The AI accelerates research and drafting; human judgment controls accuracy, balance, and tone.
Our editorial team holds degrees in history, political science, and related humanities fields. Team members specialize in different historical periods: ancient and classical history, early modern Europe, 19th-century global history, and 20th-century political history. All "What If" articles are researched against peer-reviewed academic sources before publication and reviewed for factual accuracy, analytical rigor, and responsible framing of sensitive topics.
AI Sure Tech builds and maintains the interactive simulation platform, AI integration layer, and site infrastructure. The team has deep expertise in web application development, AI API integration, and educational technology. aisuretech.com
Counterfactual history is most credible when it is grounded in the best available evidence about what actually happened and why. Our research process for each article follows a structured approach:
We use large language model AI (including GPT-4 and Claude) as a drafting and synthesis tool. This is disclosed transparently because we believe readers deserve to know how content is produced.
What AI does in our workflow:
What human editors do:
AI-generated text can contain errors. Our editorial review process catches the majority of these, but we acknowledge that no content pipeline is error-free. We maintain an active corrections process (see below).
Several of our scenarios deal with subjects that require careful, responsible framing: the Holocaust, chattel slavery, colonial violence, genocide, and political extremism. We take these topics seriously and hold ourselves to the following standards:
Our article on the Hitler art school counterfactual is grounded in mainstream Holocaust historiography, including Raul Hilberg’s The Destruction of the European Jews, Christopher Browning’s Ordinary Men, and the scholarly framework of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. The article’s central analytical argument — that the structural conditions for genocide required far more than one individual’s political career — is intended to deepen, not minimize, the moral weight of the Holocaust by demonstrating the breadth of institutional and cultural participation it required.
Our Confederate victory counterfactual explicitly rejects “Lost Cause” mythology — the post-war Southern narrative that reframed secession as a constitutional principle rather than a defense of chattel slavery. The Confederacy’s founding documents, and the declarations of secession issued by Confederate states, identify the preservation of slavery as their explicit purpose. Our analysis treats the Confederacy as a slaveholder republic and evaluates its counterfactual viability on that basis.
Our scenario and article content involving European and Chinese contact with the Americas treats the catastrophic mortality suffered by indigenous populations — estimated at 50–90% in many regions — as the central moral and demographic reality of any Old World contact scenario, not as an acceptable cost or incidental detail. Exploring historical choices around colonization does not constitute endorsement of conquest or the destruction of indigenous peoples and cultures.
Our research draws on the following categories of source material:
We are committed to accuracy. If you identify a factual error, a misrepresentation of the historical record, or an analytical claim that contradicts established scholarship, we want to hear from you.
To flag a correction:
We do not remove articles because a reader disagrees with their analytical conclusions. Corrections apply to factual errors, not to differences of historical interpretation where reasonable scholars disagree.
For editorial questions, corrections, partnership inquiries, or licensing questions, please use our contact form. For technical questions about the platform, visit aisuretech.com.
This page was last reviewed: July 2026.