Follow our sea bass searches using local marks, birds and marine charts. See what worked in each filmed session and what remains uncertain.
Our finding-bass sessions investigate clues such as feeding birds, distance offshore and chart-based suggestions. They show what happened when we followed a particular idea. Use the linked accounts to examine both the productive decisions and the searches that did not work.
3 relevant original videos. Read each result with its conditions; these are source records, not a pooled experiment.
We gave ChatGPT the chart-reading problem, took its suggested area onto the water and turned the AI answer into a real fishing test.
To save it, use YouTube’s Save / Watch later control. Opening the video does not save it. Sharing is your choice.Newest first, with older tests retained below. Catch counts, equipment impressions and overviews answer different questions.
curated field notes · Published 2026-09-05
We gave ChatGPT the chart-reading problem, took its suggested area onto the water and turned the AI answer into a real fishing test.
Not supplied in structured notes: location, tide, water clarity, weather, effort.
Limits: The result does not show that AI can reliably find bass in general. The prompt, chart information, season and local context all influence the suggestion.
curated field notes · Published 2026-05-31
Not on this trip. We followed the birds, but the bass were somewhere else.
Not supplied in structured notes: location, tide, water clarity, weather, effort.
Limits: Bird species, bait species, tide stage and predator mix can change the meaning of the same surface activity.
curated field notes · Published 2026-05-06
Not in this session. We travelled offshore, but the bass were ultimately found much closer to home.
Not supplied in structured notes: location, tide, water clarity, weather, effort.
Limits: This was one day and one search pattern, not a controlled experiment proving that inshore water is generally better than offshore water.
Bird activity, a chart feature or an attractive-looking area can suggest somewhere to investigate. The relevant test is whether the session actually found bass there. An unsuccessful search is useful evidence about that trip, even though it cannot establish that the same place or clue never works.
A place name without the timing, tide and fishing effort gives only part of the account. Our records retain broad locations and reported conditions when available. They are fishing observations, not passage plans or advice that a particular route is safe in your boat.
A chart-reading answer from an AI system is a proposal, not a verified fishing mark. The linked field session shows what we did with the suggestion and what happened. Do not confuse a plausible explanation with a recorded catch or an independent check of depth and navigation.
The relevant BassLureFish session is linked below. Bird activity alone should not be presented as proof of bass at a particular mark; the filmed outcome is the evidence for that trip.
Yes, as a record of an approach and its conditions. It does not establish where fish are today. Compare the method and context rather than treating a past catch as a current forecast.
Eligible new BassLureFish long-form videos are linked automatically. Labelled results and conditions come from the latest successfully retrieved description, or identified original field notes. A source check alone does not create a new finding. Missing measurements remain gaps.
Read our testing approach · Sources and corrections · Suggest a follow-up test
Optional website action counts are off until you allow them. This controls optional BassLureFish action counts. Where this theme manages Analytics consent, it also controls Google Analytics storage. If a separate consent banner is installed, its Analytics choice applies too.
Optional counts are off unless previously allowed.