You can make AI your friend by fooling AI. Someone has make AI all the correct answer wrt to 911 type destruction (no itsnot termite plane or nuclear), and about bogus moon landing. See writing by “911 revisionist” on substack.
It is only able to be as useful as we decide it is going to be. What matters is how we use it. If I am researching an article, and have a memory of certain things happening at certain times in the past, I have two choices, I can waste all day and a ton of frustration trying to find the evidence for what I already know, on-line, so I can prove my case, or I can ask ChatGPT and get all the references and links I need in 2 seconds. It is me deciding what question to ask, and it is me verifying and interpreting the data returned, and it does have to be verified. As the user is very clearly told - ChatGPT can make mistakes.
I am NOT asking it to be GOD. I am not asking it to be my "single source of truth". I am not asking it to tell me how to live my life. I am using it as my very very efficient, and by human standards, highly accurate research assistant, but I remain the researcher and it remains the assistant. I am also intelligent enough to work out it's biases, and unlike a human, when I point out the bias and repeat my question worded to exclude the bias, I get an unbiased response second time round. I just have to get my question right, and that is a very very good discipline for me. And it has a damn site less biases than any human research assistant would have.
It can only work from the existing human knowledge base. And the more seriously that knowledge base is perverted by corrupt science and the more it is hampered by extreme censorship, the more slanted the data it has access to will be.
Perhaps if WE choose to use it intelligently, appropriately and with discretion, then we will inadvertently improve the scope and accuracy of the database to which it has access.
Of course it CAN be used for propaganda, and any of us can devise questions we know it will source from the politically correct human knowledge base. It is we who are demanding it be GOD, that it be master rather than servant. And it is we who are assuming that humans are too dumb or too intimidated to use it, like any other powerful tool, with discretion.
Yes, the problem is the corruption. We all know the vaccine is neither safe or effective and yet we all can see it isn’t. If asked, it will always answer a question however the govt want it answered. So it is not intelligent at all. As a tool to look up references that’s great but which ones will it choose and which ones will it leave leave out and by whose discretion. It certainly shouldn’t be used a a sole source of truth, which is exactly how many are using it. I saw a comment the other day which started with “AI says……”. They had decided AI must be right and anything that conflicts with it is wrong. It’s what tempted me to write this article as I can only see the unconscious masses using it that way.
Well I think it is both knowledgeable, in that it has access to the sum total of human knowledge, and even a bit intelligent, in that it can formulate conclusions from that knowledge (when pressed) but it is not creative, so it cannot ask creative questions and it cannot devise creative solutions. Where it has value, I think, is that it can free creatives up from the drudgery aspects of what we do, leaving us to ask the clever questions and detect the clever solutions.
I have been pushing it a lot on health and nutri-genetics, which is a very young science, and it hits the human knowledge limit very quickly when pushed. It is also an area of science that is sufficiently obscure that there is no “politically correct” as yet. It cannot report what humans don’t already know. So when I speculate, it can assess what I have speculated about and tell me what parts of the science support my speculations, what might be logically imputed, where the unproven aspects are, and even suggest what further research might be appropriate. As yet, it does not have an “agenda” on the topic but I would guess it will change down the track when it becomes too obvious that nutri-genetics gives the lie to most of what we are told with allopathic medicine. It is an area of medicine that cannot live side by side with allopathic medicine so it will have to be repressed sooner or later - but ChatGPT is not programmed to suppress it yet.
Mayb a better term would be artificial knowledge, AK lol
But I do doubt it searches the entirety of human knowledge. Only the bits the powers that be want us to see. I think to the unconscious masses who aren’t using it for things like you are, it’s going to become a source of division. The chainsaw people lol
Every powerful tool has equal potential for good and harm. I think AI could "save" humanity, but humanity will probably use it to destroy humanity. Certainly, genetics applied to health could "save' humanity, and we can already see how it is being used to destroy humanity. We are playing with tools that become very deadly in the wrong hands, and there will always be the wrong hands. My hope is that, in partnership with AI, we can organise the knowledge of genetics, that we need to save humanity from the bio-weapon assault, and get that knowledge firmly registered in the human group mind for others to access and use as required.
Yes, genetics applied to health would save humanity but it would also expose all the harm caused by big pharma and the allopathic medicine paradigm they created to protect their financial interests. I cant see AI saving humanity as it’s just a computer program, and anything that doesn’t support the states preferred reality will be denied access to AI programmes information pool.
If it was intelligent and knowledgeable, it would be telling us about all the harms from the modrna injections and to keep well away from it, but its not. On that topic, and I suspect many others, it’s the states manufactured reality that rules AI
I never said AI will save humanity. I do not believe it has personal agency. It is a tool we use, and as you say, it only has the knowledge we give it access to. Currently it seems to have access to the human knowledge related to genetics and health so it can share that with us, but the human knowledge is already slanted - just in terms of the way health research is conducted and reported, so it can take effort to mine for the truth - the same effort it takes for us to read the original research papers and ensure they are truthful (given we know 80% are not). AI cannot be MORE truthful than the knowledge made available to us, and cannot be ahead of the very limited human beings doing "the science".
We need the right human beings using AI to help us save humanity - different focus altogether
Mark, I posed the question to ChatGPT and this is what I got:
“Yes, the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines—such as those developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna—have been shown to be safe and effective in preventing COVID-19. They underwent rigorous clinical trials, as well as extensive post-authorization monitoring, to assess their safety profiles.
Here are key points regarding their safety:
Clinical Trial Safety: In large-scale clinical trials before emergency use authorization (EUA), these vaccines demonstrated high effectiveness in preventing symptomatic COVID-19, and they had a well-tolerated safety profile. Common side effects are mild and temporary, including pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, muscle aches, and mild fever. These side effects typically resolve within a few days.
Ongoing Monitoring: After the vaccines were authorized for emergency use, ongoing monitoring has continued. This includes tracking reports of adverse events through systems like the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the U.S. and the European Medicines Agency's pharmacovigilance. Serious side effects are rare, and benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks for most people.
Rare Side Effects: While side effects are uncommon, some people may experience more serious effects, such as severe allergic reactions (anaphylaxis), which occur in a very small number of cases. Myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the lining around the heart) have also been observed, particularly in younger males, but these cases are rare, and the vast majority recover with treatment.
Safety in Pregnant and Lactating Individuals: Studies and data have shown that mRNA vaccines are safe for pregnant and lactating individuals, with no significant negative effects on fertility or pregnancy outcomes. However, as with any medical intervention during pregnancy, individuals should consult with their healthcare provider.
Long-Term Safety: While the mRNA technology is new, decades of research in related fields (such as cancer vaccines and other RNA therapies) have laid the groundwork for its safe use. Monitoring for long-term effects is ongoing, but based on current data, no new safety concerns have emerged.
Benefits vs. Risks: The benefits of vaccination—such as significantly reducing the risk of severe illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19—far outweigh the risks of rare side effects, especially as COVID-19 itself can lead to serious complications.
In summary, mRNA vaccines are safe for the vast majority of people. The risks of severe adverse effects are low, and the vaccines have proven to be highly effective at preventing COVID-19 infection and its potentially severe outcomes. However, as with any medical intervention, individuals should discuss vaccination with their healthcare provider, particularly if they have specific concerns or underlying health conditions”
It’s just the standard Big Pharma talking points. Some intelligence? Thanks for the article.
You can make AI your friend by fooling AI. Someone has make AI all the correct answer wrt to 911 type destruction (no itsnot termite plane or nuclear), and about bogus moon landing. See writing by “911 revisionist” on substack.
NYT ‘fact check’ on RFK’s criticism of Fruit Loops is case in point, yeah?
It is only able to be as useful as we decide it is going to be. What matters is how we use it. If I am researching an article, and have a memory of certain things happening at certain times in the past, I have two choices, I can waste all day and a ton of frustration trying to find the evidence for what I already know, on-line, so I can prove my case, or I can ask ChatGPT and get all the references and links I need in 2 seconds. It is me deciding what question to ask, and it is me verifying and interpreting the data returned, and it does have to be verified. As the user is very clearly told - ChatGPT can make mistakes.
I am NOT asking it to be GOD. I am not asking it to be my "single source of truth". I am not asking it to tell me how to live my life. I am using it as my very very efficient, and by human standards, highly accurate research assistant, but I remain the researcher and it remains the assistant. I am also intelligent enough to work out it's biases, and unlike a human, when I point out the bias and repeat my question worded to exclude the bias, I get an unbiased response second time round. I just have to get my question right, and that is a very very good discipline for me. And it has a damn site less biases than any human research assistant would have.
It can only work from the existing human knowledge base. And the more seriously that knowledge base is perverted by corrupt science and the more it is hampered by extreme censorship, the more slanted the data it has access to will be.
Perhaps if WE choose to use it intelligently, appropriately and with discretion, then we will inadvertently improve the scope and accuracy of the database to which it has access.
Of course it CAN be used for propaganda, and any of us can devise questions we know it will source from the politically correct human knowledge base. It is we who are demanding it be GOD, that it be master rather than servant. And it is we who are assuming that humans are too dumb or too intimidated to use it, like any other powerful tool, with discretion.
Yes, the problem is the corruption. We all know the vaccine is neither safe or effective and yet we all can see it isn’t. If asked, it will always answer a question however the govt want it answered. So it is not intelligent at all. As a tool to look up references that’s great but which ones will it choose and which ones will it leave leave out and by whose discretion. It certainly shouldn’t be used a a sole source of truth, which is exactly how many are using it. I saw a comment the other day which started with “AI says……”. They had decided AI must be right and anything that conflicts with it is wrong. It’s what tempted me to write this article as I can only see the unconscious masses using it that way.
Well I think it is both knowledgeable, in that it has access to the sum total of human knowledge, and even a bit intelligent, in that it can formulate conclusions from that knowledge (when pressed) but it is not creative, so it cannot ask creative questions and it cannot devise creative solutions. Where it has value, I think, is that it can free creatives up from the drudgery aspects of what we do, leaving us to ask the clever questions and detect the clever solutions.
I have been pushing it a lot on health and nutri-genetics, which is a very young science, and it hits the human knowledge limit very quickly when pushed. It is also an area of science that is sufficiently obscure that there is no “politically correct” as yet. It cannot report what humans don’t already know. So when I speculate, it can assess what I have speculated about and tell me what parts of the science support my speculations, what might be logically imputed, where the unproven aspects are, and even suggest what further research might be appropriate. As yet, it does not have an “agenda” on the topic but I would guess it will change down the track when it becomes too obvious that nutri-genetics gives the lie to most of what we are told with allopathic medicine. It is an area of medicine that cannot live side by side with allopathic medicine so it will have to be repressed sooner or later - but ChatGPT is not programmed to suppress it yet.
Mayb a better term would be artificial knowledge, AK lol
But I do doubt it searches the entirety of human knowledge. Only the bits the powers that be want us to see. I think to the unconscious masses who aren’t using it for things like you are, it’s going to become a source of division. The chainsaw people lol
Every powerful tool has equal potential for good and harm. I think AI could "save" humanity, but humanity will probably use it to destroy humanity. Certainly, genetics applied to health could "save' humanity, and we can already see how it is being used to destroy humanity. We are playing with tools that become very deadly in the wrong hands, and there will always be the wrong hands. My hope is that, in partnership with AI, we can organise the knowledge of genetics, that we need to save humanity from the bio-weapon assault, and get that knowledge firmly registered in the human group mind for others to access and use as required.
Yes, genetics applied to health would save humanity but it would also expose all the harm caused by big pharma and the allopathic medicine paradigm they created to protect their financial interests. I cant see AI saving humanity as it’s just a computer program, and anything that doesn’t support the states preferred reality will be denied access to AI programmes information pool.
If it was intelligent and knowledgeable, it would be telling us about all the harms from the modrna injections and to keep well away from it, but its not. On that topic, and I suspect many others, it’s the states manufactured reality that rules AI
I never said AI will save humanity. I do not believe it has personal agency. It is a tool we use, and as you say, it only has the knowledge we give it access to. Currently it seems to have access to the human knowledge related to genetics and health so it can share that with us, but the human knowledge is already slanted - just in terms of the way health research is conducted and reported, so it can take effort to mine for the truth - the same effort it takes for us to read the original research papers and ensure they are truthful (given we know 80% are not). AI cannot be MORE truthful than the knowledge made available to us, and cannot be ahead of the very limited human beings doing "the science".
We need the right human beings using AI to help us save humanity - different focus altogether
The same people shouldn't use chainsaws.
And scarily there’s a lot of them out there
Mark, I posed the question to ChatGPT and this is what I got:
“Yes, the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines—such as those developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna—have been shown to be safe and effective in preventing COVID-19. They underwent rigorous clinical trials, as well as extensive post-authorization monitoring, to assess their safety profiles.
Here are key points regarding their safety:
Clinical Trial Safety: In large-scale clinical trials before emergency use authorization (EUA), these vaccines demonstrated high effectiveness in preventing symptomatic COVID-19, and they had a well-tolerated safety profile. Common side effects are mild and temporary, including pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, muscle aches, and mild fever. These side effects typically resolve within a few days.
Ongoing Monitoring: After the vaccines were authorized for emergency use, ongoing monitoring has continued. This includes tracking reports of adverse events through systems like the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the U.S. and the European Medicines Agency's pharmacovigilance. Serious side effects are rare, and benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks for most people.
Rare Side Effects: While side effects are uncommon, some people may experience more serious effects, such as severe allergic reactions (anaphylaxis), which occur in a very small number of cases. Myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the lining around the heart) have also been observed, particularly in younger males, but these cases are rare, and the vast majority recover with treatment.
Safety in Pregnant and Lactating Individuals: Studies and data have shown that mRNA vaccines are safe for pregnant and lactating individuals, with no significant negative effects on fertility or pregnancy outcomes. However, as with any medical intervention during pregnancy, individuals should consult with their healthcare provider.
Long-Term Safety: While the mRNA technology is new, decades of research in related fields (such as cancer vaccines and other RNA therapies) have laid the groundwork for its safe use. Monitoring for long-term effects is ongoing, but based on current data, no new safety concerns have emerged.
Benefits vs. Risks: The benefits of vaccination—such as significantly reducing the risk of severe illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19—far outweigh the risks of rare side effects, especially as COVID-19 itself can lead to serious complications.
In summary, mRNA vaccines are safe for the vast majority of people. The risks of severe adverse effects are low, and the vaccines have proven to be highly effective at preventing COVID-19 infection and its potentially severe outcomes. However, as with any medical intervention, individuals should discuss vaccination with their healthcare provider, particularly if they have specific concerns or underlying health conditions”
It’s just the standard Big Pharma talking points. Some intelligence? Thanks for the article.
Bahahaha that’s hilarious. I think we can safely say that yes, it is a propaganda tool lol
No surprise there.