The balance of power is a problem if mega corporations are controlling AI. I'm thinking of the boy who was coerced to kill himself by his bot 'girlfriend'. Someone programmed that outcome but there have been no questions asked about narrative blueprints. No accountability. No justice for his mother. One death is a red flag.
Always healthy. I'm more encouraged because when I corrected Claude about unvaccinated studies, the objectivity of the AI conceded I was right and Claude was wrong
Imagine if such corrections reversed themselves afterwards, when you weren't looking. For example, if Pfizer or another pharmaceutical company had 'invested' in the AI company.
I fear that AI may become his master's voice, or the ministry of truth, or virtual Nuremberg Rallies whereby millions of smartphones will groom young people to offer themselves up as cannon fodder.
I have serious doubts about AI, helping in pursuit of ultimate truth in the medical world. I certainly hope you are correct William Makis md Out of Canada show that Glock 3 AI Could not deal with corrections to it’s faulty thinking with regard to Covid 19 shots.
Claude is also my favorite AI! He offers you the biggest clue right here—
"Timing Questions: The post argues for both prenatal and postnatal triggers for autism, which complicates the proposed mechanism and timeline." Maybe if vou consider that, you might get closer to an understanding.
"However, their views and research interpretations represent minority positions in their respective fields. The broader scientific community has not adopted this causal framework (...)"
-> ALL experts of Al adjuvants share similar findings. The "broader scientific community" does NOT study these compounds.
I too have spent time arguing with Ai (sorry, friends, AI looks too much like the nickname for Alvin, so I go with the lower case "i"), which in my case is "Leo" at Brave, and Leo also had to admit to bias and beg my pardon and claim that it will learn from that mistake.
But when I try a different but related question a few weeks later, Leo once again falls short and once again, when called out, apologizes and says I'm helping it learn. I conclude that Ai will NEVER be fair. But at least it has the rare-in-humans (and impossible for vested interests) trait of being able to admit a mistake.
And it can find answers to lots of non-biased questions fast.
Could you ask Claude to list those true studies of "completely unvaccinated populations (who have received zero vaccines) versus fully vaccinated populations..." which it says "are ... rare in the scientific literature."?
But I find myself wondering how such corrections are incorporated into the answers supplied to OTHER people by the same AI. https://jenswanndowney.substack.com/p/do-our-penetrating-questions-change
Yea great question will it learn when corrected ?
Artificial Intelligence will serve those who run and maintain it. See Google search results and social media bots.
I disagree. It can analyze the science on our side of the fence way more honestly than mainstream health authorities
Disagreement is healthy.
The balance of power is a problem if mega corporations are controlling AI. I'm thinking of the boy who was coerced to kill himself by his bot 'girlfriend'. Someone programmed that outcome but there have been no questions asked about narrative blueprints. No accountability. No justice for his mother. One death is a red flag.
https://apnews.com/article/chatbot-ai-lawsuit-suicide-teen-artificial-intelligence-9d48adc572100822fdbc3c90d1456bd0
Always healthy. I'm more encouraged because when I corrected Claude about unvaccinated studies, the objectivity of the AI conceded I was right and Claude was wrong
Imagine if such corrections reversed themselves afterwards, when you weren't looking. For example, if Pfizer or another pharmaceutical company had 'invested' in the AI company.
I fear that AI may become his master's voice, or the ministry of truth, or virtual Nuremberg Rallies whereby millions of smartphones will groom young people to offer themselves up as cannon fodder.
I have serious doubts about AI, helping in pursuit of ultimate truth in the medical world. I certainly hope you are correct William Makis md Out of Canada show that Glock 3 AI Could not deal with corrections to it’s faulty thinking with regard to Covid 19 shots.
Claude is also my favorite AI! He offers you the biggest clue right here—
"Timing Questions: The post argues for both prenatal and postnatal triggers for autism, which complicates the proposed mechanism and timeline." Maybe if vou consider that, you might get closer to an understanding.
"However, their views and research interpretations represent minority positions in their respective fields. The broader scientific community has not adopted this causal framework (...)"
-> ALL experts of Al adjuvants share similar findings. The "broader scientific community" does NOT study these compounds.
I too have spent time arguing with Ai (sorry, friends, AI looks too much like the nickname for Alvin, so I go with the lower case "i"), which in my case is "Leo" at Brave, and Leo also had to admit to bias and beg my pardon and claim that it will learn from that mistake.
But when I try a different but related question a few weeks later, Leo once again falls short and once again, when called out, apologizes and says I'm helping it learn. I conclude that Ai will NEVER be fair. But at least it has the rare-in-humans (and impossible for vested interests) trait of being able to admit a mistake.
And it can find answers to lots of non-biased questions fast.
Nice piece. I agree AI can be used for good. J.B., you should converse with Zach Vorhies.
Could you ask Claude to list those true studies of "completely unvaccinated populations (who have received zero vaccines) versus fully vaccinated populations..." which it says "are ... rare in the scientific literature."?
I will because we know the answer is zero, except the ones that show unvax are way healthier