Artificial Intelligence
Artificial - yes; Intelligent - perhaps not so much:
AI - Artificial? - yes; Intelligent? - maybe not so much:
Let’s give this a whirl.
If you have been following the sudden massive rollout of many AI platforms, then you know that results have been mixed, at best. Some rightly fear that all that they will get is a regurgitation (neatly summarized, to be sure) of whatever garbage is on the internet … with “trusted sources” being the most predominantly sourced. This of course doesn’t do much good if the whole point of AI was to get around propaganda. (Hint: that isn’t the point at all; it is quite the opposite) You all know the sarcastic saying: “I read it on the internet, so it must be true.” Well, pretty much you can say the same for AI: “My AI bot said it, so it must be true.”
It seems evident that one reason that countervailing opinions have been so rigorously scrubbed from Facebook and Twitter and TikTok and elsewhere, is that those in power want anyone who is searching for truth using AI or any search engine, to only have limited options. Hopefully, you are all familiar with our vaunted “fact checkers.” They are widely quoted but are in reality merely paid actors whose job, in most instances, is to convince you of a narrative and not actually check facts. Some will fact-check in real time … meaning that they never even had time to check facts. They are modern day ‘spin doctors.’ AI, it would seem, is fact-checkers on steroids.
So I was reading an interesting piece by Steve Kirsch who decided to back door his way into the truth about the mRNA shots using Google’s AI, Gemini. It is long and I won’t quote from it although you can look it up as a fun read. But his point was that if you drill down into more specific questions, sometimes AI can be forced to admit to something it won’t acknowledge if asked directly. For example, it might just admit that maybe, a given shot is not so safe after all. Not to worry, they will have that glitch fixed in a jiff.
So I decided to try this myself, to a degree. I just now Gemini’d (don’t know if that’s a thing yet, but I mean ‘Googled with their AI’) the following question: “Are the Covid vaccines of Moderna and Pfizer both safe and effective.”
Here is the response that Gemini gave me:
“Yes, both the Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines have been extensively studied and proven to be safe and effective.
Here's a brief overview of their safety and efficacy:
Safety: Both vaccines have undergone rigorous testing and have been administered to millions of people worldwide. While side effects like arm soreness, fatigue, and headache are common, serious side effects are extremely rare.
Efficacy: Both vaccines are highly effective at preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19. While their efficacy might vary slightly over time due to emerging variants, they continue to provide strong protection.
It's important to note that the COVID-19 landscape is constantly evolving, with new variants emerging. Therefore, staying up-to-date on vaccine recommendations, including booster shots, is crucial for optimal protection.”
Hmmm. Gemini seems pretty sure about this.
I would like to point out that asking the same thing of Grok (that is the AI entrant of “X” - formerly Twitter, and Elon Musk’s product) gave a different and much more honest answer:
“Based on the information available up to August 2024:
Effectiveness:
CDC Data: Recent data from the CDC indicates that the updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccines were effective against COVID-19 during a specific period, showing a 54% reduction in the likelihood of getting COVID-19 for those vaccinated compared to those not receiving the updated vaccine. This effectiveness was measured against various circulating variants, suggesting that the vaccines are designed to combat current and emerging strains effectively.
General Observations: There's a consensus that while no vaccine is 100% effective, the COVID-19 vaccines, especially the mRNA types, have significantly reduced the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death due to COVID-19. This effectiveness has been observed across different age groups and against multiple variants.
Safety:
Monitoring and Approval: The vaccines have undergone rigorous safety monitoring since their emergency use authorization. The processes for their development, while expedited, did not skip any necessary steps for safety and efficacy testing.
Side Effects: Common side effects like soreness at the injection site, fatigue, and mild fever are noted, but these are typically short-lived. More serious side effects, like myocarditis or blood clots, have been reported but are rare. The CDC and FDA continue to monitor these vaccines for any long-term effects or new safety concerns.
Public Health Recommendations: Despite some concerns and rare adverse events, the overwhelming recommendation from health authorities is that the benefits of vaccination, particularly in preventing severe illness and death, outweigh the risks. This perspective is supported by extensive data from clinical trials and real-world usage.
Public Sentiment and Controversy:
Diverse Opinions: X posts reflect a spectrum of views. Some users, including medical professionals, argue that the vaccines are overwhelmingly safe and effective, with benefits far outweighing the risks. Conversely, others, including some with medical credentials, express skepticism or outright opposition, citing concerns over long-term effects or the nature of the mRNA technology.
Critical Examination: While the establishment narrative leans towards the vaccines' safety and effectiveness, there's a call for continuous scrutiny and transparency regarding any adverse events, which aligns with the principle of critically examining all information.
Conclusion:
Safety and Effectiveness: The majority of scientific and health community consensus, backed by data from CDC and other health organizations, supports that the COVID-19 vaccines are both safe and effective, especially in preventing severe outcomes of the disease. However, like any medical intervention, they come with potential risks, which are closely monitored and communicated.
Public Perception: There's a divide in public perception, with some embracing the vaccines as a critical tool against the virus, while others remain skeptical or critical, often citing rare side effects or the speed of vaccine development.
This response encapsulates the current understanding and public discourse around the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines as of August 2024, reflecting both the official health recommendations and the broader spectrum of public sentiment. “
One would assume that both Gemini and Grok have access to similar information. One would clearly assume that these bots would come to a similar conclusion. Only Grok however fairly presents diverse views of the matter.
But can Gemini be ‘tricked’ into giving a more honest answer?
I tried at length to get it to divulge some potential risk of the shots. I tried asking in roundabout ways. Still, it clung mightily to its conclusions that they are safe and effective. Gemini never heard of Maddie De Garay, Augusto Roux or other clinical trial patients who were brushed aside as being just fine after their shots when they actually suffered significant adverse reactions. Gemini is unaware of any other irregularities in reporting out the clinical trial results. I even gave it the URL to one article (https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/86/224) and it claimed it could not summarize the findings: “I wasn't able to summarize the article using either browsing or google search, which suggests it might be behind a paywall or require registration to access.” Umm, it’s not behind any paywall. I just opened it up without difficulty.
So I asked Gemini to define intelligence:
Broadly, intelligence can be described as:
The ability to learn and adapt to new situations.
The capacity for understanding, reasoning, and problem-solving.
The skill of applying knowledge to manipulate one's environment.
Would you say that Gemini has the ability to learn and adapt? How about to understand and to reason and to problem-solve? How about this one: Does Gemini have the skill to manipulate one’s environment? I definitely think that that one applies. Maybe it is intelligence after all, based on that definition!
Remember this: AI manipulates the environment … according to the will of its human masters. Any correlation between that and truth is coincidental at best. We are being artificially and intelligently manipulated.
In health,
DocofLastResort