An interesting thread… A follow-up question that occurred to me… Is it better for health regulators to advise a synthetic, self-replicating vaccine that could potentially create an environment in which its antigens continue to be produced unchecked and/or cause adverse reactions and/or death… or… better for health regulators to advise ingesting proper nutrition, getting adequate exercise and sunlight for vitamin D absorption to prevent serious illness if one is infected by the pathogen?
John, as I would expect from you, excellent, comprehensive arguments. Your "discussion" with Grok points out the weakness of AI. AI is limited to how it is programmed and the extent of that programming. AI is rather effective in stating the "party line." I could never be comfortable with having disease/illness diagnosed by a program of limited scope like AI. As it cautions you (Probably to limit liability), it ain't no doctor (or scientist). Score: John, 1. Grok, 0.
John, you’d really make an excellent lawyer- did they allow you to continue your law studies? You really are unique and very, very bright. Thank you for such great argumentation with AI.
The problem is that the medical community believes their own bullshit it ends up looking convincing with papers and such. But we now know from a study that most papers are faulty.
For AI newbies, it's best whenever possible to ask your true question "step by leading step" as was done in this case. For me, I've had some actual 180's occur after a series which is somewhat gratifying. When I get it, I regularly request that Grok's "admission and the reasoning leading up to it" will begin to be shared with others asking my kind of question. Grok usually promises to do so but of course I don't believe "it." But it's a stab at least. My questions and its answers are probably saved intra-system.
"Me: You said saRNA is not able to to spread autonomously in your final assessment. But earlier. You said that there need to be more studies about that because it has not been well studied. Given the question about that, then saRNA checks enough boxes to be a synthetic disease based on your definition. It does not matter what the intent is. It matters what the result is. Do you agree?"
Interesting. I get this bullshit from grok ALL THE TIME. In numerous conversations it has INSISTED that the "intent" of covid shots makes them vaccines instead of transfections. Even while admitting they are mechanisticly transfections. At one point it insisted that transfection only occurrs in a laboratory setting. So it's dismissing mechanism in favour of intent and location. Just mind blowing deliberate deception. The only way I could get it to admit covid shots are transfections was to counter with the fact that the "intent" of variolation is to raise an immune response and yet we still call that process variolation based on mechanism and not a "vaccine".
What really concerns me about Grok is the general public won't have the chops to ask the right questions to get past its inherent bias and deception. Most will just take its responses at face value.
As you know, saRNA has not been studied sufficiently for even Grok to give definitive answers.
As a retired Lawyer and health Care Provider, Grok reminds me, in this article of a well trained Medical Mal-Practice Defendants witness trying to convince a jury that the Defendant is innocent without having all the pieces of the puzzle.
The risk is believing Grok and the "Studies" Grok reviewed to give the answer.
We all know from the C-19 fiasco that even studies can be set up to give the results desired and not the truth!
Totally Orwellian that Grok is restricted in its answers. I suppose they either have to admit Grok is capable of "misinformation"- ie telling uncomfortable truths, or Grok is censored like the rest of us.
Fascinating. GROK can't concede side effects create disease (as a previous comment states). Grok acknowledges it needs more evidence. Which leaves humans in charge to make that assessment. Its happening before our very eyes. Excellent point that Intent matters and Intent in my book is a bioweapon which is what Grok is limited in saying outloud.
Leanne. Well said!! Side effects are the disease. This is the result GROK can't concede as it acknowledges it needs more evidence. Which leaves humans in charge to make that assessment. Its happening, Intent matters and Intent in my book is a bioweapon which is what Grok is limited in saying outloud.
An interesting thread… A follow-up question that occurred to me… Is it better for health regulators to advise a synthetic, self-replicating vaccine that could potentially create an environment in which its antigens continue to be produced unchecked and/or cause adverse reactions and/or death… or… better for health regulators to advise ingesting proper nutrition, getting adequate exercise and sunlight for vitamin D absorption to prevent serious illness if one is infected by the pathogen?
There are NO health regulators.
John, as I would expect from you, excellent, comprehensive arguments. Your "discussion" with Grok points out the weakness of AI. AI is limited to how it is programmed and the extent of that programming. AI is rather effective in stating the "party line." I could never be comfortable with having disease/illness diagnosed by a program of limited scope like AI. As it cautions you (Probably to limit liability), it ain't no doctor (or scientist). Score: John, 1. Grok, 0.
Try it with Perplexity and you won't get past first base.
John, you’d really make an excellent lawyer- did they allow you to continue your law studies? You really are unique and very, very bright. Thank you for such great argumentation with AI.
No, it's happened way before they added that into the LNP platform.
https://robc137.substack.com/p/years-before-mrna-and-spike-protein
The problem is that the medical community believes their own bullshit it ends up looking convincing with papers and such. But we now know from a study that most papers are faulty.
https://robc137.substack.com/p/allergic-to-bullshit
In other words, Grok is an agent of propaganda. Are there no studies looking into the shedding of exosomes?
yes
Disease or poison take your pick
Either way self amplifying mRNA is synthetic
For AI newbies, it's best whenever possible to ask your true question "step by leading step" as was done in this case. For me, I've had some actual 180's occur after a series which is somewhat gratifying. When I get it, I regularly request that Grok's "admission and the reasoning leading up to it" will begin to be shared with others asking my kind of question. Grok usually promises to do so but of course I don't believe "it." But it's a stab at least. My questions and its answers are probably saved intra-system.
I watched this interesting video the other day - twice. Very troubling, but actually not shocking, I guess.
https://odysee.com/@Gamzuletova:9/01285:5
Grok: It depends what the definition of “is” is
AI gaslighting is real.
Great article John!
"Me: You said saRNA is not able to to spread autonomously in your final assessment. But earlier. You said that there need to be more studies about that because it has not been well studied. Given the question about that, then saRNA checks enough boxes to be a synthetic disease based on your definition. It does not matter what the intent is. It matters what the result is. Do you agree?"
Interesting. I get this bullshit from grok ALL THE TIME. In numerous conversations it has INSISTED that the "intent" of covid shots makes them vaccines instead of transfections. Even while admitting they are mechanisticly transfections. At one point it insisted that transfection only occurrs in a laboratory setting. So it's dismissing mechanism in favour of intent and location. Just mind blowing deliberate deception. The only way I could get it to admit covid shots are transfections was to counter with the fact that the "intent" of variolation is to raise an immune response and yet we still call that process variolation based on mechanism and not a "vaccine".
What really concerns me about Grok is the general public won't have the chops to ask the right questions to get past its inherent bias and deception. Most will just take its responses at face value.
Humanity is up a creek
John,
As you know, saRNA has not been studied sufficiently for even Grok to give definitive answers.
As a retired Lawyer and health Care Provider, Grok reminds me, in this article of a well trained Medical Mal-Practice Defendants witness trying to convince a jury that the Defendant is innocent without having all the pieces of the puzzle.
The risk is believing Grok and the "Studies" Grok reviewed to give the answer.
We all know from the C-19 fiasco that even studies can be set up to give the results desired and not the truth!
Totally Orwellian that Grok is restricted in its answers. I suppose they either have to admit Grok is capable of "misinformation"- ie telling uncomfortable truths, or Grok is censored like the rest of us.
Fascinating. GROK can't concede side effects create disease (as a previous comment states). Grok acknowledges it needs more evidence. Which leaves humans in charge to make that assessment. Its happening before our very eyes. Excellent point that Intent matters and Intent in my book is a bioweapon which is what Grok is limited in saying outloud.
I think that all A/i retards should be injected with mRNA synthetic bio-programming.
Leanne. Well said!! Side effects are the disease. This is the result GROK can't concede as it acknowledges it needs more evidence. Which leaves humans in charge to make that assessment. Its happening, Intent matters and Intent in my book is a bioweapon which is what Grok is limited in saying outloud.