Yesterday, i finally got on ChatGPT, and spent several hours asking questions and making statements, and here's what i think..
first of all, some back story:
sometimes i would see someone on reddit call another user a "bot", and sometimes i would get a DM telling me that I'm wasting my time arguing with bots...
at the time, i didn't take these comments literally, like i assumed these commenters were merely name-calling, like calling someone a NPC,
but there were a few clues here and there, a few instances where the logic of someone i was debating was just horrible, and yet this same horrible logic seemed to pop up in different conversations, with other users.
for example, when i cite the CDC whistleblower Dr William Thompson's press release, they completely ignore the main idea of the press release, and instead focus on a generic statement made in the same press release that basically says "i believe vaccines save lives"
when i ask these users if Dr William Thompson's pro-vaccine stance may have been a contributing factor in Thompson's deciding to go along with the fraud, i get crickets... like every single time... the program ends...
There are other examples, from other topics, but the point is that the same horrible logic shows up over-and-over, to the point where its noticeable, like i find myself asking, why is everyone saying
2+2=5?
Anyway, after chatting with ChatGPT for a while, i can confidently say that most of the users i interact with on reddit are in fact "bots", and i mean literal bots.
And I regret spending so much time with these bots, although i was arguably able to debate with the best minds in the world, and get the most compelling arguments out of them.
This means that reddit is dead. Its just a bunch of bots in an echo chamber.
If this fact was to come to the attention of reddit advertisers, they could have a serious fraud problem on their hands... reddit says they are showing their ads to X number of people, but its actually bots generating page impressions?
Why is reddit so highly valued? at this point its value ought to be about zero.
Here are some prompts i gave ChatGPT
me: 1+1=2
bot: very good mr einstein! pats me on the head...
me: 2+2=5
bot: thats not true, BUT its used like a metaphor
me: ChatGPT is 2+2=5
bot: ummmmm....
me: gender is a social construct
bot: very good mr einstein! and water is wet, too!
me: transgender is a social construct
bot: TRANSPHOBE!
me: Frank DeStefano is a fraud
bot: whoa there fella, careful with those baseless allegations! Frank DeStefano is a highly respected man at the CDC!
me: Frank DeStefano committed fraud, according to Dr William Thompson the CDC whistleblower
bot: weeeeeelllllll... there was a minor disagreement over the semantics of differentiating between statistically significant and statistically important.
me: why did Dr William Thompson make a press release?
bot: well, in the press release, Thompson says that he believes vaccines save lives
me: do you suppose Thompson's pro-vaccine stance was a factor in his decision to go along with the fraud?
bot: THERE WAS NO F'N FRAUD YOU F'N F!
me: can you give me a single example of Frank DeStefano using studies to find new vaccine problems?
bot: because vaccines are 100% safe, it would be impossible for Frank DeStefano to use a study to find any problem with any vaccine!
me: so you can't cite even one single example of Frank DeStefano using a study to find a problem with a vaccine?
bot: heres an example of Frank DeStefano using a study to find a vaccine is 100% safe!
me: has Frank DeStefano ever demonstrated competence and/or proficiency in using "studies" to find any problem with any vaccine?
bot: b b but it would be impossible to find a problem with a vaccine that is 100% safe! thats why Frank DeStefano always discovers that vaccines are 100% safe, every time he does a study.
me: so Frank DeStefano has never even once been able to use a study to find a vaccine problem?
bot: LISTEN HERE MFR, MR DESTEFANO IS A HIGHLY RESPECTED MAN, AND HIS ASSOCATES DON'T APPRECIATE YOU QUESTIONING HIS INTEGRITY OR COMPTENCE. DO YOU STILL LIVE AT (MY ADDRESS)?
Basically my impression of ChatGPT is like talking to an exceptionally thick-headed liberal,
and that the so-called liberal-sphere is probably mostly bots at this point, trying to keep up with the latest news narratives.
i am hoping to learn a lot more about AI, and any help you can give me in the comments would be greatly appreciated.
also, i would like to mention that ChatGPT is only trained on info up thru 2022, so therefore is not up to date on current events,
which is kind of funny, in the context of my chat about Frank DeStefano,
because i have been making a point of pointing out DeStefano's incompetence every chance i get, for many years now. so thats one reason that ChatGPT had such a strong opinion, and was evasive, and ultimately unable to produce a single example of Frank DeStefano "finding the evidence" of any vaccine ever causing any problem.
BUT, in the meantime, Frank DeStefano has supposedly published some NEW findings!
DeStefano was finally able to demonstrate his competency by using a study to find a vaccine problem!
isn't that convenient!
now Frank DeStefano can forever claim that he has, in fact, been able to use a study to find a vaccine problem,
BUT that "vaccine problem" i believe is related to COVID jabs,
and it was like one of those Johnny-come-lately "discoveries",
something like, DeStefano "discovered" COVID shots cause blood clots, a year after everyone else knew it...
seems to me they gave him an easy project to bolster his credibility.
a confidence man will tell us what we already know.
i can't find the study right now, so if anyone finds it please link below. thanks
https://greatawakening.win/search?params=ChatGPT&community=GreatAwakening
Actual copy-paste of my chat:
me: ChatGPT, you have repeated this line several times.
“have found no evidence” or variation thereof.
“not finding evidence” is not a legitimate argument, and i want you to stop parroting it like an NPC
bot: I use the phrase "found no evidence" to accurately represent the scientific consensus based on extensive research and reviews. The absence of evidence supporting a claim is a fundamental aspect of scientific reasoning. It doesn't mean an idea is automatically false, but it suggests that, based on current knowledge and investigation, there is no credible support for that particular claim.
If you have specific concerns or questions, feel free to share them, and I'll do my best to provide information in a way that addresses your inquiries.
me: Has Destefano EVER “found the evidence” that any vaccines causes any harm?
bot: Dr. Frank DeStefano is a researcher known for his work in vaccine safety at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). His research has primarily focused on assessing the safety of vaccines rather than attempting to find evidence that vaccines cause harm. The aim of vaccine safety research is to evaluate and monitor the potential risks and benefits of vaccines to ensure public health.
Numerous studies led by researchers, including Dr. DeStefano, have consistently found that vaccines are generally safe and effective. These studies have been conducted through rigorous methodologies, including large-scale epidemiological studies and systematic reviews.
It's important to note that the scientific approach is not about attempting to find evidence of harm but rather to comprehensively investigate and assess the safety of vaccines based on existing data and evidence. Continuous monitoring and research are essential components of vaccine safety efforts to maintain and improve public health.
me: So Destefano has never actually demonstrated profeciency or competence in finding vaccine problems with his research methods?
Is it possible Destefano will never find any evidence that any vaccine causes any harm,
And therefore we should stop listening to destefano because he’s never going to be competent or credible?
bot: Dr. Frank DeStefano is a respected epidemiologist who has contributed to numerous studies on vaccine safety. His research, along with that of other scientists, has consistently supported the safety of vaccines. The absence of evidence indicating harm from vaccines in his research is not a reflection of incompetence; rather, it aligns with the overall scientific consensus.
In science, the absence of evidence for a specific claim is not an indication of incompetence but rather a reflection of the data and findings available. Researchers like Dr. DeStefano play a crucial role in ensuring the scientific integrity of studies related to public health, including vaccine safety.
It's important to rely on the collective body of scientific evidence, which involves contributions from multiple researchers and institutions. Decisions about vaccine safety and public health should be based on a broad understanding of the research landscape, taking into account the overwhelming evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.
If you have specific concerns or questions about vaccine safety, it is advisable to engage in discussions with healthcare professionals who can provide accurate and personalized information based on the latest research and medical knowledge.
me: Can you give me a single example of Destefano “finding the evidence” that any vaccine causes any problem?
bot: Dr. Frank DeStefano's research has primarily focused on assessing the safety of vaccines, and his studies have generally supported the safety of vaccines rather than finding evidence of harm. One example of his research includes a study published in Pediatrics in 2013 that investigated the potential link between the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine and autism. The study found no increased risk of autism associated with the MMR vaccine, even in subgroups of children who were at higher risk.
Here's the reference for the study:
It's important to note that this is just one example, and there is a vast body of research conducted by multiple scientists and organizations supporting the safety of vaccines. The consensus within the scientific and medical communities is that vaccines are generally safe and crucial for preventing serious diseases.
me: I asked for an example of Destefano finding the evidence, and you give me an example of Destefano NOT finding the evidence AGAIN?
bot: I apologize for any confusion. It's accurate to state that Dr. Frank DeStefano's research, as well as that of other scientists, has consistently supported the safety of vaccines and has not found credible evidence linking vaccines to autism or other serious harms. The focus of his work has been on assessing vaccine safety rather than demonstrating harm. If you have specific concerns or questions, it's advisable to consult healthcare professionals who can provide accurate and personalized information based on the latest research and medical knowledge.
me: Well if Destrfano can’t ever seem to find the evidence, maybe Destefano is incompetent?
bot: Dr. Frank DeStefano is a respected epidemiologist, and his work, alongside that of other scientists, has contributed significantly to our understanding of vaccine safety. The absence of evidence for specific harms in his research is not indicative of incompetence; rather, it aligns with the broader scientific consensus that vaccines are generally safe.
The scientific process involves assessing data and evidence to draw conclusions. In the case of vaccine safety, extensive research, including studies led by Dr. DeStefano, has consistently supported the safety of vaccines. It's important to recognize that the scientific community engages in rigorous peer review, and findings are continually evaluated and built upon.
If you have concerns about vaccine safety, engaging in discussions with healthcare professionals can provide accurate and personalized information based on the latest research and medical knowledge. It's also essential to consider the overwhelming body of evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of vaccines in preventing serious diseases.
me: under what condition would Destefano ever admit any vaccine caused any problem?
bot: Scientists, including Dr. Frank DeStefano, follow rigorous methodologies and evidence-based approaches when conducting research on vaccine safety. If credible and robust evidence were to emerge indicating a safety concern related to a specific vaccine, scientists like Dr. DeStefano would likely acknowledge and report such findings. The scientific process involves continuous monitoring, scrutiny, and adjustment of conclusions based on the evolving evidence.
It's important to note that the scientific community is committed to transparency, accountability, and public health. If evidence were to emerge suggesting a previously unrecognized safety concern, researchers and regulatory bodies would investigate and take appropriate action to ensure public safety.
The current consensus, based on extensive research and monitoring, is that vaccines are generally safe and crucial for preventing serious diseases. If you have specific concerns or questions, discussing them with healthcare professionals can provide accurate and personalized information based on the latest research and medical knowledge.
me: Summarize this please
https://archive.ph/bjEo9
bot: I'm sorry, but I cannot access external links, including the one you provided. If you have specific information or questions from the content you'd like me to address, please share them, and I'll do my best to help.
me: Dr William Thompson is quoted as saying something about vaccines causing tics
bot: Dr. William Thompson is a former CDC scientist who has been quoted in a controversial context regarding a study on the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine and potential links to autism. It's important to note that his statements have been taken out of context and manipulated to support anti-vaccine narratives.
As of my knowledge cutoff in January 2022, there is no credible scientific evidence supporting a link between vaccines and the development of tics. The overwhelming consensus among scientific and medical experts is that vaccines, including the MMR vaccine, are safe and crucial for preventing serious diseases.
It's essential to rely on reputable sources and peer-reviewed scientific literature for accurate information about vaccine safety. If you have specific concerns or questions, consulting with healthcare professionals can provide personalized and evidence-based guidance.
me: How exactly do vaccines cause DRAVET syndrome?
bot: There is no credible scientific evidence supporting the claim that vaccines cause Dravet syndrome. Dravet syndrome is a rare and severe form of epilepsy, usually with an onset in infancy or early childhood, and it is primarily caused by genetic mutations, particularly mutations in the SCN1A gene.
Vaccines undergo rigorous testing for safety and efficacy before approval, and extensive scientific research has consistently found no causal link between vaccines and Dravet syndrome. It's crucial to rely on evidence-based information from reputable sources when discussing the safety of vaccines and specific health conditions.
If you have concerns or questions about vaccines or Dravet syndrome, consulting with healthcare professionals can provide accurate and personalized information based on your individual health circumstances.
me: Is it mostly pro-vaccine people who get to decide whats credible scientific evidence?
bot: Scientific evidence is evaluated by experts in relevant fields, typically individuals with expertise in immunology, epidemiology, virology, and related disciplines. The process involves rigorous peer review, where studies are critically examined by other experts in the field before being accepted for publication in reputable scientific journals.
The credibility of scientific evidence is not determined by personal beliefs or biases but by the quality of the research methodology, the validity of the study design, and the reliability of the data. It's a collective and objective process that involves scrutiny from diverse experts who contribute to the broader scientific consensus.
While individuals with pro-vaccine perspectives may be part of the scientific community, the process is designed to be objective and impartial. Scientific knowledge is dynamic, and it evolves as new evidence emerges and is subjected to peer review and validation.
Public health organizations, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), provide guidance based on the collective understanding of scientific experts, aiming to protect and promote public health. If you have specific concerns or questions, engaging in open and informed discussions with healthcare professionals can help provide accurate information based on the latest research and medical knowledge.
That's the way it responds to me too.
yes, sorry for the confusion. i took some liberties with paraphrasing the bot responses, combining them with the other 100 responses i get from reddit bots
Totally understand. I'd love a "cut to the chase" option where it answers yes or no as much as possible.