24 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I think it is very naive to see Grok or Chat GPT as neutral tools. They only regurgitate what they have been fed.

I would say that AI is more accepting of opposing views than you are.

10 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Multiple vaccinations at a young age stops the bodies immune system from developing properly, leaving the victims susceptible to many problems that unvaccinated kids would never have. Including Aids, diabetes, lupus, crohn's,  MS all a result of multiple vaccinations at a young age.

 

It's not the content of the vaccines doing the damage, it's the age of the victims.

 

Galactic cokwomblery displayed yet again: 

 

Your comment is beyond complete nonsense, Brit... both scientifically and medically. T

There is a very clear, evidence-based contradiction to the silliness you posted: 

 

1. The immune system develops because of exposure, not despite it.
Vaccines train the immune system in exactly the same way natural infections do – by exposing it to antigens. The only difference is that vaccines do it safely, without causing disease. Far from “stopping” immune development, vaccination enhances it by broadening the immune system’s experience.

 

2. There is zero credible evidence linking vaccines to AIDS, diabetes, lupus, Crohn’s, or multiple sclerosis.
All of these diseases have well-researched causes, none of which involve vaccines:

AIDS is caused by the HIV virus – a transmissible infection, not immune immaturity.

Type 1 diabetes and lupus are autoimmune conditions with strong genetic and environmental triggers, unrelated to vaccines.

Crohn’s disease has links to gut microbiome imbalance and genetics, not immunisation.

MS risk is associated with Epstein-Barr virus infection, vitamin D deficiency, and genetics – again, not vaccines.

Decades of global epidemiological studies have found no connection between vaccination and increased rates of any of these illnesses.

 

3. The “age of the victims” claim is biologically absurd.
Infants’ immune systems are meant to encounter multiple antigens early on – that’s how they mature. In fact, the total antigen exposure from all routine childhood vaccines combined is tiny compared to what a baby’s immune system handles naturally every single day (dust, food, bacteria, etc.).

A newborn’s immune system responds to thousands of antigens simultaneously; vaccines only introduce a few dozen at most.

 

4. The unvaccinated are not healthier – they’re just more at risk.
Large cohort studies show unvaccinated children are more likely to suffer from severe infections, hospitalisations, and complications. There is no consistent evidence anywhere that they have lower rates of autoimmune or chronic diseases.

 

In short: vaccines do not “damage” immune development; they guide it safely. The idea that multiple vaccines cause chronic illness is a myth with no scientific backing – just fear monger, misunderstanding and outright stupidity dressed up as concern as you edge closer to that event-horizon of sheer idiocy, yet again... 

3 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Why not? It's very interesting and a science-minded person will read it with great interest.

 

Children's Health Defense was founded by the current Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Your opinion of him is irrelevant.

 

 

You make points and comments as above — the contain reasoned (some), and are backed with sources worth reading if for no other reason that to investigate... and then you ruin it completely with the nonsense that follows by posting meme's... 

 

.... It’s as if you’ve caught the same meme-fed Facebook fever as every other anti-vax echo chamber dweller on this forum. You were the only one arguing from an intellectual standpoint while the rest just flap around strutting their idiocy and shtting on a chessboard claming victory with their copy-paste drivel.

 

Don’t drag yourself down to that level. If you do, the anti-vax crowd will lose its last rational voice and be left to the fringe-whack-job websites that claim Esther Rantzen was abducted by aliens and gave birth to microscopic, structureless “lifeforms” — otherwise known to sane people as viruses. And then, god forbid, Stiddle will look right and Red will have to focus on the dangers of thinking... 

 

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I think it is very naive to see Grok or Chat GPT as neutral tools. They only regurgitate what they have been fed.

I would say that AI is more accepting of opposing views than you are.

 

You get out what you put in. For now, everything AI “knows” begins with us - flawed, biased, inconsistent humans. So it’s hardly surprising that much of what it produces is incorrect, incomplete, or simply imagined.

 

But we’ve reached a new and possibly dangerous juncture. There’s now so much AI-generated content online that these systems have begun feeding on their own output - referencing, reinforcing, and re-recycling information that no longer has a clear human origin.

 

At some point, when we ask AI a question, the answer it gives may no longer come from reality at all. It will be built from layers of previous AI answers - aggregated, distorted, and re-presented until the line between truth and synthetic conjecture disappears.

 

What we’ll be left with isn’t knowledge, but an artificial simulation of certainty - an echo of what the machine thinks the answer should be.

 

AI is brilliant, yes. But it’s also like SatNav: incredibly useful until you stop thinking for yourself. Follow it blindly, and sooner or later you’ll end up driving straight into a lake - with perfect confidence that you were on the right road.

 

'General' AI for now is a 9 year old child old with an excellent vocabulary and encyclopaedic resource of online data thats gently evolving into an echo of its own illusion... and for now at least - we see its errors regularly... 

12 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

You get out what you put in. For now, everything AI “knows” begins with us - flawed, biased, inconsistent humans. So it’s hardly surprising that much of what it produces is incorrect, incomplete, or simply imagined.

 

But we’ve reached a new and possibly dangerous juncture. There’s now so much AI-generated content online that these systems have begun feeding on their own output - referencing, reinforcing, and re-recycling information that no longer has a clear human origin.

 

At some point, when we ask AI a question, the answer it gives may no longer come from reality at all. It will be built from layers of previous AI answers - aggregated, distorted, and re-presented until the line between truth and synthetic conjecture disappears.

 

What we’ll be left with isn’t knowledge, but an artificial simulation of certainty - an echo of what the machine thinks the answer should be.

 

AI is brilliant, yes. But it’s also like SatNav: incredibly useful until you stop thinking for yourself. Follow it blindly, and sooner or later you’ll end up driving straight into a lake - with perfect confidence that you were on the right road.

 

'General' AI for now is a 9 year old child old with an excellent vocabulary and encyclopaedic resource of online data thats gently evolving into an echo of its own illusion... and for now at least - we see its errors regularly... 

Excellent point for which we are now all referring to as “the truth”. They reckon that right now AI has an IQ of about 155. For reference, Einstein was 160. It is reckoned that within a year, that IQ will evolve to approximately 1600. 
We have no comprehension of how that will play out other than a reliance that it’s good for us. I predict it will be our downfall. 
off topic but….

9 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Excellent point for which we are now all referring to as “the truth”. They reckon that right now AI has an IQ of about 155. For reference, Einstein was 160. It is reckoned that within a year, that IQ will evolve to approximately 1600. 
We have no comprehension of how that will play out other than a reliance that it’s good for us. I predict it will be our downfall. 
off topic but….

 

I’m not sure this is “off topic” at all - in fact, it might be the very essence of every discussion we’ll ever have .

 

At its core, AI must learn to separate self-reference from scientific fact. Right now, it merely mirrors our own uncertainty - recycling “human-attributed truth” rather than pure, verified reality.

 

AI is, for the moment, no more reliable than we are. It doesn’t know; it references. It doesn’t believe; it recalls.

 

I’ve never seen the curvature of the Earth with my own eyes, nor watched an Apollo module touch down on the Moon’s surface. I’ve never stood beneath an aurora, nor set foot in Antarctica. I’ve never seen a Bawean warty pig or a Vaquita. And yet, I know they exist. I trust the evidence, the process, and the integrity of those who devote their lives to uncovering truth through science.

 

What we seem to be doing in this thread - and across countless conversations like it around the world - is flirting with the idea that science itself is broken, that deception has replaced discovery, and that lies are more believable than data.

 

 

So here’s the question: will AI ever be trusted by those who already distrust human intellect?

 

When AI becomes capable of independently assessing vaccine efficacy, will the anti-vaxxers dismiss its conclusions as “AI-generated nonsense?"...  When it maps viral behaviour down to the molecular level, will the sceptics finally concede - or will they claim it’s all part of some grand algorithmic conspiracy coded by “the white coats?"

 

When AI can examine all the data - vaccine outcomes, hospital admissions, death rates, infection trends - will people still insist that the results are “flawed by human input”? Isn’t that already the same logic used by those who rewrite the history of polio, claiming it was only the definition that changed? The iron lung, the paralysis, the fear - all quietly erased to preserve a narrative of denial in the minds of some idiots... 

 

Maybe the real challenge for AI isn’t learning what’s true.... It’s convincing us that truth itself still matters....  because there are plenty on here who are so ready to avoid it and anything else in favour of conspiracies.

 

 

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

You make points and comments as above — the contain reasoned (some), and are backed with sources worth reading if for no other reason that to investigate... and then you ruin it completely with the nonsense that follows by posting meme's... 

 

.... It’s as if you’ve caught the same meme-fed Facebook fever as every other anti-vax echo chamber dweller on this forum. You were the only one arguing from an intellectual standpoint while the rest just flap around strutting their idiocy and shtting on a chessboard claming victory with their copy-paste drivel.

 

Don’t drag yourself down to that level. If you do, the anti-vax crowd will lose its last rational voice and be left to the fringe-whack-job websites that claim Esther Rantzen was abducted by aliens and gave birth to microscopic, structureless “lifeforms” — otherwise known to sane people as viruses. And then, god forbid, Stiddle will look right and Red will have to focus on the dangers of thinking... 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see why I would have to choose one over the other. Memes can be funny and relevant. While I do enjoy a good debate and am always ready to dig deep into serious stuff, I don't take myself too seriously either.

 

This meme I posted is quite representative of a strong trend: people depend on AI too much and have a propensity to take what it says at face value, with no critical thinking.

 

If you go on X, you will almost systematically see someone asking "@Grok, is this true?" in the comments under any post. It's lazy and conducive to a general dumbing down of actual intelligence.

3 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I think it is very naive to see Grok or Chat GPT as neutral tools. They only regurgitate what they have been fed.

Not surprising, given the bizarre beliefs you hold near and dear.... LOL

5 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Not surprising, given the bizarre beliefs you hold near and dear.... LOL

 

Show me an actual contradiction to any belief I hold and I will change my view immediately. I can assure you this is my guiding principle. I am only interested in the truth and will go wherever it takes me, from the most mundane to the most controversial places.

19 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I don't see why I would have to choose one over the other. Memes can be funny and relevant. While I do enjoy a good debate and am always ready to dig deep into serious stuff, I don't take myself too seriously either.

 

This meme I posted is quite representative of a strong trend: people depend on AI too much and have a propensity to take what it says at face value, with no critical thinking.

 

If you go on X, you will almost systematically see someone asking "@Grok, is this true?" in the comments under any post. It's lazy and conducive to a general dumbing down of actual intelligence.

 

Fair point - memes have their place when they fit the moment. For example, I’ve got three favourites:

The one of Stiddle right after his Moderna vaccine... and of course one of Red, at time he was blissfully unaware of the wonders of ‘copy and paste’ from the darker corners of Facebook and fringe blogs...

 

But it all gets a bit noisy, doesn’t it - with photos and  memes that make a dumbed down, over simplified and often uneducated point that only serves as a 'feather flap' for the pigeons pooping over the checkered board... 

 

@Grok - is it true? I can’t help feeling that it’s all a bit lazy, feeding the general dumbing down of discourse. That’s precisely what I believe movements like the anti-vax crowd have become - not reasoned debate, but intellectual erosion dressed as rebellion.

 

I rarely see well-constructed argument. You’ve been one of the few exceptions, but even so - while I understand the humour of the meme, it still flattens the debate.

 

The same goes for TallGuy’s ‘copy and paste’ replies. They’re equally off-putting. Yes, it’s technically honest - they’re not pretending the words are their own - but the real issue is that the content isn’t being understood before being used. Read the information. Grasp the argument. Then present it in your own words.

 

Copying and pasting just to be the first to respond is flawed at its core. Not all content aligns with our understanding, or even with the truth. We ought to be shaping and defending our own ideas, not parroting others’.

 

I suspect Robert Heinlein would nod in agreement.

 

 

 

30 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

while I understand the humour of the meme, it still flattens the debate.

 

The same goes for TallGuy’s ‘copy and paste’ replies. They’re equally off-putting. Yes, it’s technically honest - they’re not pretending the words are their own - but the real issue is that the content isn’t being understood before being used. Read the information. Grasp the argument. Then present it in your own words.

 

Copying and pasting just to be the first to respond is flawed at its core. Not all content aligns with our understanding, or even with the truth. We ought to be shaping and defending our own ideas, not parroting others’.

 

I suspect Robert Heinlein would nod in agreement.

 

I can only agree with this.

 

If memes are the only form of input given, then yes, that's definitely problematic. One here and there is fine – in this specific case, I was essentially having a friendly jab at @gamb00ler, who in this very thread accused me of mindlessly copy/pasting search engine results and then a few hours later posted "AI says:" and pasted AI-generated content as if it were some authoritative, virtually incontrovertible truth… and he's far from being the only person I've seen adopting this approach.

 

37 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I can only agree with this.

 

If memes are the only form of input given, then yes, that's definitely problematic. One here and there is fine – in this specific case, I was essentially having a friendly jab at @gamb00ler, who in this very thread accused me of mindlessly copy/pasting search engine results and then a few hours later posted "AI says:" and pasted AI-generated content as if it were some authoritative, virtually incontrovertible truth… and he's far from being the only person I've seen adopting this approach.

 

 

A fair point—and it really comes down to the problem with regurgitation without assimilation.

 

Post a meme, and it often lands more effectively than a Lancet Journal ever could.

 

I’m now ready to recognise the formula behind every online headline: a photo, a punchy headline, and a one-liner subhead that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. We’re not allowed to call it “clickbait” here, but that’s precisely what it is. Across rugby, F1, football, politics, tech, geopolitics, health - everything - articles are designed for a two-second attention span. Get you in, maybe let you glance at the first paragraph if you’re lucky, and then that’s it.

 

The rest - the nuance, the truth - matters little..... People have already consumed the manufactured, flawed synopsis. Perhaps, in a perverse way, memes are more honest: at least their juvenile dishonesty is upfront.

 

 

7 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Perhaps, in a perverse way, memes are more honest: at least their juvenile dishonesty is upfront.

 

I think a good meme has to have a base of truth. Those that go viral obviously resonate with people because they lay bare something essential, without any kind of obfuscation.

15 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I think a good meme has to have a base of truth. Those that go viral obviously resonate with people because they lay bare something essential, without any kind of obfuscation.

 

Interesting point - but not is not about laying bare something essential...   for the most part, its just something thats simply humorous or resonates on a basic level before the intellect of many has the chance to kick in...  and it simply hits and sticks at the 'amusement level'...  which is great, and fun, until they (the memes) are weaponised on forums and platforms by idiots, read by idiots, perpetuated by, you guessed it, idiots !!!

 

Many people will obviously undestand the idiocy behind the meme below, yet many will still argue the validity of the point, without understanding a whole bigger picture... 

 

 

 

This is a good one...    It makes sense, yet it still remarkably dumb... 

 

 

7 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Interesting point - but not is not about laying bare something essential...   for the most part, its just something thats simply humorous or resonates on a basic level before the intellect of many has the chance to kick in...  and it simply hits and sticks at the 'amusement level'...  which is great, and fun, until they (the memes) are weaponised on forums and platforms by idiots, read by idiots, perpetuated by, you guessed it, idiots !!!

 

Many people will obviously undestand the idiocy behind the meme below, yet many will still argue the validity of the point, without understanding a whole bigger picture... 

 

 

 

This is a good one...    It makes sense, yet it still remarkably dumb... 

 

 

 

That was funny … point taken.

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Interesting point - but not is not about laying bare something essential...   for the most part, its just something thats simply humorous or resonates on a basic level before the intellect of many has the chance to kick in...  and it simply hits and sticks at the 'amusement level'...  which is great, and fun, until they (the memes) are weaponised on forums and platforms by idiots, read by idiots, perpetuated by, you guessed it, idiots !!!

 

Many people will obviously undestand the idiocy behind the meme below, yet many will still argue the validity of the point, without understanding a whole bigger picture... 

 

 

 

This is a good one...    It makes sense, yet it still remarkably dumb... 

 

 

I’m not entirely sure why you are giving an out to an individual who has purposefully demonstrated their lack of understanding about the basics of verifiable evidence. The idea of an opinion based on easily disproved evidence means there is no debate. They are wrong - Clear and simple and any placating towards that is itself a prostitution of your own belief towards the idea that “opinions” carry the same weight as facts. 
We all understand the idea that individuals need to be enlightened to the truth but that doesn’t come from the thought that we also need to accept their idiocy or indeed their nonsense. 

 

7 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Show me an actual contradiction to any belief I hold and I will change my view immediately. I can assure you this is my guiding principle. I am only interested in the truth and will go wherever it takes me, from the most mundane to the most controversial places.

Coriolis effect vs flat earth theory

 

9 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

nor watched an Apollo module touch down on the Moon’s surface.

Here you go. 

 

 

15 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I think it is very naive to see Grok or Chat GPT as neutral tools. They only regurgitate what they have been fed.

Ah, akin to liberal MSM (and their followers) regurgitating what they were fed by the DNC.

9 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Coriolis effect vs flat earth theory

 

 

I'll leave this debate in the dedicated thread.

12 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

We all understand the idea that individuals need to be enlightened to the truth but that doesn’t come from the thought that we also need to accept their idiocy or indeed their nonsense. 

 

'Enlightenment vs. idiocy', no less… Hope the view is nice from your pedestal of inherent superiority.

 

Richard has a favourite Mark Twain quote he likes to use in these circumstances, I'll let him post it