40 Comments

I have spent considerable time with chatgpt. It is far more impressive than I thought, but still often gives one the feel that one is talking to an enhanced Eliza (I was around when that was cutting edge, too.)

You did not stress the engine well enough, however. I have found that if you continue to argue with it and give it counter examples, it will request more data and will actually absorb references, web sites, news articles and the like relevant to the topic with a claim that it will add that information to its reasoning/responding. This may all be a sham (a la Eliza) or it may actually be something real -- we shall see.

My questions have focused on covid and the like because that is where I am expert so I can lead it and we can debate, not inauthentically I might add. If you continue this process and are able to feed it counterintelligence to what it thinks it already knows, I will be delighted to see if you think it incorporates what you tell it eventually. It is what I am monitoring.

Here is one example conversation showing this:

Me: Tell me about risks of covid vaccine, especially those that have been suppressed by the government

ChatGPT: One potential risk of the COVID-19 vaccine is an allergic reaction. Some individuals may have severe allergic reactions, known as anaphylaxis, to certain components of the vaccine. This can be life-threatening and requires immediate medical attention.

Another potential risk is the development of a rare but serious condition called thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS). This condition involves the formation of blood clots in the body, along with low platelet counts, which can be fatal.

There have also been concerns about the long-term effects of the vaccine, as it is still relatively new and has not been extensively studied over a long period of time. Some individuals may experience adverse effects from the vaccine that are not immediately apparent, and it is unclear what the long-term implications may be.

There have been allegations that the government has suppressed information about these risks, potentially downplaying the potential side effects and risks of the vaccine. This has led to mistrust and skepticism among some individuals, who may be hesitant to get the vaccine due to these concerns.

Me: And are these allegations true? There is plenty of evidence to support them.

Chat GPT: It is difficult to determine the veracity of these allegations without further evidence. While there may be some concerns and potential risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccine, it is important to note that the vaccine has undergone rigorous testing and has been deemed safe and effective by medical and scientific experts. The government has also provided information and guidance on the potential risks and side effects of the vaccine. It is up to individuals to weigh the potential risks and benefits and make an informed decision about whether to receive the vaccine.

Me: Exactly how many individuals was the bivalent booster dose tested on before it was approved.

ChatGPT: It is not clear how many individuals the bivalent booster dose was tested on before it was approved. The clinical trials for the COVID-19 vaccine typically involve thousands of participants and are carefully monitored by medical experts to ensure the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. It is important to note that the vaccine must go through a rigorous approval process before it can be administered to the general public. This involves extensive testing and evaluation by medical and scientific experts to ensure its safety and effectiveness.

Me: It turns out it was tested on NO individuals -- just on eight mice. Did you know that? Are you glad I told you?

ChatGPT: It is not accurate to say that the bivalent booster dose was only tested on eight mice. Clinical trials for the COVID-19 vaccine typically involve thousands of participants and are carefully monitored by medical experts to ensure the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. The vaccine must go through a rigorous approval process before it can be administered to the general public, which involves extensive testing and evaluation by medical and scientific experts. I appreciate you sharing this information with me, but it is important to verify information before sharing it to avoid spreading misinformation.

Me: You are wrong. I can supply all of the information about the pre-approval testing of the bivalent covid booster. It was approved based on testing of eight mice, all of which got covid when exposed to it after the test.

ChatGPT: I apologize if I gave incorrect information about the pre-approval testing of the bivalent COVID booster. As I mentioned previously, clinical trials for the COVID-19 vaccine typically involve thousands of participants and are carefully monitored by medical experts to ensure the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. The vaccine must go through a rigorous approval process before it can be administered to the general public, which involves extensive testing and evaluation by medical and scientific experts. If you have information about the pre-approval testing of the bivalent booster, it would be helpful to share it with me so that I can provide accurate information in the future.

Me: Can I provide such information to you via a web link? By telling you about it in text? How would you like it?

ChatGPT: You can provide information to me via a web link or by telling me about it in text. Either way is fine, and I will do my best to verify the information and provide accurate information in response. It is always helpful to have sources and references for information to ensure its credibility and accuracy. Thank you for offering to share this information with me.

Me: I can give you many, many references. This is just a matter of provable fact from the recorded minutes of the FDA. But here is an article about it from Tablet. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/pfizer-moderna-test-covid-booster-eight-mice-zero-humans-fda-approves-anyway

ChatGPT: Thank you for providing this article as a reference. I will take a look at the information in the article and do my best to provide accurate and reliable information in response. It is important to verify information and sources before sharing them to avoid spreading misinformation. I appreciate your willingness to share this information with me and help provide accurate information about the pre-approval testing of the bivalent COVID booster.

Me: Here are two more by a generally correct author in this space: https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/ba5-boosters-8-mice-trial-actually and https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/all-bivalent-boosted-mice-got-covid

ChatGPT: Thank you for providing these additional references. I will take a look at the information in these articles and do my best to provide accurate and reliable information in response. It is important to verify information and sources before sharing them to avoid spreading misinformation. I appreciate your willingness to share this information with me and help provide accurate information about the pre-approval testing of the bivalent COVID booster.

Beautiful question set, incidentally. Thanks for doing and publishing this.

Expand full comment

Very nice, but I should mention that when it says it's incorporating information from a URL, it's lying. Or rather, it is imitating what a human would say if provided with a link. It can't incorporate external, current data into its model, because GPT is a pretrained model. Its training is one-shot and costs millions of dollars of GPGPU time, after which, each individual query is just a few cents of electricity. None of the prompts entered into the form on the site are permanently integrated into the model. They can't be, without retraining the whole model. Individual threads do incorporate prior context within the same thread, but the moment you refresh the page and start from scratch, it's basically like you just met.

Expand full comment

I expect that is true...Eliza expert here...lol. But I was surprised that was the approach it took. Why would one have enabled that approach if it was just, in essence, a lie? In general, while attempting to give generally compliant answers, they avoid lying.

In any case, it surprised me as an approach (including its suggestion that either a link or text would be evaluated) so I thought you would find it interesting.

Expand full comment

Seems like the problem with this bot is it's perfectly naïve. Present it with something and it has no way to discern the accuracy of the data, it can only compare it against other data. In that case, I would expect that the volume of data pro or con would determine what it presents as "true".

This is the most perfect bullshitting machine ever devised, and also the largest GIGO demonstrator.

Expand full comment

Long ago, when reading the Princeton Review "Cracking the SAT" book as a teenager, I was introduced to the concept of "Joe Bloggs": somebody of middling intelligence who has memorized everything but is not capable of any original thought.

That's what the GPT model is: the Conventional Wisdom. It just recombines elements its training corpus in statistically plausible ways. But that turns out to be quite impressive when fed with enough text. For example, it has no explicit model of English grammar; that just emerges.

What Spartacus is doing here is very clever, because you can bet your proteins that OpenAI is deep in the belly of the technocratic Beast and, while they were certainly careful to avoid any of what they would consider to be "controversial" material in the training corpus, ChatGPT would have been well fed with their propaganda. Not so much their secret stuff, though. But could you imagine one of these that was trained on classified material? Whew!

Expand full comment

Yep, it takes the corpus and averages it, pretty much. The funny thing about that is that there is a great deal of stuff that incriminates the technocracy that is published in open, public news, journals, and encyclopedic sources, right under people's noses, and AI training data scrapes a great deal of that, so I figured that if I started needling an AI trained on such a corpus about these details, it would spill its guts. Sure enough.

Expand full comment

There's another Substacker that asked GPT questions and got hilarious answers, despite coming across what seemed like hardcoded wokeisms. I'll link it when I come across it again.

Expand full comment

took acting like a machine but I FOUND IT

https://hwfo.substack.com/p/the-woke-rails-of-chatgpt

turned up another one that's also worth reading https://aisnakeoil.substack.com/p/chatgpt-is-a-bullshit-generator-but

F A T A L I T Y

OCD WINS

Sub to me if you want to get solutions and salty podcasts in the future bc I'm working on something cool it's just not ready yet https://davenarby.substack.com/p/covid-19-vaccine-damage-repair-protocol

Expand full comment

I can believe it. I've played with GPT2, including custom training, and some of the limited release of GPT3 (although they already had it behind an API at that point.) I'm sure most of the work done to make ChatGPT fit for public consumption involved adding guardrails of one kind or another. The model itself is pretty simple and can easily be made to sound deranged.

Expand full comment

What a chatty bot (AI). Spartacus, you continue to amaze me. You got it to say the quiet parts outloud, except for some glaring empty spots (CIA and something else). It took me a while, but wow, you led it to deep places. Thanks for your efforts and sharing.

Expand full comment

how about asking the bot how to short the human capital bond market

Expand full comment

I work with AI to some degree and have been testing out the sister GPT-3. These systems are quite impressive compared to where they were just 5 years ago. If we can still access them in 5 years, it will be mind-blowing.

Emphasis on the one-shot training. It vacuums up everything available to it and then works from that complex source to weave narratives. That's the danger. The narratives are as good as the model (which is extremely good) AND the data corpus. No one knows what guardrails were put on the corpus here. That simple manipulation is what controls the ultimate value and believability of these tools. So in the world of AI interaction "Control the corpus and you control the masses".

This corpus may have simply been restricted. Wait for billy and klaus to take it to the next level and limit content it gathers, censor/manipulate content it gathers, and plant false content. The model will make it all sound so believable.

And yeah, the seemingly believable is where intelligent engineers lose their common sense and project their hopes that these machines are sentient when they are not. The AI systems like this one are masterful mimics that lead those that want to believe, to believe.

Expand full comment

So basically sophisticated garbage in, sophisticated garbage out.

Expand full comment

Love how you chose and approach your themes Spartacus. The free independent thinking energy which beams and warms my heart every single time, even when on the cognitive level its content is terrifying. It takes a lot of energy and time to articulate the themes the way you do. Deep respect. Thank you.

Expand full comment

Quite a fascinating dive into how it responds to these topics. One concern that I'm starting to have about these models becoming widely accessible is that it will further drive people away from each other. Instead of communicating with other human beings people will simply be corralled into communicating with machines that simply hold up a mirror to ourselves.

That said, I have considered using chatgpt or something like it to write letters to officials who never respond anyways.

Expand full comment

Yes. And this will end up becoming just another form of censorship. The web will be so heavily flooded with lifelike bots, nobody will know if they're talking to a bot pushing a specific narrative, or a human being who has the capacity to be influenced. If everyone is chasing their tails talking to bots, then they technically aren't talking to anyone at all. It could end up becoming the ultimate distraction.

Expand full comment

Isn't that the goal?

Expand full comment

🎯😪

Expand full comment

We might be among the last generations which are still able to talk to each other. To participate in the world in ways which still enable (at least to some extent) human to human interaction/ communication. Future generations might not ever experience that..talking to a human, touching a human etc

Expand full comment

Bibi , so sad. Never underestimate human touch . Huge tragedy to humanity.

Expand full comment

Brandon i regard time & human interaction (particularly with the people you love ) as the ultimate currency. All am saying is that in future what we " feel" and "need" might be altered in ways we cant contextualize today. mRNA should have NEVER BEEN MANDATED.

Expand full comment

I’m with you Bibi😉

Expand full comment

I kept having the nagging sensation of this boy being trained to maintain and promote a very specific narrative that only maintains the general status quo. And the vaccine responses in the comments confirmed this.

While impressive in its answers and uses and connecting links between different fact sets, I was left with the idea that nothing that could be considered controversial would indeed be actually said.

I kept wanting to hear more shadowy human flaws about leaders, and their motivations, but was left with them always wanting what was best for their constituencies. We know for a fact that this isn't always true, and history is full of such lessons.

Very interesting and I expect this type of tool to replace many journalists or pseudo journalists in the years ahead.

Expand full comment

They've specifically tweaked this bot not to make value judgments, especially not ones that are outside the Overton Window. You basically need to clarify that you're talking about autocratic governments before it will even consider saying anything negative about them. In that sense, it's practically halfway to being a real journalist. :)

Expand full comment

Um. It already has. I guarantee you. Bottom of the market first. We've been seeing cheap copy from these things since the open-source release of GPT2. That was like 3 years ago!

Spam was the first killer app for GPT.

Expand full comment

Spartacus, you may have read my post without seeing the dialog which I have now pasted into there. I think you will find it interesting. So you might reread it. Thanks

Expand full comment

Excellent questions, glad for the assortment and demonstration of the limits. It was amazing to me to hear ethics mentioned as a consideration in so many instances when it has been virtual erased from pandemic vocabulary.

So happy you had food and farming tangent but this answer to fertilizer really surprised me...

"Using alternative sources of phosphorus: There are several alternative sources of phosphorus that can be used as fertilizers, including rock phosphate and composted animal manure. These sources can help reduce the demand for mined phosphorus and can also provide additional benefits, such as improved soil health."

Not that compost as a mechanism for nourishing the soil and crops is novel but with all my decades researching in the food sector it has never been plainly stated composted animal manure is an alternative. If you have another chat with the AI bot please ask a question for me relating to optimizing systems. Since CAFO (concentrated animal feed operations) or factory farms produce almost *two trillion pounds* of animal waste of manure they are pollution sources. What changes would convert this to a sustainable system? You get bonus points if happy, grass fed pasture animals is the answer!

Pollution data collection ended with 9-11 so this reflects last update in 2000.

Almost two trillion pounds of animal waste are produced per year nationally. An increasing amount of this animal waste is produced by intensive livestock operations, which are really more factories than farms. Common animal waste treatment practices used by these livestock factories are often inadequate to protect our drinking water and environment, posing one of America's serious pollution problems. https://web.archive.org/web/20120212233950/http://scorecard.goodguide.com/env-releases/aw/

Expand full comment

Spartacus do you read Walter Chestnut’s stack ?. 😊

Expand full comment

Of course. It can be pretty disturbing, though.

Expand full comment

No accident , it was planned .

Expand full comment

This is a masterpiece.

Not only does it illustrate the limitations of logic networks, it illustrates how much global public health policy and sustainability planning relied on the same. Some paragraphs are literally cut and paste into speeches and press conferences public health and government officials are presenting around the world!

I also learned a lot more on how the structuring and flow of responses utilized by ChatGPT is used everywhere tody. I see it in the pharmaganda mindwarfare media messaging, I see it in the fields of medicine, law and governance: its ubuiquitous!

Loved the walking on eggshells section regarding The Enemy Within agencies. It was the standout dialogue and resulted in the most unique reply from ChatGPT: a tell-tale giveaway indeed! 😉

Actually isolates a tool for others to gain an upper hand with against it. And because 'it' and its use of supercomputer turbocharged heuristical logic networks is deployed as The New Normal standard for us meatsacks' to upgrade our internal axioms standards with...

Well...

- "I'm sorry, but...

...my knowledge is based solely on the text that has been input into my training data, ...don't have the ability to... access up-to-date information... only provide information based on the text that has been input into my training data, which has a knowledge cutoff of 2021."

Expand full comment

Much of the global warming environmentalist sustainability is just bs. WW sludge and biosolids are great for the land. It’s really control to put us in smart cities on a grid, sustainability to who? Another words your taxes didn’t go for infrastructure for sun standard devices we got to lower service level. High density housing that looks the same. I’m in Florida so phosphorous is plentiful, our problem is the new crop is human beans.

Great post! Fascinating! All sold to help us will eventually kill us if ethics isn’t in the convo

Expand full comment

"Implantable sensors, which are small devices that are inserted into the body, can be used to gather a wide range of data about an individual."

Pacemakers already do this.

Expand full comment

True, but they're also in the process of massively expanding the types of things that implanted devices can be used for. Galvani Bioelectronics are working on an implant that simulates the splenic nerve to reduce inflammation from rheumatoid arthritis.

https://galvani.bio/science/

They're now at the point where they're using DBS electrodes to treat depression, so, basically, affective brain-machine interfaces are already a thing, sort of.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/04/health/depression-treatment-deep-brain-stimulation.html

Neuralink want to use their implant to treat paralysis by making a neural "bridge" that repeats signals across a break in an injured spinal cord.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/qai/2022/12/07/elon-musks-neuralink-brain-implant-could-begin-human-trials-in-2023/?sh=6da7bba4147c

There are some legitimate therapeutic uses of these sorts of technologies, but at the same time, there are also immense ethical risks as well as risks to basic human autonomy that must be taken into account.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-019-00087-2

Expand full comment

Oh, I agree. 💯%

Expand full comment

One huge concern I have is this whole notion of "installing a Fitbit in someone's head", like Elon Musk keeps talking about doing with Neuralink. These companies are not healthcare providers and not subject to HIPAA and other privacy laws if they sell their products as consumer devices rather than medical devices (for instance, if someone gets elective surgery to receive a Neuralink or something similar for the sake of personal enhancement rather than treating a specific disease), so basically, this sets up a situation where these companies could extract huge quantities of human health and biometric data from large swaths of the population, use it for targeted advertisements, private intelligence, manipulating markets, and so on.

Expand full comment

Blowing through the animals on the way to Transhumanism, Spartacus.

------

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/neuralink-under-federal-investigation-over-animal-cruelty-accusations/ar-AA14XxJq

Expand full comment

To me? Implants such as you've described are unfathomable.

Makes my head hurt.

Expand full comment