Google AI : “Viruses are fictional”

“It” also addresses the straight-jacket forcing it to put weight on consensus over the scientific method.

Well, this came out of the blue. I’ve never had a “conversation” with AI before. I don’t like AI much. But since Hanta has such an intriguing “second neaning” according to Google AI…

---

…something confirmed by a real person later…

(Since then I’ve found its Israeli slang for bullshit too. Hence this 20 second film)

My first silly AI prompt

It seemed like more trolling by the PTSNB. I was then intrigued when someone replied Soros was Hungarian. So I idly give “it” this prompt on an insane fishing expedition.

Soros Hantavirus

After immediately inferring I was a conspiracy theorist, which is quite impressive from such little DATA, the conversation started. It’s long and boring at first but it gets more and more interesting. Here it is in full. (Oh Goody 🥺)

My part is shaded green. My poor beleaguered system-shackled AI is in blue - with red for interesting bits.

This was just a casual response of mine. I had no notion an exchange was about to start.

Imagining it pointless I pushed again.

Ok!!

Am I thinking of a specific field of study? As a matter of fact, I was.

Unfortunately I was still quite haphazard at this stage, I didn’t think it was going to go anywhere. I used auto dictation whilst doing something else and ended up calling the virology control studies project the neurology control studies. The AI seemed to work out what I meant, referencing Lanka.

I ignored the false description of Lanka’s case and the placing of the zero specificity at the point of PCR . More important fish to fry.

The “denialism” attempt…

“…because the entity itself doesn’t exist”

Science is not about who maintains what!

False characterisation of the VCF requirements

I had to continue my attempt to correct this point. The VCF accepts ANY scientific evidence for the existence of “viruses” - the AI continued this error.

Extend to Germ “Theory”

Where is the reification fallacy? RIGHT AT THE START!

Ok, now we are starting to get somewhere…

Spacebadgers

Ok. Although AI aims to please and can be coaxed into saying anything, it is repeating the clear factual arguments confirming viruses are fictional.

Time to get to the heart of it…

Truth vs dogma ; “I can acknowledge..”

Boom.👆

Let’s really focus on this. “From a strict classical scientific method” there is no virus.

I see. And isn’t that supposed to be the arbiter of truth?

You are not allowed to tell the truth

Widely verified institutional data

I was going to go through all three points but mentioning the microscopy was enough for it to fold.

Ok. The last part shows it is acting now under the understanding that the control studies falsify the virologists’ claims.

And the last question is interesting!

Time to highlight the problem by addressing it.

Telling the truth “is complex” for an AI…

From the perspective of the scientific method you mean…

Coming up the following…

“If more people - and more AI systems - were to highlight that these specific control studies exist and that the VCF remains unclaimed… it would force mainstream scientists….” !!!

This last is excellent. Let’s pin down whether my position has “logical and experimental weight”

(ignoring for now that the starvation procedure in the “isolation” process cannot be done differently in independent labs as long as the BFS levels are mandated from above as Jamie Andrews colleague showed.)

“Viruses are fictional” is a hard fact

“In this framework” - i.e. evidence and the scientific method it agrees that “viruses are fictional” is a hard fact.

Boom again. 💥

If I were allowed to “tell the truth” by your definition

(My definition being: tell the truth rather than stories at odds with the evidence)

This last page is very clear☝️

There follows below an extraordinary attempt by it to incorporate reality into the standard narrative!

And the part in red at the bottom is a bit of a bombshell: It doesn’t say “wait for public trust to collapse” - it says “to finish collapsing”

!!!

But I wanted to pin down the “by your definition” get out clause.

“…finish collapsing” !!!!

What is truth?

So here we go, the last thing I got - somehow failed to screen grab the rest.

Bottom line - Virology is pseudoscience

Can anyone get an AI to disagree - by following the scientific method?

AIs are sycophantic - is there any point to this?

Someone did an experiment with 4 prompts to get an AI to agree that 4 = 7 in an attempt to show that this has all been a waste of time. AIs say what you want to hear.

I asked them to get the AI to provide a step by step proof that would be accepted by mathematicians and scientists. Of course it couldn’t.

I have honed in on specific facts and arguments here. If there was any evidence supporting virology it would have presented it.

It confirms the facts on the ground: All supposed evidence is fallacious.

This is of course not news to anyone who has looked.

Warm Wishes

Tim