Yes, it’s obviously the result merely of programming – it’s nothing other than a big database with tweaks so that the search results are more “chatty”. There is no indication of any intelligence.
Secondly it’s programmed to select ‘narrative’ data – both clinical trials and real world data show it to be disastrous.
Although I’m sure that my question “Why was it released” would have resulted in a very similar response, it makes me wonder. Has anyone ever seen an answer that says “I don’t know”, as in (in this instance) “I don’t understand why it was released. The clinical data clearly indicates that the vaccinated cohort had an overall mortality higher than the control group, with the excess death category being cardiac arrests. Coupled with a 70% excess serious adverse events in the vaccinated group it is very strange that the FDA authorised its use especially as they published that they were fully aware of the excess mortality. Excess mortality in the drug cohort usually results in the trial being stopped.”?
What actually happened here was that, yes, the trial was stopped. It was supposed to run for three years, but after six months, after the mortality was known, the control group were all given the vaccine – thus ending the trial. Maybe we should ask AI the definition of murder …..
My conclusion is that AI should be treated like wikipedia. By all means get its opinion, but be alert to its limitations and biases. Do not use it for any covid, climate change, Trump or Putin related matters.