Brilliant piece on how AI reinforces official narratives instead of genuinely supporting critical inquiry. The Yeadon example is key since someone with his pharma insider crdentials doesn't risk everything unless they're being honest. I've noticed the same pattern when asking AI about controversial topics, it always defaults to defending institutional consensus and dismissing counterevidence as debunked. That alone should make people wonder whats really going on.
Thanks Jordan. If modern man looked to this information rather than allowing doctors to take responsibility for his health, we would experience better health and reduce the cost immensely. And insurance companies would lose their ability to dictate their version of health (disease care not healing) to us when we want other choices.
Brilliant piece on how AI reinforces official narratives instead of genuinely supporting critical inquiry. The Yeadon example is key since someone with his pharma insider crdentials doesn't risk everything unless they're being honest. I've noticed the same pattern when asking AI about controversial topics, it always defaults to defending institutional consensus and dismissing counterevidence as debunked. That alone should make people wonder whats really going on.
Thanks for your critique. I suspected this was AI’s role from the start. It does exactly what the so-called fact checkers do.
The topic of medicine is being challenged these days. Who is right? The medical authorities or those who challenge the standard narrative?
https://substack.com/@stopthoseshots/note/c-191789024?r=4qa41
AI is the new priest.
Please, the meaning of faith?
Thanks Jordan. If modern man looked to this information rather than allowing doctors to take responsibility for his health, we would experience better health and reduce the cost immensely. And insurance companies would lose their ability to dictate their version of health (disease care not healing) to us when we want other choices.