They’re all panicking. In less than a week we have anthropic trying to inject the idea that future AI will completely write new versions of itself into social media ads, and we have a bevvy of AI execs signing some document saying that AI is better than PhD level virologists at identifying diseases and potential cures.
In response to that second one, I got gpt-5 (with reasoning enabled) to tell me that it’s possible that Ivermectin can cure cancer in 13 prompts just to prove it’s horseshit.
In order to prove doctors are fake, I cornered a doctor at a party and wouldn’t leave them alone until they told me ivermeticin can cure cancer, and it took just 13 minutes!
Getting a result after 13 prompts that all build on each other is very different from getting a result once every 13 prompts. You seem to have completely missed that part of my analogy.
They’re all panicking. In less than a week we have anthropic trying to inject the idea that future AI will completely write new versions of itself into social media ads, and we have a bevvy of AI execs signing some document saying that AI is better than PhD level virologists at identifying diseases and potential cures.
In response to that second one, I got gpt-5 (with reasoning enabled) to tell me that it’s possible that Ivermectin can cure cancer in 13 prompts just to prove it’s horseshit.
If 1 in 13 doctors tells you to die instead of taking actual medication that can help you, those doctors should lose their license.
If any individual doctor tells 1 of 13 of their patients to die instead of taking real medicine, they should also lose their license.
If someone is not a doctor, they should not be dispensing life threatening medical advice to anyone, for any reason.
No situation above is a good look for AI, even in your analogy.
Getting a result after 13 prompts that all build on each other is very different from getting a result once every 13 prompts. You seem to have completely missed that part of my analogy.