292 replies to this topic

[bluemoon]

 

 

I don't think advances in computing are continuing along the exponential path Kurzweil predicted. The signs are everywhere that progress is running out of steam. 

 

From six weeks ago: 

 

Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger promised at the company's online Innovation event that "Moore's law is alive and well," adding that “we are predicting that we will maintain or even go faster than Moore's law for the next decade […] we expect to even bend the curve faster than a doubling every two years.”

 

https://www.tti.com/...k-20211124.html

[QuestforLife]

From six weeks ago:

Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger promised at the company's online Innovation event that "Moore's law is alive and well," adding that “we are predicting that we will maintain or even go faster than Moore's law for the next decade […] we expect to even bend the curve faster than a doubling every two years.”

https://www.tti.com/...k-20211124.html

Well if the CEO of Intel says it's so, then it must be so!

[bluemoon]

Well if the CEO of Intel says it's so, then it must be so!

 

The CEO said in 2009 as well that he was confident Moore's Law would continue at least to 2030.

There has been no slowdown from 2010 to 2021.

 

Where is the slow down in the first week of 2022?

[Dream Big]

I don't see signs that an AI capable of symbolic manipulation and reasoning is "near", whatever that means. Besides, should we not be worried about the sanity of such a thought-generating machine? And then there's the issue of consciousness - how powerful can a non-conscious AI be?

 

While Microsoft's NUWA and OpenAI's DALL-E might seem like all they do is predict the rest of image/video and are useful editing tools, they are going to be more than that. All that human brains do is predict, we predict the rest of image, video, sound, etc, and we predict what our goal should be and what type of data to collect, or whatever. What NUWA lacks right now is goals and reasoning ability. Once it can decide what it's job should be and figure out complex trick questions like what was the first and last letters of this post I just wrote, it will be more like us.

[Dream Big]

Also don't forget, hardware improvements may slow down for now, but the new Moore's law is software, to make AI run faster. Many people now can clone AI algorithms and work at home on them fast trying to optimize them to make them faster or more RAM friendly. With hardware speedups you'd need many people working in labor and slowly building the same computer but in their "own way" to try to improve the existing computer, and none of us can do that.

[QuestforLife]

Also don't forget, hardware improvements may slow down for now, but the new Moore's law is software, to make AI run faster. Many people now can clone AI algorithms and work at home on them fast trying to optimize them to make them faster or more RAM friendly. With hardware speedups you'd need many people working in labor and slowly building the same computer but in their "own way" to try to improve the existing computer, and none of us can do that.

 I had an Amiga 500 in the 90s and the hardware was almost completely static (I did upgrade the RAM from 500kb to 1MB!) Yet the games improved immeasurably in that time, due to better programming, i.e. better use of the existing hardware. Of course they eventually came up against the limitations of the hardware (it had no hard drive), and were forced to use like 10 floppy discs per game

 

So saying software is the new Moore's law is an acknowledgement that hardware speed improvements have slowed down (or stopped). It is clear to me looking at the PCs I have owned from 2000 to now that hardware improvements have slowed down. They have to some extent found ways around that, say using more cores when core speeds got stuck, doing more work in the GPU rather than CPU, having faster RAM and of course, SSDs. But at the same time the programming burden of operating systems like Windows has grown, to the extent that my last couple of computers have hardly got any faster. 

 

Now there is an argument that we might already have (perhaps in supercomputers),  enough operations per second to at least emulate what the human brain can do (say with much faster processing in each CPU than in a neuron, but having far less cores than humans have neuron connections). But the estimations of the number of processes the human brain can do per second seem to vary wildly. So I can't be sure.

 

My guess is that using the right shortcuts (i.e. heuristics) we could make an intelligence that captured at least superficially what we are like. But finding those heuristics could be very tricky, after all we have had evolution to do that for us using trial and error for a long, long time. 

 

In any case, I don't think we need to develop a human like intelligence to solve aging (the main discussion point on this forum). We already have humans for that. Raw computing power can help humans solve it, but if aging is solved it will be humans not AI that do it.

[Mind]

 I had an Amiga 500 in the 90s and the hardware was almost completely static (I did upgrade the RAM from 500kb to 1MB!) Yet the games improved immeasurably in that time, due to better programming, i.e. better use of the existing hardware. Of course they eventually came up against the limitations of the hardware (it had no hard drive), and were forced to use like 10 floppy discs per game

 

So saying software is the new Moore's law is an acknowledgement that hardware speed improvements have slowed down (or stopped). It is clear to me looking at the PCs I have owned from 2000 to now that hardware improvements have slowed down. They have to some extent found ways around that, say using more cores when core speeds got stuck, doing more work in the GPU rather than CPU, having faster RAM and of course, SSDs. But at the same time the programming burden of operating systems like Windows has grown, to the extent that my last couple of computers have hardly got any faster. 

 

Now there is an argument that we might already have (perhaps in supercomputers),  enough operations per second to at least emulate what the human brain can do (say with much faster processing in each CPU than in a neuron, but having far less cores than humans have neuron connections). But the estimations of the number of processes the human brain can do per second seem to vary wildly. So I can't be sure.

 

My guess is that using the right shortcuts (i.e. heuristics) we could make an intelligence that captured at least superficially what we are like. But finding those heuristics could be very tricky, after all we have had evolution to do that for us using trial and error for a long, long time. 

 

In any case, I don't think we need to develop a human like intelligence to solve aging (the main discussion point on this forum). We already have humans for that. Raw computing power can help humans solve it, but if aging is solved it will be humans not AI that do it.

 

This reminds me about the "slow down" in hardware improvements. I remember when clock speeds were the "trendy" measure of progress. Overclocking was a fun thing to try. Clock speeds hit a hard wall at least 15 years ago, it seems. No one talks about that anymore.

Edited by Mind, 31 January 2022 - 07:59 PM.

[Mind]

He is a neat visual of the current super computers in the world. Funny how they trivialize the computing power of the top graphics card in the world. That graphics card does more than a supercomputer from just a few years ago...lol.

 

https://www.visualca...supercomputers/

[bluemoon]

This reminds me about the "slow down" in hardware improvements. I remember when clock speeds we the "trendy" measure of progress. Overclocking was a fun thing to try. Clock speeds hit a hard wall at least 15 years ago, it seems. No one talks about that anymore.

 

I don't get the slowdown talk. Here is a graph of Moore's Law on Wikipedia:

 

https://en.wikipedia...t_1970-2020.png

 

Kurzweil has used Hans Moravec's graph of millions of instructions per second (MIPS) per $1,500 in 1995 dollars and that line has also kept increasing up and to the right although haven't seen an update since before the pandemic.

[QuestforLife]

I don't get the slowdown talk. Here is a graph of Moore's Law on Wikipedia:

 
 
 
The talk of slow down comes from the experience of buying a new computer every 3 or 4 years over decades. From that perspective advances have slowed, although admittedly prices have also fallen so you could argue speed/$ has continued to improve. But even there, I think cost savings have also stalled. This might be something to do with the exponential rise in chip fabrication costs as they get smaller and smaller (see Moore's second law).
 
Moore's (first) law has largely relied on the reduction in component size, but only Taiwan and South Korea currently have the capability to manufacture 5nm. That is how hard it's got. This is where the next big innovation is needed.

Edited by QuestforLife, 24 January 2022 - 10:26 AM.

[bluemoon]

 
 
 
The talk of slow down comes from the experience of buying a new computer every 3 or 4 years over decades. From that perspective advances have slowed, 

 

There certainly wasn't any slowdown during the Amiga period, 1985 to 1994. There may be a slowdown with respect to the original definition of Moore's Law, although I'd like to see a graph that show this. As far as I can see, there has not been a slowdown in Kurzweil's Law of Accelertaion. 

 

Here is Moore's Law again:

[platypus]

I'd like to see the graphs for HD and RAM speeds as well. In my limited experience CPUs/GPUs are often stalled and waiting for data. SSD was a huge improvement over spinning platters.

[Godof Smallthings]

I know there has been amazing progress in computing power but it has resulted in NOTHING actionable for rejuvenation. NOTHING.

 

Exponential progress. I know. Maybe therapies will start appearing like crazy over the next year or two. I am not so sure.

 

This is morally questionable, but just out of interest - I have been out of the loop:

I have read briefly that blood transfusion from a young, fit donor might have rejuvenating effects, but I am unclear how exactly. Anyone know more?

Also, stem cell treatment?

 

[Mind]

There certainly wasn't any slowdown during the Amiga period, 1985 to 1994. There may be a slowdown with respect to the original definition of Moore's Law, although I'd like to see a graph that show this. As far as I can see, there has not been a slowdown in Kurzweil's Law of Accelertaion. 

 

Here is Moore's Law again:

 

 

I was specifically talking about "clock speeds". Chip-based clock speeds have barely increased in the last 2 decades. What has happened is lower price and parallel computing, which as kept Moore's/Kurzweil's law going.

[Mind]

 

 

• The computational capacity of a $4,000 computing device (in 1999 dollars) is approximately equal to the computational capability of the human brain (20 quadrillion calculations per second).
• The summed computational powers of all computers is comparable to the total brainpower of the human race.
• Computers are embedded everywhere in the environment (inside of furniture, jewelry, walls, clothing, etc.).
• People experience 3-D virtual reality through glasses and contact lenses that beam images directly to their retinas (retinal display). Coupled with an auditory source (headphones), users can remotely communicate with other people and access the Internet.
• These special glasses and contact lenses can deliver "augmented reality" and "virtual reality" in three different ways. First, they can project "heads-up-displays" (HUDs) across the user's field of vision, superimposing images that stay in place in the environment regardless of the user's perspective or orientation. Second, virtual objects or people could be rendered in fixed locations by the glasses, so when the user's eyes look elsewhere, the objects appear to stay in their places. Third, the devices could block out the "real" world entirely and fully immerse the user in a virtual reality environment.
• People communicate with their computers via two-way speech and gestures instead of with keyboards. Furthermore, most of this interaction occurs through computerized assistants with different personalities that the user can select or customize. Dealing with computers thus becomes more and more like dealing with a human being.
• Most business transactions or information inquiries involve dealing with a simulated person.
• Most people own more than one PC, though the concept of what a "computer" is has changed considerably: Computers are no longer limited in design to laptops or CPUs contained in a large box connected to a monitor. Instead, devices with computer capabilities come in all sorts of unexpected shapes and sizes.
• Cables connecting computers and peripherals have almost completely disappeared.
• Rotating computer hard drives are no longer used.
• Three-dimensional nanotube lattices are the dominant computing substrate.
• Massively parallel neural nets and genetic algorithms are in wide use.
• Destructive scans of the brain and noninvasive brain scans have allowed scientists to understand the brain much better. The algorithms that allow the relatively small genetic code of the brain to construct a much more complex organ are being transferred into computer neural nets.
• Pinhead-sized cameras are everywhere.
• Nanotechnology is more capable and is in use for specialized applications, yet it has not yet made it into the mainstream. "Nanoengineered machines" begin to be used in manufacturing.
• Thin, lightweight, handheld displays with very high resolutions are the preferred means for viewing documents. The aforementioned computer eyeglasses and contact lenses are also used for this same purpose, and all download the information wirelessly.
• Computers have made paper books and documents almost completely obsolete.
• Most learning is accomplished through intelligent, adaptive courseware presented by computer-simulated teachers. In the learning process, human adults fill the counselor and mentor roles instead of being academic instructors. These assistants are often not physically present, and help students remotely.
• Students still learn together and socialize, though this is often done remotely via computers.
• All students have access to computers.
• Most human workers spend the majority of their time acquiring new skills and knowledge.
• Blind people wear special glasses that interpret the real world for them through speech. Sighted people also use these glasses to amplify their own abilities.
• Retinal and neural implants also exist, but are in limited use because they are less useful.
• Deaf people use special glasses that convert speech into text or signs, and music into images or tactile sensations. Cochlear and other implants are also widely used.
• People with spinal cord injuries can walk and climb steps using computer-controlled nerve stimulation and exoskeletal robotic walkers.
• Computers are also found inside of some humans in the form of cybernetic implants. These are most commonly used by disabled people to regain normal physical faculties (i.e. - Retinal implants allow the blind to see and spinal implants coupled with mechanical legs allow the paralyzed to walk).
• Language translating machines are of much higher quality, and are routinely used in conversations.
• Effective language technologies (natural language processing, speech recognition, speech synthesis) exist
• Access to the Internet is completely wireless and provided by wearable or implanted computers.
• People are able to wirelessly access the Internet at all times from almost anywhere
• Devices that deliver sensations to the skin surface of their users (i.e.--tight body suits and gloves) are also sometimes used in virtual reality to complete the experience. "Virtual sex"—in which two people are able to have sex with each other through virtual reality, or in which a human can have sex with a "simulated" partner that only exists on a computer—becomes a reality.
• Just as visual- and auditory virtual reality have come of age, haptic technology has fully matured and is completely convincing, yet requires the user to enter a V.R. booth. It is commonly used for computer sex and remote medical examinations. It is the preferred sexual medium since it is safe and enhances the experience.
• Worldwide economic growth has continued. There has not been a global economic collapse.
• The vast majority of business interactions occur between humans and simulated retailers, or between a human's virtual personal assistant and a simulated retailer.
• Household robots are ubiquitous and reliable.
• Computers do most of the vehicle driving—-humans are in fact prohibited from driving on highways unassisted. Furthermore, when humans do take over the wheel, the onboard computer system constantly monitors their actions and takes control whenever the human drives recklessly. As a result, there are very few transportation accidents.
• Most roads now have automated driving systems—networks of monitoring and communication devices that allow computer-controlled automobiles to safely navigate.
• Prototype personal flying vehicles using microflaps exist. They are also primarily computer-controlled.
• Humans are beginning to have deep relationships with automated personalities, which hold some advantages over human partners. The depth of some computer personalities convinces some people that they should be accorded more rights.
• While a growing number of humans believe that their computers and the simulated personalities they interact with are intelligent to the point of human-level consciousness, experts dismiss the possibility that any could pass the Turing Test.
• Human-robot relationships begin as simulated personalities become more convincing.
• Interaction with virtual personalities becomes a primary interface
• Public places and workplaces are ubiquitously monitored to prevent violence and all actions are recorded permanently. Personal privacy is a major political issue, and some people protect themselves with unbreakable computer codes.
• The basic needs of the underclass are met. (Not specified if this pertains only to the developed world or to all countries)
• Virtual artists—creative computers capable of making their own art and music—emerge in all fields of the arts.

 

Time for the annual assessment of Kurzweil's predictions.

 

The nanotube-based computing is still about the biggest bust on the list.

 

There is now a supercomputer that can do an exaflop, more than one human brain, but it certainly is not anywhere near $4,000 (1999 dollars).

 

All of the immersive virtual environments are lagging way behind. They remain niche fields. VR goggles are not widespread. Most people just stare at their phones all day - not the useful positive utopian society that Kurzweil envisioned.

 

People still prefer human artists, even though AI artists are available. To be fair, AI is assisting in a lot of movie and entertainment production.

 

Most kids are still educated by humans in classrooms, even though virtual learning is available and learning programs are much better. Vested interests in the education industrial complex are standing in the way of better learning.

 

Self-driving cars are still a niche industry.

 

Cameras the size of a pin head are everywhere, as predicted.

 

Prototype personal flying machines exist, but no where near widespread adoption.

 

Books are mostly obsolete now.

 

Computers are not embedded everywhere, but they are becoming more ubiquitous.

 

Overall, three years later, more of the predictions are lagging behind. More worrisome is that the latest technology does not seem to be having a positive effect on human well-being, especially mental well-being. In the past year, it seems technological progress is being leveraged to control human beings, not to allow them more freedom to grow, learn, and explore.

 

There is still no proven safe rejuvenation product on the market, although a lot of AI is being leveraged in that direction.

 

[QuestforLife]

I'd agree with most of that. We are headed in the direction Kurzweil predicted - AI artists are here (sort of), self driving (tesla) cars appear to be very close - but nanotechnology is way off and VR isn't here, and actual innovation by AI, which is not a specific prediction but what I'd expect if AI was really able to emulate a human mind, appears to be entirely absent so far. More worryingly, science appears to have lurched into ideology, with whole fields now essentially standing still or even going backwards.

As for rejuvenation research, there is more interest and funding in the field, but no major breakthroughs. Most seem interested in very moderate 'healthy aging' gains, which are already achievable through lifestyle; it remains to be seen what already available but immature tech like gene therapy can do to human lifespan.

Edited by QuestforLife, 30 December 2022 - 07:33 PM.

[Mind]

One thing that seems on the cusp of being very disruptive is ChatGTP. It is the pinnacle of AI driven chat (so far). Google is so worried about it that they have labeled it as a CODE RED threat to their business. Why get censored and biased search results from Google when you can use ChatGTP?

[QuestforLife]

I had a talk to ChatGTP about telomeres and found it to be a useful tool for summarising the current knowledge of the field. Not quite the same as Google, where you have to evaluate the results yourself, more like a personal assistant. I can see ChatGTP being brilliant for teaching. It could easily be biased and censored like Google, however. It also isn't AI in the sense Kurzweil is talking about. Not yet, anyway. It did leave me feeling annoyed that I forget stuff I researched only a year or two ago, compared to the instant recall of huge swathes of learning ChatGTP is capable of. Musk might be onto something with his neural link.

[Mind]

I had a talk to ChatGTP about telomeres and found it to be a useful tool for summarising the current knowledge of the field. Not quite the same as Google, where you have to evaluate the results yourself, more like a personal assistant. I can see ChatGTP being brilliant for teaching. It could easily be biased and censored like Google, however. It also isn't AI in the sense Kurzweil is talking about. Not yet, anyway. It did leave me feeling annoyed that I forget stuff I researched only a year or two ago, compared to the instant recall of huge swathes of learning ChatGTP is capable of. Musk might be onto something with his neural link.

 

Since ChatGTP is open source, perhaps it will not be as corrupted as Google. Unlike Google, you should be able to get a more diverse set of opinions/data on various subjects.

[QuestforLife]

Since ChatGTP is open source, perhaps it will not be as corrupted as Google. Unlike Google, you should be able to get a more diverse set of opinions/data on various subjects.

I'm not a committed anti vaxxer, but I'm skeptical of the covid-19 vaccines, particularly for children, so I decided to talk to ChatGTP about it. I thought it would be a good opportunity to see how it would respond to a controversial topic.

Note: ChatGTP's assertion that the CEO of Pfizer did not admit their vaccine didn't prevent transmission may be correct; he did admit they didn't test for transmission.

At times I felt ChatGTP was repeating itself, and also sometimes didn't answer a question directly, just quoted the same rote paragraph again. Overall, still interesting however. Feel free to skim, it's rather long (ChatGTP is rather verbose!)

QuestForLife
What are the main arguments for and against getting children vaccinated against covid-19?

There are several arguments for and against getting children vaccinated against COVID-19.

Arguments for vaccination include:

Vaccines are effective at preventing illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19.
Vaccines can help reduce the spread of COVID-19 in the community, which is particularly important for protecting vulnerable populations who may not be able to receive the vaccine.
Vaccines are safe and have been extensively tested before being authorized for use.
Vaccines help protect against the emergence of new variants of the virus that could potentially evade the immunity provided by previous infections or vaccines.
Arguments against vaccination include:

Some people may be concerned about the potential side effects of vaccines, although most side effects are mild and temporary.
Some people may be hesitant to receive a vaccine that was developed and authorized for use in a relatively short period of time.
Some people may have religious or philosophical objections to vaccination.
Some people may be concerned about the potential long-term effects of vaccination, although there is no evidence to suggest that COVID-19 vaccines have long-term negative effects.
It's important to note that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination far outweigh the risks. Vaccines are a vital tool in the fight against infectious diseases, and have saved countless lives over the years.




QuestForLife
Didn't the CEO of Pfizer admit publicly that their mRNA vaccine didn't prevent transmission of covid-19; therefore your point that vaccination of children protects the vulnerable is incorrect?

I'm not aware of any statement made by the CEO of Pfizer suggesting that their vaccine does not prevent transmission of COVID-19. In fact, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has been shown to be highly effective at preventing COVID-19 illness, including severe illness and death. While it is true that the vaccine may not completely eliminate the risk of transmission, it has been shown to significantly reduce the risk of transmission, particularly in the case of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

It is also important to note that even if a vaccine does not completely eliminate the risk of transmission, it can still provide significant benefits in terms of reducing the overall burden of disease in a population. For example, even if a vaccine only reduces the risk of severe illness and death by 50%, this can still result in a significant reduction in the number of hospitalizations and deaths due to COVID-19.

In addition, vaccines can help reduce the spread of COVID-19 in the community, which is particularly important for protecting vulnerable populations who may not be able to receive the vaccine. By reducing the number of people who are infected with COVID-19, we can help protect those who are most at risk of severe illness and death from the virus.

Overall, the scientific consensus is that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination far outweigh the risks, and that vaccination is an important tool in the fight against COVID-19.




QuestForLife
Would you agree that the evidence that the covid-19 vaccines prevent transmission is weak?

There is evidence to suggest that COVID-19 vaccines may reduce the risk of transmission of the virus. However, the strength of this evidence varies depending on the vaccine and the specific study being considered.

For example, some studies have suggested that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine may be highly effective at reducing the risk of transmission, while other studies have found that the effect on transmission may be more modest.

It is also important to note that the primary goal of COVID-19 vaccines is to prevent illness, hospitalization, and death from the virus. While reducing transmission is a secondary benefit of vaccination, the primary focus of vaccine development and deployment has been to protect individuals from the serious and potentially life-threatening consequences of COVID-19.

Overall, the scientific consensus is that COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective at preventing illness, hospitalization, and death from the virus, and that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks.




QuestForLife
But remember I'm concerned with the balance of risks versus benefit for vaccinating children against covid-19. Prevention of transmission is central to that decision. If there is no benefit in preventing transmission, given the risk of severe illness in children from covid-19 is negligible, why would I vaccinate by children against covid-19?

While the risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19 is generally lower in children compared to adults, it is important to note that children are not immune to the serious consequences of the virus. Children can and do get seriously ill from COVID-19, and can also transmit the virus to others, including vulnerable populations who may be at higher risk of severe illness and death.

In addition, while the risk of severe illness in children may be lower overall, it is not non-existent, and it is possible for children to experience serious complications or long-term effects from COVID-19.

Therefore, the decision to vaccinate children against COVID-19 should be based on a careful consideration of the risks and benefits of vaccination for individual children, taking into account factors such as their age, underlying health conditions, and potential exposure to the virus.

It is also important to note that COVID-19 vaccination can provide indirect protection to children by reducing the overall burden of disease in the community. By reducing the number of people who are infected with COVID-19, we can help protect those who are most at risk of severe illness and death from the virus, including children.

Overall, the scientific consensus is that COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective at preventing illness, hospitalization, and death from the virus, and that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks.




QuestForLife
But if the vaccination doesn't prevent covid-19 transmission (for which we don't have evidence), how does vaccinating children reduce the overall burden of the disease in the community?

There is evidence to suggest that COVID-19 vaccines may reduce the risk of transmission of the virus, although the strength of this evidence varies depending on the specific vaccine and study being considered. While it is true that vaccines may not completely eliminate the risk of transmission, they can still significantly reduce the risk of transmission and help slow the spread of the virus in the community.

For example, a study of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine found that it was highly effective at reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection, including asymptomatic infection. Another study found that the vaccine was effective at reducing the risk of transmission to close contacts of vaccine recipients.

In addition, even if a vaccine does not completely eliminate the risk of transmission, it can still provide significant benefits in terms of reducing the overall burden of disease in a population. For example, even if a vaccine only reduces the risk of severe illness and death by 50%, this can still result in a significant reduction in the number of hospitalizations and deaths due to COVID-19.

Therefore, while it is important to carefully consider the risks and benefits of vaccination for individual children, vaccination can also provide indirect protection to children by reducing the overall burden of disease in the community. By reducing the number of people who are infected with COVID-19, we can help protect those who are most at risk of severe illness and death from the virus, including children.




QuestForLife
What are some mechanisms by which the covid-19 vaccines might prevent transmission of the virus to others?

There are several mechanisms by which COVID-19 vaccines may prevent transmission of the virus to others:

Vaccines can stimulate the production of antibodies in the body, which can help protect against infection with the virus. If a person is exposed to the virus after being vaccinated, their immune system may be able to quickly produce antibodies to fight off the infection, reducing the risk of transmission to others.

Vaccines can also stimulate the production of T cells in the body, which can help protect against infection with the virus. T cells are a type of white blood cell that can recognize and kill infected cells, helping to control the spread of the virus within the body.

Vaccines may also help reduce the amount of virus present in the body of a person who is infected, which can in turn reduce the risk of transmission to others. This is known as a "viral load" effect.

It is worth noting that the exact mechanisms by which COVID-19 vaccines may prevent transmission of the virus are still being studied, and more research is needed to fully understand how vaccines work to reduce transmission. However, the evidence to date suggests that COVID-19 vaccines can be effective at reducing the risk of transmission of the virus.




QuestForLife
How does an antibody, which is a very large molecule, destroy a virus that is tiny, and can enter cells and replicate very quickly?

Antibodies are proteins produced by the immune system in response to an infection or vaccination. They are designed to specifically recognize and bind to pathogens, such as viruses, to help neutralize them and prevent them from causing disease.

There are several ways in which antibodies can help protect against viruses:

Antibodies can directly neutralize viruses by binding to specific proteins on their surface, which can prevent the virus from entering cells and replicating.

Antibodies can also help to activate other parts of the immune system, such as complement proteins and white blood cells, which can attack and kill infected cells.

Antibodies can also help to prevent the spread of viruses by neutralizing them in body fluids, such as saliva and mucus, which can help to reduce the risk of transmission to others.

Overall, while viruses are indeed much smaller than antibodies, the immune system has evolved a number of ways to recognize and neutralize these pathogens to help protect against infection.




QuestForLife
Do you not think it is more likely that the body has other, non-antibody related mechanisms to deal with viruses, like RNAses, for example?

Yes, the body has a number of mechanisms to help protect against viral infections, including non-antibody-related mechanisms such as RNases.

RNases are enzymes that can break down RNA, which is a key component of many viruses. By breaking down viral RNA, RNases can help to prevent viruses from replicating and causing disease.

In addition to RNases, the body has a number of other mechanisms to help protect against viral infections, including:

Interferons: These are proteins that are produced by cells in response to viral infections. Interferons can help to protect against viral infections by inhibiting the replication of viruses and activating other parts of the immune system.

T cells: These are a type of white blood cell that can recognize and kill infected cells, helping to control the spread of the virus within the body.

Antiviral proteins: There are a number of proteins in the body that have antiviral activity, such as APOBEC3G, which can help to inhibit the replication of viruses.

Overall, the body has a complex and multifaceted immune system that is designed to protect against viral infections, and this includes both antibody- and non-antibody-based mechanisms.




QuestForLife
Tell me more about how

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you would like more information about. Could you please clarify your question or provide more context?




QuestForLife
Sorry, tell me more about how interferons work to stop viruses

Interferons are proteins that are produced by cells in response to viral infections. They can help to protect against viral infections by inhibiting the replication of viruses and activating other parts of the immune system.

There are three main types of interferons: alpha, beta, and gamma. Each type has a specific role in the immune response to viral infections.

When a cell becomes infected with a virus, it will produce interferons and release them into the surrounding tissue. This triggers a response in nearby cells, which can help to protect them from infection.

Interferons can bind to specific receptors on the surface of cells, triggering a signaling pathway that leads to the production of antiviral proteins and the activation of other immune cells. This can help to inhibit the replication of the virus and reduce the spread of the infection.

In addition to their antiviral effects, interferons can also stimulate the production of antibodies and activate T cells, further enhancing the body's immune response to viral infections.

Overall, interferons play a key role in the body's defense against viral infections and are an important component of the immune system.




QuestForLife
Tell me more about how T cells fight viruses.

T cells, also known as T lymphocytes, are a type of white blood cell that play a key role in the immune response to viral infections. There are two main types of T cells: CD4+ T cells and CD8+ T cells.

CD4+ T cells, also known as T helper cells, help to coordinate the immune response to viral infections. They do this by releasing chemical signaling molecules called cytokines, which can stimulate the production of antibodies and activate other immune cells.

CD8+ T cells, also known as cytotoxic T cells, play a more direct role in fighting viral infections. When activated, they can recognize and kill infected cells, helping to control the spread of the virus within the body.

Here's how T cells work to fight viral infections:

When a virus infects a cell, it will begin to replicate inside the cell.

As part of the replication process, the virus will produce proteins that are displayed on the surface of the infected cell.

T cells have receptors on their surface that can recognize and bind to these viral proteins.

When a T cell recognizes a viral protein on the surface of an infected cell, it will become activated and begin to divide.

Activated CD4+ T cells will release cytokines, which can stimulate the production of antibodies and activate other immune cells.

Activated CD8+ T cells will release toxic substances that can kill the infected cell, helping to control the spread of the virus within the body.

Overall, T cells play a crucial role in the immune response to viral infections and are an important component of the body's defense against these pathogens.




QuestForLife
Can antibodies enter cells?

Antibodies are proteins produced by the immune system in response to an infection or vaccination. They are designed to specifically recognize and bind to pathogens, such as viruses, to help neutralize them and prevent them from causing disease.

Antibodies are large molecules that are not able to enter cells. Instead, they circulate in the blood and other body fluids, such as saliva and mucus, where they can recognize and bind to pathogens that are present in these fluids.

However, while antibodies themselves are not able to enter cells, they can still help to protect against viral infections by neutralizing viruses and activating other parts of the immune system.

For example, antibodies can directly neutralize viruses by binding to specific proteins on their surface, which can prevent the virus from entering cells and replicating. Antibodies can also help to activate complement proteins and white blood cells, which can attack and kill infected cells.

Overall, while antibodies are not able to enter cells, they play a key role in the immune response to viral infections and are an important component of the body's defense against these pathogens.




QuestForLife
Can antibodies cross the lung blood barrier?

Yes, antibodies can cross the blood-lung barrier, which is a protective barrier that separates the blood in the lungs from the air in the alveoli (the tiny air sacs in the lungs where gas exchange occurs).

The blood-lung barrier is made up of cells that line the blood vessels in the lungs and is designed to allow oxygen and other gases to pass through while preventing the entry of harmful substances.

Antibodies are able to cross the blood-lung barrier because they are large molecules that are able to pass through the spaces between the cells that make up the barrier. This allows them to circulate in the blood and reach the lungs, where they can help to protect against infections.

It is worth noting that the blood-lung barrier is not completely impermeable, and some substances are able to pass through it more easily than others. For example, small molecules such as gases are able to pass through the barrier more easily than larger molecules such as antibodies.

Overall, the blood-lung barrier is an important protective barrier that helps to maintain the health of the lungs, and antibodies are able to cross this barrier to help protect against infections.




QuestForLife
So the blood lung barrier can stop water molecules passing through it (otherwise we couldn't breathe) but not huge antibodies? What is the evidence for thus?

The blood-lung barrier is made up of cells that line the blood vessels in the lungs and is designed to allow oxygen and other gases to pass through while preventing the entry of harmful substances. While the blood-lung barrier is not completely impermeable, some substances are able to pass through it more easily than others.

For example, small molecules such as oxygen and carbon dioxide are able to pass through the blood-lung barrier relatively easily, while larger molecules such as water and proteins are more restricted.

The ability of a substance to pass through the blood-lung barrier is determined by a number of factors, including the size of the molecule and its charge. Smaller, uncharged molecules are generally able to pass through the barrier more easily than larger, charged molecules.

There is evidence to support the idea that the blood-lung barrier is more permeable to small molecules than to large molecules. For example, studies have shown that small molecules such as gases and certain drugs are able to pass through the barrier more easily than larger molecules such as proteins and water.

Overall, while the blood-lung barrier is not completely impermeable, it is generally more effective at preventing the entry of large molecules such as proteins and water than it is at preventing the entry of small molecules such as gases.




QuestForLife
So what is the evidence large antibodies can pass through the blood lung barrier?

There is evidence to suggest that large molecules such as antibodies are able to pass through the blood-lung barrier.

The blood-lung barrier is made up of cells that line the blood vessels in the lungs and is designed to allow oxygen and other gases to pass through while preventing the entry of harmful substances. While the blood-lung barrier is not completely impermeable, some substances are able to pass through it more easily than others.

Antibodies are large proteins that are produced by the immune system in response to an infection or vaccination. They are designed to specifically recognize and bind to pathogens, such as viruses, to help neutralize them and prevent them from causing disease.

Studies have shown that antibodies are able to cross the blood-lung barrier and reach the lungs, where they can help to protect against infections. For example, one study found that antibodies to respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), a common cause of respiratory infections, were able to pass through the blood-lung barrier and reach the airways in the lungs.

Overall, while the blood-lung barrier is more permeable to small molecules than to large molecules, there is evidence to suggest that large molecules such as antibodies are able to pass through the barrier and reach the lungs.




QuestForLife
What size in daltons is the respiratory syncytial virus antibody?

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a virus that can cause respiratory infections. Antibodies are proteins produced by the immune system in response to an infection or vaccination. They are designed to specifically recognize and bind to pathogens, such as viruses, to help neutralize them and prevent them from causing disease.

The size of an antibody can vary depending on the specific antibody and the species it is found in. In general, antibodies are large proteins with a molecular weight of around 150,000 daltons. This is equivalent to a size of approximately 150,000 daltons, or 150 kDa.

It is worth noting that the size of an antibody can vary depending on the specific type of antibody and the species it is found in. For example, some antibodies may be smaller or larger than the average size of 150,000 daltons.

Overall, antibodies are large proteins that are produced by the immune system in response to an infection or vaccination, and they play a key role in the body's defense against pathogens such as viruses.




QuestForLife
150 000 Daltons is huge to be passing through the blood lung barrier, considering water, at 18 daltons, cannot. What is the mechanism by which an antibody can pass the blood lung barrier?

The blood-lung barrier is made up of cells that line the blood vessels in the lungs and is designed to allow oxygen and other gases to pass through while preventing the entry of harmful substances. While the blood-lung barrier is not completely impermeable, some substances are able to pass through it more easily than others.

Antibodies are large proteins that are produced by the immune system in response to an infection or vaccination. They are designed to specifically recognize and bind to pathogens, such as viruses, to help neutralize them and prevent them from causing disease.

While the size of an antibody (around 150,000 daltons, or 150 kDa) is indeed larger than that of small molecules such as water (18 daltons), there is evidence to suggest that antibodies are able to cross the blood-lung barrier and reach the lungs, where they can help to protect against infections.

The exact mechanism by which antibodies are able to pass through the blood-lung barrier is not fully understood, but it is thought to involve a combination of factors. One possibility is that antibodies are able to pass through the spaces between the cells that make up the barrier. Another possibility is that they are able to pass through specialized transport mechanisms, such as transcytosis, which allows large molecules to pass through the barrier.

Overall, while the blood-lung barrier is more permeable to small molecules than to large molecules, there is evidence to




QuestForLife
Thanks for your help.

You're welcome! I'm glad I could help. If you have any more questions, don't hesitate to ask.

[Mind]

Interesting discussion. I have seen other people test ChatGPT's knowledge base. It obviously has a weighting system on "evidence" which can be problematic. It is similar to modern (mainstream) media which always tries to quote authoritative sources (instead of investigating/researching). The authoritative source tends to be a government source. As we have seen throughout history, governments and government agencies are often led by unethical and truly evil people.

 

Take MK-Ultra for example. Prior to the release of government documents detailing the unethical, disgusting, and harmful program run by the US government, ChatGTP would have told you that there is no evidence for this program and that authoritative sources say the allegations are false.

[Mind]

Just another example about how ChatGPT is biased. You are getting curated results that follow the political views of the programmers. You are not getting unbiased results based upon the totality of current human knowledge.

Attached Files

•  Dueling Poems.jpg   152.97KB   0 downloads

[Mind]

Transhumanists and techo-utopians told a tale for many years about how everything would be grand once we got AGI. Turns out, it is looking more and more like a borg dystopia.

 

The most interesting point in this article is how big-tech corporations are investing in mind reading tech. Recall that they used to invest heavily in psychological research. They wanted to know how to get people addicted to their platforms. They denied this in later years, but the results speak for themselves. Younger generations are hopelessly addicted to their devices and their lives are going down the toilet.