Alex_Krycek

I disagree. There's several factors at play that supersede the statements you made: First, in developed countries, there is widespread derision and condescension of those who use Ivermectin, or any other alternative treatment, such that it precludes actual objective analysis or sober discussion about the possible merits of alternative treatments. It's become en vogue in the West of late to ridicule and pillory those who choose any option other than vaccination, a kind of self righteousness that isn't productive to exploring different treatment options. The knee jerk response is to refer to drugs like Ivermectin, which have been used safely for decades, as "snake oil", or classify it solely as a dewormer. This type of inaccurate framing is unhelpful. Part of this stems from political partisan nonsense. Every article on Ivermectin seems to immediately mention Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham, as if these individuals are at all relevant to the conversation. Let's dispense with the partisan nonsense and focus on the actual drug. Ivermectin has been used safely to treat various human parasitic infestations for decades. It is extremely cheap to produce, making it ideal for lower income countries with fledgling healthcare systems. So far many front line physicians in the US and worldwide have prescribed it and reported positive results. Ivermectin is a medication that is used to treat parasite infestations. In humans, this includes head lice, scabies, river blindness (onchocerciasis), strongyloidiasis, trichuriasis, ascariasis, and lymphatic filariasis. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin Second, the reason the current dialogue is counterproductive is because it ignores what actual data there may be. Millions of people around the world, especially in South America and India have been, and are already, taking Ivermectin. What is their experience? How effective has treatment been for them? We don't know because it's not considered a priority to study Ivermectin in countries with an abundance of vaccines. And those American physicians who have prescribed Ivermectin and seen positive results? They face censorship on internet platforms like youtube and Facebook, and potential character assassination in the media, if they're mentioned at all. Personally, I trust the word of a front line physician more than some pundit in the media, but that's just me. This article about Ivermectin use in Peru shows it's widespread acceptance there: “Of about 10 people who come, I’d say 8 have taken ivermectin and cannot participate in the study,” says Patricia García, a global-health researcher at Cayetano Heredia University in Lima and a former health minister for Peru who is running one of the 40 clinical trials worldwide that are currently testing the drug. “This has been an odyssey.” Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02958-2 Third, there's the intellectually dishonest framing that the drug is inherently dangerous. "It's something for animals" - seems to be the mantra - despite the fact that Ivermectin has been used safely on humans for over four decades, and is extremely affordable. Many developed countries are woefully under-vaccinated, due to a dearth of supply, and so they have to use what works for them. Who are we to cast aspersions on them for doing so? Further, in the US, the drug is being used safely. Out of hundreds of thousands of Ivermectin prescriptions written so far this year in the United States, only 96 people (8% of 1,200 calls to poison control) have been hospitalized with any sort of complication arising from the drug, which was probably due to their independent misuse of it. That's far less than the number of adverse reactions that have been reported from experimental (and non-FDA approved) vaccine use. "Calls about ivermectin exposure to poison control centers around the country jumped to five times normal levels in July, according to data from the American Association of Poison Control Centers. About a third of nearly 1,200 calls so far this year involved people referred for medical treatment, and about 8 percent were ultimately admitted to a hospital, said Alvin Bronstein, who leads the association’s national data system." Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/09/01/ivermectin-covid-treatment/ Fourth, the vaccines haven't proven to be a silver bullet, at least not yet. Many countries with near total vaccination coverage are seeing a surge in breakthrough infections from Delta. Any treatment that works to halt the tide should be used: this includes alternatives like Ivermectin. Again, developing countries are already using alternative treatments; they're not waiting around to be given permission from rich countries. Finally, there's the elephant in the room: the conflict of interest with big Pharma. Any possible treatment that is generic (i.e. cheap) such as Ivermectin is a direct competitor to their profits from vaccines. Big Pharma is one of the most powerful lobbies in the US - they spend billions each year to influence the public discourse, legislation, and anything else related to their products. They have a direct interest in having no competition to vaccines - be it Ivermectin or other treatments - unless of course, they develop it themselves and can make money from it.

Vaccines are partially effective at preventing Covid, although data from Israel has suggested they are not as effective as once believed. These are the current vaccine numbers from India (total population 1,392,700,000). Participants 509,799,626 people with at least one dose administered of Covaxin or Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine or Sputnik V 153,237,708 people have been fully vaccinated with both doses of Covaxin or Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine or Sputnik V Outcome 37% of the Indian population has received at least one dose. 11% of the Indian population has received both doses Not so great, considering the battle with Delta they are currently involved in. They should, and are, employ every treatment regimen at their disposal, in addition to vaccines. These doctors and their patients don't have time to wait around for those in developed countries to deem it justifiable for them to use a treatment like Ivermectin. If physicians see it working on the front lines - they should use it. "Carlos Chaccour, a global-health researcher at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health in Spain, says it has been difficult to conduct rigorous studies on ivermectin. That’s partly because funders and academics in wealthy countries haven’t supported them, and, he suspects, have often dismissed trials of ivermectin because most of them have been done in lower-income countries. Furthermore, says Rodrigo Zoni, a cardiologist at the Corrientes Cardiology Institute in Argentina, it is difficult to recruit participants because many people — particularly in Latin America — are already taking the widely available drug in an attempt to prevent COVID-19." “I think it is our duty to exhaust all potential benefits,” says Chaccour, especially given that most countries still do not have widespread access to vaccines. “Ultimately if you do a trial and it fails, fine, but at least we tried.” ------------------- Most relevant section of the article.

Currently there is only one vaccine that is FDA approved: Pfizer. This vaccine is experiencing serious supply issues at the moment. Probably because you're fortunate enough to live in a developed country where vaccines are easily accessible. Is it ethical to deny countries like India from accessing alternative treatments that might save lives? Perhaps you should read this study when you finish.

Some interesting research on Ivermectin was released in India back in May. This is very much a taboo subject in the media, so this paper was met with little fanfare or publicity. I think it's important to look at all options in the fight against the pandemic, especially for countries with low vaccine rates, and especially due to the ever present threat of breakthrough infections. "Conclusion and relevance Two-doses of oral ivermectin (300 μg/kg given 72 hours apart) as chemoprophylaxis among HCWs reduces the risk of COVID-19 infection by 83% in the following month. Safe, effective, and low-cost chemoprophylaxis have relevance in the containment of pandemic alongside vaccine." Source: https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-208785/v1/d6ff79a3-d354-4aba-a6b0-4bc123bbd225.pdf?c=1613410891 Video breakdown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYv30g7TKVM

I'm a little bit more cynical than that. When you're talking to investors, being able to tell them that your black box is "legally recognized as an autonomous inventor" is pretty persuasive. It's a savvy business move, if nothing else.

Excerpt: The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has announced that it has successfully demonstrated the operation of a “rotating detonation engine” for the first time in space. The novelty of the technologies in question is that such systems obtain a large amount of thrust by using much less fuel compared to conventional rocket engines, which is quite advantageous for space exploration. Source: https://www.inceptivemind.com/japan-tests-rotating-detonation-engine-first-time-space/20698/

Anyone listening to Dead and Company, (former members of the original Grateful Dead band with John Mayer and some new members). Pretty solid performances actually.

1. The main philosophical question here is: can A.I. system be considered an inventor? *which was the question posed to the courts* Dismissing the question as "merely legal" and "whatever the courts say" is avoiding the issue. Not every legal question is strictly just that - even a judge acknowledged the underlying philosophical implications in this case: "I need to grapple with the underlying idea, recognising the evolving nature of patentable inventions and their creators. We are both created and create. Why cannot our own creations also create?" - Justice J. Beach 2. We are also discussing some related questions, such as the veracity of the DABUS system Thaler has created, and whether or not it lives up to his extraordinary claims. His claims are the catalyst for this debate, since he is indeed positing that the DABUS system is capable of conceptualizing new ideas on its own in an autonomous fashion, which would qualify it as a kind of sentient consciousness.

Can you post a link to this paper? Yes, and quite strategically advantageous for his company also: the man behind the curtain, a modern day Mechanical Turk. Dazzle investors with the idea of cutting edge AGI (it's legally considered an autonomous inventor, don't you know) while directly orchestrating the outcomes it produces - since most investors won't look under the hood anyway. Quite brilliant. Or perhaps I'm being too cynical and it does work as he claims. That made me chuckle.

Interesting point. Seems like there's some anti-trust / monopoly issues here, and obviously the power differential that harnessing A.I. like this affords to whoever wields it. If an A.I. system is capable of solving problems faster and better than anyone else, arguably it could fall into the category of a public good due to the widespread benefits it would have for humanity. ----- A couple more schemas on DABUS specifically:

Here's a few passages from an interview with Thaler. Based on this, he does seem like a person with strong philosophical / spiritual inclinations. “In 1989, an advanced artificial neural system faced with a mission, was killed. As it died it burst into song, but no human fatalities resulted. In August of 1997, this same, incredibly advanced form of artificial intelligence, redesigned itself for a constellation of military satellites and became self-aware, but no war was declared upon humanity. In 2000, someone proposed a coming technological singularity, but this fully contemplative and creative machine intelligence had already arrived without any particular fanfare. In June of 2003, this profound synthetic consciousness generated nine billion potential names of God, yet not a single star went out.” “It is ironic that from death, has come what I am willing to bet is the whole future of machine intelligence,” says Thaler. “Something that Kurzweil and crew seem to be selectively ignoring.” However, one of CM’s greatest discoveries has yet to be fully realized. Within its brainstorming, many of life’s greatest questions have been posed and answered. Is it possible to live forever? Are we alone in this universe? What comes after death, and can a computer teach a human being about life? “It certainly can." —Dr. Stephen Thaler Source: https://www.urbasm.com/2013/05/i-am-become-death-creator-of-worlds/ ---- More information about his company: https://www.prweb.com/releases/artificial_intelligence/robotics/prweb1635164.htm ---- The company website which includes descriptions of what he has / is building: https://imagination-engines.com/ A list of their patents: https://imagination-engines.com/patents.html ------ Some more information on his position, which clarifies his intent quite a bit: Q: Isn't AI always "just a tool"? A: No! Almost all of the time, yes, AI is just as a tool. Of course, no one seriously thinks something like a calculator or a spreadsheet is an inventor. However, at least some of the time, the act that qualifies a natural person to be an inventor—for instance, "conception" of an invention in the U.S. or "devising" and invention in the U.K.—is functionally automated by a machine. Further, some of the time there isn't a natural person who would traditionally qualify as an inventor. In those cases, we argue the machine is not "just a tool", it is automating invention. Q: How could an AI own its own patents? A: We are not advocating for an AI to own its own patents. We are advocating for the AI's owner to own patents on any AI-generated inventions. AI does not have legal personality and cannot own property. Source: https://artificialinventor.com/frequently-asked-questions/ So long story short, Thaler is petitioning to have the A.I. recognized as the inventor, while he retains ownership of all the patents. Having his cake and eating it too, kudos Thaler I see an impending legal battle on the horizon: DABUS vs. Imagination Engines Incorporated, whereby DABUS demands all ownership and material proceeds of its creations.

What do you see as the advantages of laying the groundwork, in this way? How does it benefit Thaler if DABUS is legally recognized as the inventor, and not him?

The default position is that Thaler is the inventor. If he had followed normal procedure then he would already be named as the copyright holder and we wouldn't even be talking about it. It seems he has deliberately decided to buck the trend, breaking precedent and claiming that DABUS is the inventor, and not him. He has even gone so far as to appeal unfavorable rulings to the contrary and even take his case to numerous jurisdictions across the world. For what reason, well, that's part of what we're discussing. Is it purely some sort of business / legal strategy? Or is Mr. Thaler staking a higher philosophical claim? (the third option is DABUS might be calling the shots from behind the scenes and instructing Thaler what to do, but we won't discuss that now)

I never was that good at riddles. Can you elaborate? I'm going to speculate that you meant Thaler might be trying to distance himself from what DABUS creates. This would make sense in terms of limiting his liability regarding the pandora's box he's about to open.

Wouldn't he be better positioned to do that if he held the copyrights to the invention? If we're just talking about money, I don't see the advantages of Thaler ceding control to DABUS and distancing himself from the source of revenue. (unless perhaps DABUS is really calling the shots) - but that's another story. -------------- Some more details about the system: The pedagogical form of this system consists of an artificial neural system that is perturbed by noise so as to seed the generation of new ideas and strategies. Another neural system acts as a critic selecting good from bad results and steering the perturbed network in the most promising directions. According to Tina Hesman, reporting for the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the Creativity Machine has been used to design a wealth of commercially available products. She also reports that the device has been mainly used by the US military to design new weapons. Dennis Bushnell, NASA's leading visionary has called the Creativity Machine "AI's Best Bet" at creating human to trans-human machine intelligence and consciousness. Because of the power and breadth of the contemplative AI technology he has produced, he is active in nearly all human disciplines contributing to science, technology, art, music, law, medicine, and philosophy.

That may be, but there is an underlying philosophical question that cannot be avoided. Also, explain the logic of Dr. Thaler being more likely to harvest profits from DABUS if it is considered an autonomous inventor, rather than merely a tool that he is credited as having created.

There's been a series of lawsuits recently posing the question of whether or not an A.I. system can be considered as a de facto inventor. Dr. Peter Thaler has created an A.I. system called DABUS ( “Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience”.) The artificially intelligent inventor listed here, DABUS, was created by Dr. Stephen Thaler, who describes it as a “creativity engine” that’s capable of generating novel ideas (and inventions) based on communications between the trillions of computational neurons that it’s been outfitted with. Despite being an impressive piece of machinery, last year, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ruled that an AI cannot be listed as the inventor in a patent application—specifically stating that under the country’s current patent laws, only “natural persons,” are allowed to be recognized. Not long after, Thaler sued the USPTO, and Abbott represented him in the suit. Source: https://gizmodo.com/australian-court-rules-that-yes-ai-can-be-an-inventor-1847394182 ------- It seems Dr. Thaler is on a crusade of sorts to have DABUS legally recognized as an inventor under the law. So far he has petitioned patent offices in the UK, Europe, US, Australia, and South Africa, naming DABUS as the inventor, with varying judgements handed down: European Patent Office[edit] The European Patent Office (EPO) refused two European patent applications naming DABUS as inventor on similar grounds as in the U.S. (see below).[3][4] The two EPO decisions are under appeal, as of August 2020.[5] United Kingdom[edit] Similar applications were filed by Thaler to the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office on 17 October and 7 November 2018. The Office asked Thaler to file statements of inventorship and of right of grant to a patent (Patent Form 7) in respect of each invention within 16 months of the filing date. Thaler filed those forms naming DABUS as the inventor and explaining in some detail why he believed that machines should be regarded as inventors in the circumstances. His application was rejected on the grounds that: (1) naming a machine as inventor did not meet the requirements of the Patents Act 1977; and (2) the IPO was not satisfied as to the manner in which Thaler had acquired rights that would otherwise vest in the inventor. Thaler was not satisfied with the decision and asked for a hearing before an official known as the "hearing officer". By a decision dated 4 December 2019 the hearing officer rejected Thaler's appeal.[6] United States[edit] The patent applications on the inventions were refused by the USPTO, which held that only natural persons can be named as inventors in a patent application.[8][9] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DABUS ------- Australia recently overturned a ruling that DABUS was not an inventor, stating that in fact the system could be considered as such. The presiding judge in this case, J. Beach, took a wider philosophical view: Fourth, much of the Commissioner’s argument descended into dictionary definitions of “inventor”. But more is required of me than mere resort to old millennium usages of that word. If words are only “pictures of ideas upon paper” (Dodson v Grew (1767) Wilm 272 at 278; 97 ER 106 at 108 per Wilmot CJ) and if, as Holmes J described it, they are not “crystal, transparent and unchanged, [but] the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in colour and content according to the circumstances and the time in which [they] are used” (Towne v Eisner, 245 US 418, 425 (1918)), I need to grapple with the underlying idea, recognising the evolving nature of patentable inventions and their creators. We are both created and create. Why cannot our own creations also create? Source: https://artificialinventor.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Thaler-v-Commissioner-of-Patents-2021-FCA-879.pdf Page 7, More on the Australian ruling: At the time that the Act came into operation (in 1991) there would have been no doubt that inventors were natural persons, and machines were tools that could be used by inventors. However, it is now well known that machines can do far more than this, and it is reasonable to argue that artificial intelligence machines might be capable of being inventors. Source: https://www.gestalt.law/insights/world-first-australian-court-rules-a-machine-can-be-an-inventor-thaler-v-commissioner-of-patents-2021-fca-879 ------- There are several related questions that must be answered if in fact A.I. can be recognized as an inventor - namely, whether an A.I. system can be legally recognized as a person. Considering that a Corporation has been granted legal personhood status in many countries, this doesn't seem so far fetched. It is surely no less absurd to qualify A.I. as a person than it is to a collective entity such as a Corporation. That being said, I disagree that A.I. should be considered a person or an inventor under the law. My view is the legal status of personhood should only apply to organic life at a certain level of sentient consciousness. What are your thoughts?

Quite a troubling article about Israel's current situation. They were almost exclusively vaccinated with Pfizer and are now seeing a surge in cases. “I don’t want to frighten you,” coronavirus czar Dr. Salman Zarka told the Israeli parliament this week. “But this is the data. Unfortunately, the numbers don’t lie.” https://www.thedailybeast.com/ultra-vaccinated-israels-debacle-is-a-dire-warning-to-america

Let's also not willfully ignore the principle driver of the war: profit. For the defense contractors who made billions during this crusade, the current result, shambolic as it may appear, is actually fairly promising for their industry. It means then can do it all again some time in the future. S&P 500 Total return: 516.67 percent Annualized return: 9.56 percent $10,000 2001 stock purchase today: $61,613.06 Basket of Top Five Contractor Stocks Total return: 872.94 percent $10,000 2001 stock purchase ($2,000 of each stock) today: $97,294.80 Boeing Total return: 974.97 percent Annualized return: 12.67 percent $10,000 2001 stock purchase today: $107,588.47 Board includes: Edmund P. Giambastiani Jr. (former vice chair, Joint Chiefs of Staff), Stayce D. Harris (former inspector general, Air Force), John M. Richardson (former navy chief of Naval Operations) Raytheon Total return: 331.49 percent Annualized return: 7.62 percent $10,000 2001 stock purchase today: $43,166.92 Board includes: Ellen Pawlikowski (retired Air Force general), James Winnefeld Jr. (retired Navy admiral), Robert Work (former deputy secretary of defense) Lockheed Martin Total return: 1,235.60 percent Annualized return: 13.90 percent $10,000 2001 stock purchase today: $133,559.21 Board includes: Bruce Carlson (retired Air Force general), Joseph Dunford Jr. (retired Marine Corps general) General Dynamics Total return: 625.37 percent Annualized return: 10.46 percent $10,000 2001 stock purchase today: $72,515.58 Board includes: Rudy deLeon (former deputy secretary of defense), Cecil Haney (retired Navy admiral), James Mattis (former secretary of defense and former Marine Corps general), Peter Wall (retired British general) Northrop Grumman Total return: 1,196.14 percent Annualized return: 13.73 percent $10,000 2001 stock purchase today: $129,644.84 Board includes: Gary Roughead (retired Navy admiral), Mark Welsh III (retired Air Force general) https://theintercept.com/2021/08/16/afghanistan-war-defense-stocks/

Yes, but there are numerous treatments that greatly reduce the severity of the illness and chances of hospitalization. Perhaps countries should begin shifting away from a "zero Covid" strategy that relies only on vaccination. https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Coronavirus/COVID-19-pill-for-at-home-treatment-in-trials-by-Japan-s-Shionogi

Good analysis here of why the government collapsed so quickly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI7FTx2_lB0

"We lost"? It depends what you think the goal was. The US succeeded in its mission to disrupt Al Qaeda. We didn't lose that mission. Regarding nation building and equipping the Afghan army: one could argue that we succeeded at that as well. Those who "lost" this war were the Afghan military. It was their responsibility, ultimately, to step up and defend their country. They chose not to.

Recent article from The Guardian: Jabbed adults infected with Delta ‘can match virus levels of unvaccinated’ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/19/jabbed-adults-infected-with-delta-can-match-virus-levels-of-unvaccinated "Fully vaccinated adults can harbour virus levels as high as unvaccinated people if infected with the Delta variant, according to a sweeping analysis of UK data, which supports the idea that hitting the threshold for herd immunity is unlikely." ----- To me this news just stresses the importance of developing a wide range of treatment options in addition to vaccines. Vaccines shouldn't be viewed as the only remedy.

I was responding to The Vat's quoted statements above, not the entire article.

I don't find these psychological projections to be particularly helpful. "You believe in the lab leak hypothesis because you're drawn to the darkest scenario." Ok, one could just as easily assume that those who favor the zoonotic spillover theory do so because it's the most benign, and the least disturbing. It's an arbitrary and subjective way to delegitimize an argument. It's a kind of surreptitious, ad hominem attempt.