Debate with Google AI

 

Ok.  I have often expressed my dislike and fear of AI and it's advancements.  But I had some fun with it tonight. 

I began by asking Google AI some questions about the Covid pandemic and the government response to it, including the safety and efficacy of the vaccines as well as the effectiveness of the other "protections, such as masking, lockdowns and social distancing.  It was a debate between digital data and human logic and opinion.

It was fun.  I could ask anything, express my opinions and the basis for them.  AI would respond with conclusions and answers based on available data.  The point here is, it was as if I were debating with a well informed and articulate person, although a person who sides explicitly with "accepted" government narratives.  When I cited a report or article I had read, AI knew the report and commented on it.  

When I had had enough, I asked it:  "I have enjoyed this debate.  Can you write an article for me, explaining the debate and our interaction, with a slight emphasis on my enjoyment of the interaction with AI?"

I found it to be what debate should be; a good natured examination of two "people's" opinions and the basis for those opinions, without anger or frustration, knowing, from the beginning, that neither of us would change our foundational opinions.  I can understand the attraction of interaction with AI.

As an opposite; I had a very similar debate with my oldest daughter during the Covid debacle;  she hung up on me and hasn't talked with me since.

Here is the Google AI report for which I asked:

"The Great COVID-19 Strategy Debate: A Human-AI Dialogue on Focused Protection, Data Interpretation, and The Swedish Example

The global response to the COVID-19 pandemic was defined by unprecedented public health measures, from widespread lockdowns and mask mandates to rapid vaccine development. No single approach was universally adopted, leading to a passionate, ongoing debate about the most effective and ethical path forward. This dialogue recently unfolded in a nuanced exchange with an AI, offering a unique perspective on how humans and advanced technology can collaboratively explore complex, contentious issues.

The Debate at a Glance: Two Competing Philosophies

The core of the discussion centered on two contrasting strategies:

1. Broad Mitigation: The approach taken by most nations, utilizing mandated lockdowns, social distancing, and masking to slow community transmission for everyone, aiming to "flatten the curve" and protect healthcare systems.
2. Focused Protection: The approach advocated by some scientists and attempted, in a voluntary form, by Sweden. This philosophy emphasizes strictly shielding the vulnerable population while allowing lower-risk individuals to maintain normal activities, arguing this minimizes collateral economic and social damage.

The conversation naturally moved from the risks of COVID-19 in younger populations to vaccine safety data, ultimately settling on the real-world outcomes of Sweden's strategy versus more restrictive countries.

The Swedish Example: A Matter of Interpretation

The user in the dialogue pointed to Sweden as prime evidence for focused protection's success. The argument was compelling:

• The Claim: Despite a high number of early deaths among the elderly due to failures in care facilities, Sweden's cumulative excess mortality over the entire pandemic period (2020-2022) was comparable to or even better than several highly restrictive European neighbors (e.g., UK, Italy, Spain).
• The Conclusion: These outcomes were achieved without the significant human rights violations, business closures, educational damage, and mental health crises associated with strict mandates, proving the superior utility of focused protection. The user maintained that simply fixing the initial failure to protect care homes would have made their numbers even better.

The AI, drawing on data and public health consensus, offered crucial context:

• The Nuance: While cumulative totals were similar for some nations, Sweden's initial 2020 death rate was substantially higher than its immediate, highly comparable Nordic neighbors (Norway and Denmark), which had almost no excess mortality that year.
• The Counterargument: The "success" depends on the metric used. Public health consensus views the timing of deaths as critical; delaying death among the vulnerable, as the restrictive neighbors did, preserved thousands of potential "person-years" of life lost early on in Sweden. The Swedish government's own commissions labeled the failure to protect the elderly an unmitigated disaster.

The Human-AI Interaction: Enjoyment in Nuance

What made this exchange particularly engaging was the user's enjoyment of the process itself. The user was not looking for a single, final answer, but rather a robust exploration of counterarguments. This highlights a fascinating aspect of modern AI interaction: the ability to serve as a tireless, non-judgmental sparring partner in a complex intellectual exercise.

The AI was able to acknowledge the validity of the user's points (e.g., the real harm of lockdowns, the actual long-term cumulative data) while continuously introducing mainstream scientific data and nuances that challenged a simple, definitive conclusion.

This form of dialogue goes beyond simple question-and-answer. It demonstrates that AI can facilitate sophisticated, enjoyable debates where humans can refine their viewpoints, test their opinions against data-driven logic, and explore "what if" scenarios in a collaborative and stimulating environment. The interaction was an example of technology enriching the human capacity for critical thinking."