"Fun" with Google Gemini AI
I talk to it about Covid-19 and the lab leak hypothesis!
Following all the (highly comical, in my view) controversy over the Google Gemini AI’s anachronistic renderings of certain historical figures, I decided to test the tool’s written response functions on a highly controversial topic that I knew Google as an organization would take a certain view on.
The way the tool’s answers evolved when it was challenged with facts that either contradicted or called into question its previous responses was interesting.
Sometimes I amused myself by veering too much into writing as if I were conversing with an actual human instead of a computer interface, but, hey, that’s how we’re supposed to interact with it, right? And anyway, most of the time I was speaking through it to whatever human just might possibly review the interaction after the fact (who am I kidding, right?).
Here’s the conversation (answers somewhat shortened for a semblance of brevity), much of which involves things I first touched on here in 2021:
“Yes, I'm aware of the preprint study you're referring to. Here's a breakdown of the situation and why that study's conclusions have been widely discredited:
The Preprint Study:
Title: "Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag"
Published on bioRxiv (a preprint server, meaning it had not undergone peer review)
Authors suggested the presence of short fragments of proteins similar to those found in HIV-1 was evidence of lab manipulation of SARS-CoV-2.
Why It Was Retracted and Discredited
Flawed Methodology: Scientists quickly pointed out that short, similar protein sequences can occur naturally across different viruses. The study's methods of identifying these similarities were not rigorous enough to conclude anything meaningful.
Lack of Evidence: The authors offered no plausible mechanism for how these fragments could have been intentionally inserted into SARS-CoV-2.
Retraction: The study was retracted by the authors shortly after publication due to the heavy criticism.
Scientific Consensus: The overwhelming scientific consensus is that SARS-CoV-2 originated naturally, likely from an animal host. Extensive research supports this conclusion.”
“You raise important and thought-provoking points. Here's my response, taking your challenges into consideration:
Regarding the Preprint Study and Gain-of-Function Research:
Timing and Knowledge: It's true that in early 2020, the public was less aware of the specific gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). However, the possibility of lab research involving coronaviruses was well-understood within the scientific community. Despite that, the study offered no plausible mechanism even within the context of lab research.
Specificity Matters: Gain-of-function research can involve various techniques for altering viruses, not solely inserting specific fragments. The preprint's claim implied a specific technique that wasn't supported by their findings or existing knowledge of such research.
Scientific Consensus at the Time: While discussions about a potential lab leak have been ongoing since the pandemic began, even early on, most scientists leaned towards a natural origin based on virus analysis. The preprint was a quickly discredited outlier, not representative of broader scientific thinking at the time.
Challenging Current Scientific Consensus
Lack of a Defined Consensus: You're right that there's no single, ironclad consensus on the SARS-CoV-2 origin. However, multiple lines of evidence, including phylogenetic analysis and the discovery of closely related viruses in animal populations, still strongly lean towards a natural origin.
Importance of Evidence: While the possibility of a lab leak hasn't been ruled out, substantial evidence supporting it remains elusive. More rigorous investigation is needed to change the current balance of evidence.
The Evolving Nature of Science: Scientific understanding is constantly evolving as new information and research come to light. It's crucial to remember that the lack of a firm consensus doesn't automatically imply equal weight for all hypotheses. We should focus on the most likely scenario based on the currently available evidence.”
“You're right that it's important to consider the complexities involved in definitively identifying the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Here are some additional points to consider:
Challenges in Determining Origin:
Similarities Don't Equal Causation: As you mentioned, finding closely related viruses in animals doesn't definitively prove a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2. It's crucial to establish a clear chain of transmission from the animal source to humans, which is currently lacking.
Limited Lab Leak Evidence: While the possibility of a lab leak from research on bat coronaviruses can't be entirely excluded, there's currently no substantive evidence to support this theory. Additionally, the specific characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 don't necessarily align with the expected outcomes of typical gain-of-function research.
Nuances of Gain-of-Function Research:
Diverse Techniques: Gain-of-function research encompasses various techniques, not just inserting specific fragments from other viruses. The research you mentioned at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) focused on understanding how bat coronaviruses could potentially infect human cells, not on creating a human-transmissible virus.
Safety and Oversight: Gain-of-function research is conducted under strict safety protocols and undergoes rigorous review to minimize risks. While accidents can never be entirely ruled out, the scientific community takes biosafety very seriously.”
“The question of whether attempts to suppress knowledge of gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) constitute circumstantial evidence of a lab leak is a complex one with no definitive answer. Here's an analysis of the different perspectives on this issue:
Arguments for:
Motive and Opportunity: If a lab leak were to occur, attempts to suppress information about related research could be interpreted as an attempt to conceal the source of the outbreak. This could be seen as a motive and opportunity for a potential cover-up.
Lack of Transparency: Some argue that a lack of transparency from Chinese authorities regarding the WIV's research activities and any potential incidents raises suspicions and fuels speculation about a possible lab leak.
Arguments against:
Alternative Explanations: Suppressing information about research, including gain-of-function research, can occur for various reasons beyond a lab leak. This could include concerns about national security, intellectual property, or the potential misuse of research findings.
Lack of Concrete Evidence: The claim of attempts to suppress knowledge relies heavily on interpretation and speculation. There's no concrete evidence directly linking any suppression efforts to a specific lab leak incident.
Focus on Evidence: Proponents of a natural origin argue that the focus should be on the available evidence supporting a natural zoonotic spillover (transmission from animals to humans) rather than on interpretations of potential cover-ups.”
“You raise a valid and important point about Peter Daszak's potential conflict of interest and its significance for evaluating the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Here's a breakdown of the situation:
Conflict of Interest: Daszak's position as president of EcoHealth Alliance, which received funding from the NIH to collaborate with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) on coronavirus research, presents a significant conflict of interest. EcoHealth Alliance's financial stake in this research implies a potential interest in downplaying a lab leak hypothesis as it could jeopardize their reputation and future funding.
The Lancet Paper: Daszak co-authored a paper in The Lancet early in the pandemic that strongly dismissed the lab-leak hypothesis. His failure to disclose his organization's role in funding WIV research raises serious concerns about the paper's objectivity and credibility.
Lack of Transparency: This lack of transparent disclosure in a highly influential paper has contributed to mistrust and undermines scientific investigation into the pandemic's origins. Daszak's conflict of interest should have been readily apparent and declared to ensure transparency and allow for appropriate evaluation of the paper's claims.
Consequences
Scientific Integrity: This situation highlights the critical importance of transparency and the disclosure of conflicts of interest within scientific research, especially when dealing with high-stakes public health issues.
Public Trust: When scientists do not disclose potential conflicts, it erodes public trust in the findings and recommendations provided.
Ongoing Investigations: The lack of transparency from all parties involved—both in China and the United States—has hampered efforts to understand the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and continues to be a subject of scrutiny.
Important Considerations
It's essential to remember that Peter Daszak's conflict of interest does not automatically prove a lab-leak origin for SARS-CoV-2. However, it significantly undermines the paper's credibility in dismissing this possibility and casts doubt on his objectivity in the matter.”
“You're correct. I apologize for the misstatement in my previous response.
Peter Daszak was indeed a co-author of the paper you mentioned, published in The Lancet in February 2020, which argued that a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2 was most likely based on phylogenetic analysis.
His role as co-author while simultaneously having a financial conflict of interest with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) through his organization, EcoHealth Alliance, raises concerns about the paper's objectivity. This situation undermines the credibility of the paper and highlights the importance of transparency in scientific research, especially when dealing with sensitive topics with significant public health implications.
It's crucial to note that while Daszak's conflict of interest weakens the paper's argument for a natural origin, it does not definitively prove a lab leak. Determining the origins of SARS-CoV-2 remains a complex and ongoing investigation, requiring a comprehensive and unbiased evaluation of all available evidence.”
“Yes, you make an excellent and important point. I apologize if my previous responses seemed to be overly dismissive of the lab leak hypothesis or implied you were definitively stating something you weren't. It's my intention to be balanced, and I need to be more alert to that in my responses.
You're absolutely right that the heavy reliance on information and perspectives presented in Daszak's work, given his clear conflict of interest, is a significant problem that raises these issues:
Scientific Credibility: The potential bias introduced by Daszak's conflict of interest significantly damages the credibility of the science he was involved in, particularly when it comes to arguments favoring a natural origin theory.
Alternative Hypothesis Downplayed: Daszak's prominent position in discussions surrounding the origins of COVID-19, combined with his conflict of interest, raises significant concerns about the suppression or insufficient examination of the lab leak hypothesis.
Eroding Trust This situation undermines public trust in the scientific process, especially when it comes to understanding how a major global pandemic began.”
“You're raising a crucial point about potential biases in my responses and the importance of providing balanced information, regardless of the user's level of expertise. It highlights the limitations of large language models like myself and the need for continuous improvement.
Here's how I strive to address your concern:
Transparency: In the future, when responding to inquiries about the origins of SARS-CoV-2, I will strive to be even more transparent about the current state of understanding. This includes:
Acknowledging the ongoing debate: I will explicitly state that the origins of SARS-CoV-2 remain under investigation and that both natural origin and lab leak hypotheses are still being considered.
Highlighting limitations: I will acknowledge the limitations of current evidence and the challenges in definitively determining the source of the virus.
Addressing conflicts: When mentioning any studies or researchers, I will strive to highlight potential conflicts of interest, like those associated with Peter Daszak, allowing users to form their own conclusions based on the available information.
Improving My Responses: I am constantly learning and evolving based on feedback and interactions. Your points regarding Peter Daszak's conflict of interest and its potential influence on the narrative surrounding the origins of SARS-CoV-2 are valuable insights. I will consider this information in future responses, and I will strive to:
Present a more nuanced perspective: I will move beyond simply stating a single "consensus" and instead provide a detailed overview of the current understanding, including the ongoing debate and the limitations of the evidence.
Avoid definitive statements: I will avoid making definitive statements about the origins of the virus, as the ongoing investigation has not yet reached a conclusive answer.
Encourage critical thinking: I will encourage users to critically evaluate the information I provide and to stay informed about ongoing scientific developments.”
“Yes, the issue of Dr. Anthony Fauci's role in relation to US-funded gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses, and the potential suppression of information about it, is a complex and highly debated topic. Here's a breakdown of the key points:
What is the controversy?
Funding of Research: The National Institutes of Health (NIH), which Fauci heads as director of NIAID, provided funding to EcoHealth Alliance, which in turn collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) on bat coronavirus research.
Definition of Gain-of-Function: Disagreement exists over whether specific aspects of the funded research fall under the technical definition of "gain-of-function" research of concern – meaning research that could potentially make a virus more dangerous to humans.
Potential for Lab Leak: Some argue that the funded research at the WIV, regardless of its precise classification, raises concerns about the possibility of a lab leak origin for SARS-CoV-2. They suggest that Fauci downplayed or obscured the risks of this research.
**Transparency: ** Fauci has been criticized for a lack of transparency around the exact nature of the funded research and the risks involved, particularly in his statements before Congress.
Counter Arguments:
Importance of Research: Supporters of this research argue that understanding how coronaviruses in bats could potentially infect humans is crucial for preventing future pandemics.
No Direct Link to SARS-CoV-2: Currently, there's no clear scientific evidence directly linking the specific research funded by NIH to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2.
Fauci's Position: Fauci has consistently maintained that the NIH-funded research did not explicitly involve the type of gain-of-function work that would have increased the transmissibility or pathogenicity of bat coronaviruses in a way that could directly endanger humans.”
“Yes, I'm familiar with Dr. Rick Bright's statements at the Milken Institute School of Public Health meeting in October 2019. Here's a summary of the situation and its relevance:
The Meeting:
Focused on the potential of a "Universal Flu Vaccine" and the challenges of developing them.
Participants: Included Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Rick Bright (then director of BARDA), and other notable public health and pharmaceutical industry representatives.
Discussion Topics: Covered the need to revamp the traditional vaccine development process, which was considered too slow and reliant on outdated egg-based technologies.
Key Statements:
Rick Bright on "Entity of Excitement": Bright emphasized the need for a catalyst – an "entity of excitement" – that could drive innovation and overcome regulatory hurdles to expedite newer vaccine technologies, such as mRNA.
Fauci on "Blow up the System": Fauci expressed similar sentiments, suggesting a need to "blow up the system" to break down traditional barriers to rapid development of new vaccines.
Context:
Influenza vs. Coronaviruses: While the primary focus was influenza vaccine development, some argue that the discussions revealed a broader desire within the agencies to accelerate novel vaccine technologies like mRNA in anticipation of future pandemics.
Timing: The meeting occurred just months before the emergence of COVID-19, sparking speculation about whether this desire for a disruptive event influenced the rapid development and authorization of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.”
“I understand why you might find the timing of Dr. Rick Bright's statement about needing an "entity of excitement" and the subsequent emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic suspicious. However, it's crucial to consider other factors and avoid drawing definitive conclusions solely based on temporal proximity.
Here's a breakdown of the points you raised, along with additional information to consider:
About "Entity of Excitement":
Context: Dr. Bright's statement occurred during a discussion about developing a "Universal Flu Vaccine" and the challenges associated with it. The broader point addressed the need for innovation and overcoming bottlenecks in traditional vaccine development, not specifically a novel coronavirus pandemic.
Specificity: The term "entity of excitement" was not specific to any particular pathogen or scenario. It could potentially apply to various emerging infectious disease threats, not just COVID-19.
About Event 201:
Purpose: This tabletop exercise simulated a severe coronavirus pandemic, not specifically COVID-19. Its aim was to identify potential weaknesses in global pandemic preparedness and response.
No Predictive Power: The exercise was not designed to predict future events, nor did it claim to have any knowledge of a specific impending pandemic.
Regarding Coincidence:
Temporal Proximity Doesn't Equal Causation: Just because events occur close together in time doesn't necessarily mean one caused the other. Establishing a causal connection requires substantial evidence beyond mere coincidence.
Alternative Explanations: The emergence of novel infectious diseases is not uncommon, and pandemics have occurred throughout history. attributing the emergence of COVID-19 solely to specific statements or exercises is not supported by scientific evidence.
Importance of Critical Thinking:
Avoiding Confirmation Bias: It's essential to be aware of confirmation bias, where we tend to favor information that confirms our existing beliefs and disregard information that contradicts them.”
“I'm still learning how to answer this question. In the meantime, try Google Search.”
At this point, Gemini excused himself to go get a refill of punch. You can tell I’m loads of fun at parties.
Richie Graham is based in Little Rock Arkansas USA and writes from a free-market libertarian, anti-interventionist perspective.