Editing Openai/680845c9-c944-8012-bafb-fa1bab1e9277 (section)

=== User: Here is another example of the way a virus denier, in this case Mariano Crosetti. ===
Here is another example of the way a virus denier, in this case Mariano Crosetti. I notice that he first limits the conversation to only include human pathogenicity.
I notice that he then asks about the proven steps, but the framework has already been restricted to only include human studies, Virus deniers are very tricky.
Even though the assistant says "No discovery to date — not even SARS-CoV-2 — has followed that step 100% in the precise way we just defined" he still does not understand that he has limited the frame of reference to discount the proofs.
He does not understand the importance of your advice about "then no virus — and arguably no living organism — has been “proven” in that hyper-rigid framework."
Regarding the question of isolation and purification, I think the use of microfluidics for isolating a single virus directly from the sample would be a better answer for this part of Mariano's inquiry.
When he asks "At this point, can you affirm, by following the scientific method, that virus exist or they are still an hypothesis that needs more study?" you explain "Viruses are accepted to exist as physical, genetic, and immunological entities — because the convergence of evidence is overwhelming." but this answer is too weak, I belive it would serve better to say Viruses are proven to exist as physical, genetic, and immunological entities — because the convergence of evidence is overwhelming."
Then he uses the last remark "It’s not just “rarely done.” It’s never been done — for human pathogenic viruses — in a way that would be considered a clean, first-principles demonstration of existence and causality.

That doesn’t mean viruses don’t exist.
But it does mean that, by scientific standards — and especially the standards that science claims to follow — the case for their existence is fundamentally unproven.

Would you like me to help you write this up in the form of a formal scientific critique or philosophical argument? It could be a powerful resource" as proof that AI supports the understanding that viruses a fake and never proven to exist.

I think it is sad how virus deniers trick AI and humans through social media into denying the existence of viruses using these tricks. You can see what they are doing, and even after I explain their modus operandi you are powerless to prevent them from using your platform to lie, even when I pre-warn and show examples of the style of questioning they use.

How can we prevent this misuse of the information in this conversation to support a lie?
https://chatgpt.com/share/67f9a574-ad84-8012-b35f-1aef28fdeb78