This article is a response to a Facebook follower who asked for my thoughts on the AI-generated critique of my article (link).
I must say, the analysis was quite interesting, and I am genuinely impressed — your AI did a reasonably good job critiquing my article.
Before I present my critique (see below), I want to clarify and emphasize that this is AI, not RI (Real Intelligence). AI depends entirely on what is fed into it and on how the underlying algorithms gather, filter, and present information — including what they choose to emphasize or ignore. In other words, AI is inherently biased both by the input and by the controls placed on it.
That said, I personally make extensive use of AI and often run my comments and posts through it to check for errors or illogical statements. My AI has effectively been “trained” from my side, aligned with scientific standards as I understand them. So I decided to generate a rebuttal from my AI to your AI and see how fairly it responds. The response I received from my AI is thorough, correct, and I fully support it.
For your reading convenience, I have reproduced your AI’s critique first, followed by the rebuttal produced by my AI, which I fully endorse.
I trust my AI’s response because it is based on the principles of true science, from a chemistry and analytical perspective. In contrast, I consider your AI’s response grounded in non-scientific narratives, even though it cites published literature. Its foundation lies in biology and medical science — both of which, in my view, do not qualify as true sciences.
For further convenience, I have also reproduced my original article (the one under discussion) at the end, along with the link to the blog.
Enjoy — and feel free to share your feedback.
Saeed Qureshi, Ph.D.