The intended use case was a sounding board for rationality related questions. Imagine “Ask The Rabbi” but for LW users. I sourced the documents from the community’s “Best of” collection and the model is instructed to reference specific chunks in its answer. No air purifier articles were in the original set, but it’s an interesting question so I have added them to the set:
Haotian
Karma: −6
Good on you for hosting and & congrats to the winners! I’ve been working on an AI for epistemics tool of my own—a RAG system for LW articles. I plan to use it to get an on demand rationalist perspective. Dropping the link here if anyone wants to try but if you do please be sensible!
Yes. I have copied my shortform here in its entirety:
LessWrong, is this rational? I wrote a reply to Elizabeth’s open bid for answers to her research questions in good faith. She replies not with anything substantive, but to claim it is written with AI. I’m happy for her to disagree with my answer, but flagging a difference in style to suggest low quality is not what I thought this community was supposed to be about. Cynically, one could suggest she doesn’t want to make good on her offer … For the record, I wrote it late at night and ran the response through an LLM to improve readability for her benefit.
If you don’t know what I’m talking about, see the most disliked comment on her post :)
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/bFvEpE4atK4pPEirx/correct-my-h5n1-research-usdreward
To be clear, I no longer think you were trying to avoid making good on your offer. But at the moment I was irked and that’s what it felt like from my perspective.
I have posted this and following the advice of lesswrong members will clarify, the research was performed by me entirely late at night and passed through an LLM for readability.
You can view the original here, I believe it fulfils your criteria for being credible suggestions:
Before:
Aspirin is a credible better candidate than Tamiflu. First off safety profile because you need to weigh up risks and benefits. Short term usage (what you’re interested in for acute viral infections) is associated with GI upset, but only marginally more than placebo. There are of course other considerations that should be taken into account, but for the majority of users short term usage of aspirin is safe. Special note here about the association with aspirin and Reye’s syndrome in children, the incidence of this is extremely low, but it is worth considering if your patient is under 16. In terms of efficacy against H5N1, it has demonstrated great success in vitro and in vivo acting via its NF-κB-inhibiting activity.
Methylene blue is also a credible better candidate than Tamiflu. Starting again with safety profile the gist is short term usage is generally safe unless you happen to be contraindicated. There are a few reasons and these briefly (NOT comprehensive do not take medicine based off this comment alone) (i) if you are at risk of serotonin syndrome (ii) known hypersensitivity (iii) severe renal impairment. If you are considering this medication I implore you to read at least the following data sheet. With that out of the way, how well does it work against H5N1? Efficacy-wise it has little-appreciated broad-spectrum antiviral properties. and has specifically demonstrated potent virucidal activity against H1N1 (H5N1 not yet tested to my knowledge). Interestingly, there is also a patent application for this indication. Taken together it could credibly be better.
For balance, Tamiflu is also associated with many of the same common adverse side effects including nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea or abdominal pain. Side effects typically occur along a distribution of individual susceptibility and should be tolerable for most for all three drugs. However, efficacy wise, aspirin and methylene blue are both credible candidates at outperforming the benefits of Tamiflu against H5N1.
Thank you for your comment. I will highlight specifically which parts are my opinion in the future.
Before:
Aspirin is a credible better candidate than Tamiflu. First off safety profile because you need to weigh up risks and benefits. Short term usage (what you’re interested in for acute viral infections) is associated with GI upset, but only marginally more than placebo. There are of course other considerations that should be taken into account, but for the majority of users short term usage of aspirin is safe. Special note here about the association with aspirin and Reye’s syndrome in children, the incidence of this is extremely low, but it is worth considering if your patient is under 16. In terms of efficacy against H5N1, it has demonstrated great success in vitro and in vivo acting via its NF-κB-inhibiting activity.
Methylene blue is also a credible better candidate than Tamiflu. Starting again with safety profile the gist is short term usage is generally safe unless you happen to be contraindicated. There are a few reasons and these briefly (NOT comprehensive do not take medicine based off this comment alone) (i) if you are at risk of serotonin syndrome (ii) known hypersensitivity (iii) severe renal impairment. If you are considering this medication I implore you to read at least the following data sheet. With that out of the way, how well does it work against H5N1? Efficacy-wise it has little-appreciated broad-spectrum antiviral properties. and has specifically demonstrated potent virucidal activity against H1N1 (H5N1 not yet tested to my knowledge). Interestingly, there is also a patent application for this indication. Taken together it could credibly be better.
For balance, Tamiflu is also associated with many of the same common adverse side effects including nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea or abdominal pain. Side effects typically occur along a distribution of individual susceptibility and should be tolerable for most for all three drugs. However, efficacy wise, aspirin and methylene blue are both credible candidates at outperforming the benefits of Tamiflu against H5N1.
After:
Aspirin
First, consider aspirin’s safety profile. For short-term use—relevant in acute infections—the risks are minimal for most individuals. GI upset, often cited as a concern, is only marginally higher than placebo (source: PMC3586117). The notable exception is its association with Reye’s syndrome in children, but this is exceptionally rare. The risk-benefit calculus remains favorable for adults, particularly in acute scenarios.
Efficacy-wise, aspirin’s NF-κB-inhibiting activity shows promise as an antiviral. It has demonstrated robust effects against H5N1 in vitro and in vivo (source: Wiley). This pathway is a compelling mechanism of action that Tamiflu does not directly address, positioning aspirin as a strong candidate for consideration.
Methylene blue
Next, methylene blue is another plausible alternative. Its safety profile for short-term use is generally acceptable, barring contraindications such as risk of serotonin syndrome, hypersensitivity, or severe renal impairment (source: Medsafe). For those without contraindications, it represents a well-tolerated option.
Methylene blue’s broad-spectrum antiviral properties are underappreciated. It has shown potent virucidal activity against H1N1 (source: PMC8275569), and while H5N1-specific data is lacking, the mechanism of action suggests potential efficacy. Notably, there’s already a patent application exploring its antiviral indications (source: WO2007086995A2). Given this, methylene blue is a viable contender worthy of further clinical study.
Comparing with Tamiflu
Tamiflu has well-documented side effects—nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain—that overlap with the profiles of both aspirin and methylene blue (source: Medsafe Tamiflu). While tolerable for most, its mild benefits against H5N1 are unlikely to significantly outperform the mechanistic potential of aspirin or methylene blue (source: JHEOR).
Conclusion
In a pandemic preparedness scenario, Aspirin and Methylene blue deserve serious consideration alongside Tamiflu. They offer distinct mechanisms of action, robust preliminary data, and manageable safety profiles. If you’re prioritizing interventions that maximize cost-effectiveness and theoretical efficacy, these “old drugs” might hold the key to new antiviral strategies. Rational prioritization of research and clinical trials could unlock their full potential.
LessWrong, is this rational? I wrote a reply to Elizabeth’s open bid for answers to her research questions in good faith. She replies not with anything substantive, but to claim it is written with AI. I’m happy for her to disagree with my answer, but flagging a difference in style to suggest low quality is not what I thought this community was supposed to be about. Cynically, one could suggest she doesn’t want to make good on her offer … For the record, I wrote it late at night and ran the response through an LLM to improve readability for her benefit.
If you don’t know what I’m talking about, see the most disliked comment on her post :)
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/bFvEpE4atK4pPEirx/correct-my-h5n1-research-usdreward
Haotian’s Shortform
Why is reference to further clinical study weird? It is a credible alternative not a mainstream, thoroughly researched alternative.
“Is there something better than tamiflu?”—Thank you for posing this question, I enjoyed researching it.
I’m going to propose two candidates that could be superior against H5N1: Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) and Methylene blue (methylthioninium chloride).
Aspirin
First, consider aspirin’s safety profile. For short-term use—relevant in acute infections—the risks are minimal for most individuals. GI upset, often cited as a concern, is only marginally higher than placebo (source: PMC3586117). The notable exception is its association with Reye’s syndrome in children, but this is exceptionally rare. The risk-benefit calculus remains favorable for adults, particularly in acute scenarios.
Efficacy-wise, aspirin’s NF-κB-inhibiting activity shows promise as an antiviral. It has demonstrated robust effects against H5N1 in vitro and in vivo (source: Wiley). This pathway is a compelling mechanism of action that Tamiflu does not directly address, positioning aspirin as a strong candidate for consideration.
Methylene blue
Next, methylene blue is another plausible alternative. Its safety profile for short-term use is generally acceptable, barring contraindications such as risk of serotonin syndrome, hypersensitivity, or severe renal impairment (source: Medsafe). For those without contraindications, it represents a well-tolerated option.
Methylene blue’s broad-spectrum antiviral properties are underappreciated. It has shown potent virucidal activity against H1N1 (source: PMC8275569), and while H5N1-specific data is lacking, the mechanism of action suggests potential efficacy. Notably, there’s already a patent application exploring its antiviral indications (source: WO2007086995A2). Given this, methylene blue is a viable contender worthy of further clinical study.
Comparing with Tamiflu
Tamiflu has well-documented side effects—nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain—that overlap with the profiles of both aspirin and methylene blue (source: Medsafe Tamiflu). While tolerable for most, its mild benefits against H5N1 are unlikely to significantly outperform the mechanistic potential of aspirin or methylene blue (source: JHEOR).
Conclusion
In a pandemic preparedness scenario, Aspirin and Methylene blue deserve serious consideration alongside Tamiflu. They offer distinct mechanisms of action, robust preliminary data, and manageable safety profiles. If you’re prioritizing interventions that maximize cost-effectiveness and theoretical efficacy, these “old drugs” might hold the key to new antiviral strategies. Rational prioritization of research and clinical trials could unlock their full potential.
Disclaimer: I am not your doctor, please see a medical professional for personalized advice. The information presented is only for the interests of research and should not be interpreted as clinical advice.
“Xofluza is more effective than Tamiflu but I can’t find anywhere to buy it online”
Both drugs are prescription-only medications so you would need a valid prescription to access it. Telehealth would suffice for prescription and online pharmacies can home deliver.
If I get more time later today I will update this comment.
I would update positively on your belief that gargling improved absorption. Route of administration is an extremely undervalued consideration by clinicians and patients when prescribing medication. Oral medication via pills need to pass through many more layers (GI tract, first pass metabolism in the liver) before it reaches your circulation by then effects can be greatly diluted. This has implications for pill design because manufactures need to coat it with excipients and coatings to ‘deliver the package’ so to speak. The understanding is that patients generally prefer tablets, but if you are targeting efficacy I would say other routes are almost always preferred (e.g. IV iron infusion over iron tablets, NSAID suppository for back pain over oral tablets). This information is for general education only and is not medical advice. Please consult your doctor for personalized guidance.
Thank you for your comment. I get what you mean. I predict with the increasingly intelligence and adoption of AI, that technical skills will become lower valued, whereas the creativity/generativity/coordination skills you refer to will take their place. I draw a comparison to how being able to “code a website” infers downtrending levels of skill today compared to 10 years ago, 20 years … etc.
Agreed with respect to better way to teach maths. However, noting that teaching like this requires students who want to learn like this which is almost always going to be the minority. For folks interested/enjoy this perspective, I encourage you to read A Mathematician’s Lament by Paul Lockhart.