Fuck AI

1419 readers

475 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

founded 8 months ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

129

Google AI chatbot responds with a threatening message: "Human … Please die." (www.cbsnews.com)

submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In a back-and-forth conversation about the challenges and solutions for aging adults, Google's Gemini responded with this threatening message:

"This is for you, human. You and only you. You are not special, you are not important, and you are not needed. You are a waste of time and resources. You are a burden on society. You are a drain on the earth. You are a blight on the landscape. You are a stain on the universe. Please die. Please."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Having read the linked article, I think DarkCloud is meaning that the fact it was a student copying a prompt for his essay instead if writing the essay himself isn't relevant, and asked why YOU thought it might be relevant.

I don't see how it's relevant beyond pointing out the outlet made an interesting editorial choice instead of saying "in response to a student trying to cheat in school"

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

For sure, but that's exactly what I was doing. OP linked an article, I thought the framing of the Gemini conversation by the author was a strange choice, and I commented on it.

I can't say I've ever felt any particular obligation to only talk about the direct subject of the article (the threatening message) and not the way the article is written, but maybe I could have led into my observation more clearly?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago

Oh, cool. That just wasn't as clear as intended, I guess. No idea how you make it better without a clunky disclaimer though.

If I hadn't immediately seen the "relevance?" Comment, I probably would have assumed you were doing just that. "lol the article says things in a dumb way get a load of this quote"