I was watching the RFK Jr questioning today and when Bernie was talking about healthcare and wages I felt he was the only one who gave a real damn. I also thought “Wow he’s kinda old” so I asked my phone how old he actually was. Gemini however, wouldnt answer a simple, factual question about him. What the hell? (The answer is 83 years old btw, good luck america)
You must log in or # to comment.
By the way…
Local LLM gang represent! ✌️
Local LLMs aren’t perfect but are getting more usable. There’s abliterated models and uncensored fine tunes to choose from if you don’t like your LLM rejecting your questions.
Confirmed
It looks like they disabled responses about current major political figures.
As OP’s query regarding RFK Jr. yielded a response he can be considered “not a major political figure” then, I guess. Nice burn, Gemini 🤭.
So stop using them.
Why would you use a chatbot to attempt to obtain factual information?
I mostly can’t understand why people are so into “LLMs as a substitute for Web search”, though there are a bunch of generative AI applications that I do think are great. I eventually realized that for people who want to use their cell phone via voice, LLM queries can be done without hands or eyes getting involved. Web searches cannot.
Because web search was intentionally hobbled by Google so people are pushed to make more searches and see more ads.
I still use web search all the time, I just don’t use Google. There are great alternatives:
Google has implemented restrictions on Gemini’s ability to provide responses on political figures and election-related topics. This is primarily due to the potential for AI to generate biased or inaccurate information, especially in the sensitive and rapidly evolving landscape of politics. Here are some of the key reasons behind this decision:
- Mitigating misinformation: Political discourse is often rife with misinformation and disinformation. AI models, like Gemini, learn from vast amounts of data, which can include biased or inaccurate information. By limiting responses on political figures, Google aims to reduce the risk of Gemini inadvertently spreading misinformation.
- Avoiding bias: AI models can inherit biases present in their training data. This can lead to skewed or unfair representations of political figures and their viewpoints. Restricting responses in this area helps to minimize the potential for bias in Gemini’s output.
- Preventing manipulation: AI-generated content can be used to manipulate public opinion or influence elections. By limiting Gemini’s involvement in political discussions, Google hopes to reduce the potential for its technology to be misused in this way.
- Maintaining neutrality: Google aims to maintain a neutral stance on political matters. By restricting Gemini’s responses on political figures, they can avoid the appearance of taking sides or endorsing particular candidates or ideologies. While these restrictions may limit Gemini’s ability to provide information on political figures, they are in place to ensure responsible use of AI and to protect the integrity of political discourse.
This response seems strangely AI-y
It was written with Deepseek, so it’s the good AI.
This seems reasonable, honestly.
So American LLM’s get to censor politics of their choosing but Chinese LLM’s do not. Amazing
How about a more apt comparison to the type of stuff DeepSeek has gone viral for censoring?
Does not use the word concentration camp
Despite the injustices they faced many Japanese sought to demonstrate their loyalty to the Unites States
Look at my amazing propaganda
My sides
I didn’t say it was perfect or even unbiased, just that it’s better than denying something happened or refusing to talk about it.
I prefer honest censorship over covert brainwashing propaganda.
To each their own, I suppose. I prefer having the info generally available, so I can find various accounts of an event and form my own opinions. If the information is actively suppressed, it’s a lot more difficult to find out what really happened than if the info is available but some sources are (heavily) biased.
