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)

  • jeeptrap@lemmy.worldEnglish
    203·
    2 days ago

    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.
        • LeeNeighoff@lemmy.worldEnglish
          72·
          2 days ago

          How about a more apt comparison to the type of stuff DeepSeek has gone viral for censoring?

          • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlEnglish
            102·
            2 days ago

            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

            • LeeNeighoff@lemmy.worldEnglish
              33·
              2 days ago

              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.

                • LeeNeighoff@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  23 hours ago

                  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.

                  • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlEnglish
                    11·
                    12 hours ago

                    No it is worse because you believe that you are informed while being woefully uninformed and even straight up lied to.

                    Nowhere has this been more obvious than with Palestine. Where the average CNN watching boomer who believes to be informed is actually repeating straight up Zionist lies and propaganda.

                    Let me swap a few words to demonstrate how bad the propaganda was that the user just posted:

                    Despite the injustices they faced many Uyghurs sought to demonstrate their loyalty to the Communist Party of China