3 ms·
No, the word harm is in no way watered down, you just completely miss the context. "We don't our AI buddy saying some shit that would come back and monetarily
by pixl97 2y ago
No, the word harm is in no way watered down, you just completely miss the context.
"We don't our AI buddy saying some shit that would come back and monetarily harm Google".
And yes, the representatives of companies are censored. If you think you're going to go to work and tell your co-workers and customers to "catch boogeraids and die in a fire" you'll be escorted off the property. Most companies, Google included, probably don't want their AIs telling people the same.
There are places we need uncensored AIs, but in no way, shape, or form is Google required to provide you with one of them.
- gotoeleven 2y agoThats not what they mean by harm here. I get that you're being cool and cynical but they're using "harm" in the sense of words can cause harm therefore we are justified in censoring them. Google would be fully justified, I believe, in having a disclaimer that said "gemini will not provide answers on certain topics because they will cause Google bad PR." But that's not what they're saying. They're saying they won't provide certain answers because putting certain ideas to words harms the world and Google doesn't want to harm the world. The latter reason is far more insidious.
- pixl97 2y agoI mean both are true. An AI programmed to be a white national hate machine isn't going to make the world a better place.
- Animats 2y ago> There are places we need uncensored AIs, but in no way, shape, or form is Google required to provide you with one of them. Unless you contract for one. Someone will probably do that for medical and police transcription. Building a product on a public API was probably a mistake.