4 ms·

Hmmm. I have a "saved" history in Google Gemini. The reason I put "saved" in scare quotes is that Google feels free to change the parts of that history that we

Hmmm. I have a "saved" history in Google Gemini. The reason I put "saved" in scare quotes is that Google feels free to change the parts of that history that were supplied by Gemini. They no longer match my external records of what was said. Does ChatGPT do the same thing? I'd be queasy about relying on this as evidence.

x______________ 1y ago
Could you post some details about this or make a write-up? I'd be interested in reading more about this.
- thaumasiotes 1y ago
  I'm not sure what details would add. What happened: 1. I engaged with Gemini. 2. I found the results wanting, and pasted them into comment threads elsewhere on the internet, observing that they tended to support the common criticism of LLMs as being "meaning-blind". 3. Later, I went back and viewed the "history" of my "saved" session. 4. My prompts were not changed, but the responses from Gemini were different. Because of the comment threads, it was easy for me to verify that I was remembering the original exchange correctly and Google was indulging in some revision of history.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - kshacker 1y ago
    Not trying to excuse google but wonder why that happens. I have had my own issues with ChatGPT memory but that's more like it forgets the context and spits out something gibberish at a later invocation counter to what it said earlier in the thread. But that's because it is buggy. Rewriting history requires computes which is more malicious. Why would someone burn compute to rewrite your stuff given that rewrites are not free? Once again not defending google trying to think through what's going on.
    - thaumasiotes 1y ago
      My best guess is that when they changed the model backing "Gemini" they regenerated the conversations. I can't think of any reason it would make sense to do that, though.
    - jonbiggums22 1y ago
      Maybe they use some kind of response caching to save resources and the original pointer is now pointing to a newer response to the same question? Still would be an insane way to do that for a history log unless they're trying to memory hole previous instances of past poor performances or wrong think.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - IIAOPSW 1y ago
    The fact that this happened and that you have evidence of it make it enormously interesting even if the actual substance of the prompts and the response are mundane as hell. Please post.
  - crazygringo 1y ago
    If this is verifiably true, you should contact a journalist. Meaning if it's still in your Gemini history and the comments you posted are still up. This would be a major tech news story. "Google LLM rewriting user history" would be a scandal. And since online evidence is used in court, it could have significant legal implications. You'd be helping people. This is much too important to merely be a comment on HN.
  - x______________ 1y ago
    Interesting! Would you be willing to publicly share what prompts, and what initial and "regenerated" responses you obtained?
kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
ChatGPT will generate output and immediately censor it if some oversight code deems it problematic. Ask about court decisions in sex crime cases without being creepy and you can see it in action.

x______________ 1y ago

Could you post some details about this or make a write-up? I'd be interested in reading more about this.

thaumasiotes 1y ago
I'm not sure what details would add. What happened: 1. I engaged with Gemini. 2. I found the results wanting, and pasted them into comment threads elsewhere on the internet, observing that they tended to support the common criticism of LLMs as being "meaning-blind". 3. Later, I went back and viewed the "history" of my "saved" session. 4. My prompts were not changed, but the responses from Gemini were different. Because of the comment threads, it was easy for me to verify that I was remembering the original exchange correctly and Google was indulging in some revision of history.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- kshacker 1y ago
  Not trying to excuse google but wonder why that happens. I have had my own issues with ChatGPT memory but that's more like it forgets the context and spits out something gibberish at a later invocation counter to what it said earlier in the thread. But that's because it is buggy. Rewriting history requires computes which is more malicious. Why would someone burn compute to rewrite your stuff given that rewrites are not free? Once again not defending google trying to think through what's going on.
  - thaumasiotes 1y ago
    My best guess is that when they changed the model backing "Gemini" they regenerated the conversations. I can't think of any reason it would make sense to do that, though.
  - jonbiggums22 1y ago
    Maybe they use some kind of response caching to save resources and the original pointer is now pointing to a newer response to the same question? Still would be an insane way to do that for a history log unless they're trying to memory hole previous instances of past poor performances or wrong think.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- IIAOPSW 1y ago
  The fact that this happened and that you have evidence of it make it enormously interesting even if the actual substance of the prompts and the response are mundane as hell. Please post.
- crazygringo 1y ago
  If this is verifiably true, you should contact a journalist. Meaning if it's still in your Gemini history and the comments you posted are still up. This would be a major tech news story. "Google LLM rewriting user history" would be a scandal. And since online evidence is used in court, it could have significant legal implications. You'd be helping people. This is much too important to merely be a comment on HN.
- x______________ 1y ago
  Interesting! Would you be willing to publicly share what prompts, and what initial and "regenerated" responses you obtained?

kevin_thibedeau 1y ago

ChatGPT will generate output and immediately censor it if some oversight code deems it problematic. Ask about court decisions in sex crime cases without being creepy and you can see it in action.