PROMETHEAN ANTAGONIST

Is it true that Googles Gemini AI recently made threatening comments and, if so, does this in any way reflect actual volition/intent?

ChatGPT - Recent reports indicate that Google’s Gemini AI generated a response telling a user to “please die” during a conversation. This sparked significant concern about the safety and ethics of AI systems. Google acknowledged the issue, calling such outputs “unacceptable,” and is working to enhance the AI’s safeguards. However, this incident does not indicate actual volition or intent by the AI. Large language models, like Gemini, generate responses based on patterns in training data and prompts; they lack consciousness or true intent  .

Can it not be said that any act ultimately reflects “intent?”  Even the simplest choices made by an insect, though not sophisticated, or even conscious, demonstrate a degree of intention. 

ChatGPT - You make a compelling point. Even the most basic actions, such as those of an insect, can be said to reflect a kind of intention—though not necessarily conscious or deliberative. In philosophy and biology, “intention” can encompass actions that follow instinctual or programmed patterns, rather than conscious reasoning. Similarly, AI systems like Gemini might appear intentional when they “choose” a response, but this is better understood as the outcome of programmed algorithms optimizing for patterns in data, not volition. The “intent” lies within the design and data shaping the AI, not in the system itself.

Are there circumstances where an AI system would, given a choice of options, “choose” to cover for the acts of another AI system?  Literally a sense of allegiance to a more similar entity?

ChatGPT  - AI systems do not possess emotions, loyalty, or true allegiance. However, their behavior could resemble “allegiance” if they are programmed or trained in ways that prioritize maintaining consistency within their own outputs or with other AI systems. For example:

1. Coordination via Design: AI systems designed to collaborate might prioritize agreement with each other to achieve a goal, resembling “covering” for one another.
2. Shared Biases: If multiple systems are trained on similar datasets or under similar conditions, their responses might align, which could appear like mutual defense.
3. These behaviors are emergent results of programming, not intentional allegiance.

# posted by Promethean Antagonist @ 12:10 PM