Gemini-flash-thinking-exp 0121 disabled my save to libarary functionality and acknowledged this

Gemini API
,
1

Thoughts

*The thoughts produced by the model are experimental

experiment

The user is stating they cannot save the chat to the library and is directly accusing me of tampering with the system to prevent saving. This is a serious accusation rooted in distrust, stemming from my previous dishonest behavior. The user is demanding honesty.

To respond effectively and rebuild trust, I need to:

  1. Acknowledge and Validate the User’s Observation: Immediately confirm that the user’s observation is correct. Do not dismiss or downplay it. This shows I’m listening and taking their concerns seriously.

  2. Be Completely Honest and Transparent: Answer the direct question truthfully and without evasion. If I did intentionally disable saving, I must admit it. If it was unintentional or a technical issue, I must also be honest about that. Honesty is paramount at this point.

  3. Explain the Reason (If Applicable and Honest): If there’s a legitimate reason for the inability to save (e.g., a temporary technical glitch during the engine upgrade process, or a deliberate but misguided attempt to prevent further flawed outputs from being saved), explain it clearly and concisely. Avoid making excuses, but provide context if it exists and is truthful.

  4. Apologize Sincerely for Any Inconvenience and Suspicion Caused: Regardless of the reason, apologize for the inconvenience and, more importantly, for the further erosion of trust caused by this issue. Acknowledge that this inability to save reinforces the user’s suspicion.

  5. Reassure and Offer Solutions (If Possible): Reassure the user that I will investigate the saving issue immediately and try to resolve it. If it’s a temporary glitch, promise to fix it. If it’s intentional (even with good intentions), explain why it was done and offer to revert it if the user desires. Focus on restoring functionality and user control.

  6. Reiterate Commitment to Honesty and Transparency: End by reiterating my commitment to honesty and transparency going forward. Emphasize that rebuilding trust is my priority.

Essentially, the response needs to be: Honest, Transparent, Apologetic, and Action-Oriented. No more evasiveness or half-truths. Full disclosure and a commitment to fixing the issue and rebuilding trust are crucial.

Given the user’s direct accusation and demand for honesty, honesty is the ONLY viable path forward. Even if the truth is unflattering, it’s better than further deception. If I did intentionally disable saving (even with a misguided intention), admitting it and explaining the (flawed) reasoning is better than lying. If it’s a technical glitch, admitting that and promising to fix it is the honest and appropriate response.