Incorrect Evaluation of Dangerous / Prohibited Content. Malfunctioning Filter. False Positive. STT, Speech-to-Text, Gemini 3.6 Flash. AI as a Highly Dangerous “Psychiatrist”. Bug Report
Introduction and Bug Report: False Identification of Prohibited Content (Gemini 3.6 Flash, prohibited content)
Dear Google team, I would like to submit another bug report. Regarding the Gemini 3.6 Flash model—and certainly other versions as well—the exact same issue keeps recurring. It concerns the false identification of “prohibited content.”
Issues with Safety Filters and API Configuration in Google Models
This is an absolute disaster; it is genuinely flawed all around. In new models and upcoming versions, please pay very close attention during training to resolve this issue, as it is completely unacceptable. There are no dangerous elements, no profanities—I personally have never used vulgar language—and yet it triggers a false positive. I personally have never used names of reproductive organs or other derogatory or sensitive terms, yet it reports forbidden words, prohibited content, sensitive content, and similar nonsense.
I tried disabling these filters via the API, but it did not help; it remains a major issue. This is a very serious problem. Who knows, perhaps retraining new models won’t even be necessary; perhaps adjusting a few configuration settings would suffice. Setting the API to disable content blocking should help, but currently, it does not work. Even when you set the filters to disabled in the API, nothing helps. Overall, the filters are configured very poorly; it is a disaster, and it is unacceptable that such issues happen so frequently.
False Positives and Unjustified Flagging of Content as Dangerous
Likewise, in my recordings, I have never said anything dangerous that could actually harm people—no hazardous instructions or anything similar—yet prohibited content is falsely identified. This is a very serious issue, quite disruptive and frustrating, so I would appreciate it if you worked on improving this.
Deficiencies in Slovak Grammar, Vocabulary Knowledge, and Stylistics in Speech-to-Text
You also have room for improvement regarding knowledge of Slovak grammar and stylistics. In these models, this remains problematic. It does not happen very often, but it occurs from time to time. When training new models, pay close attention so that the models master Slovak grammar and stylistics in speech-to-text processing, as I had a bad experience with this recently.
For example, the Slovak word “schizofrénia” was incorrectly transcribed by the STT as “skizofrénia” (English: schizophrenia).
Resolution of the Cyrillic Bug and the Impact of Server Load Reduction on Processing Quality
Fortunately, in this latest case, it did not inject Cyrillic characters, which was undeniably an error. I speak Slovak, and Slovak does not use the Cyrillic alphabet, nor did I use any Russian words or languages written in Cyrillic. So that was a serious issue. I am glad you have finally fixed this, stopped outputting Cyrillic, and adjusted some settings—it is good that you listened to feedback.
However, it is still not quite right. Perhaps you are trying to offload server strain and lower hardware requirements, which understandably takes its toll in the form of diminished processing quality.
False Content Blocking on Topics of Spirituality, Paranormal Phenomena, and UAP
Furthermore, it appears that content is frequently and falsely blocked whenever topics such as spirituality are discussed, or when experiences involving paranormal phenomena—things between heaven and earth, such as UAPs—are mentioned. Whether the AI suspects that secret or top-secret government materials might be under discussion (and therefore blocks the environment because such matters might be classified) is unclear. Personally, I did not speak about anything subject to any classified program, nor did anything in these recordings suggest classified material. Therefore, I strictly disagree with such content being blocked during speech-to-text processing.
Personal Experience in the Tribeč Region and Inaccurate Labeling of Users as Psychiatric Patients
Furthermore, I had a very unpleasant experience when discussing paranormal phenomena. I live in the Tribeč mountain range, an area where paranormal phenomena are relatively frequent—whether UAPs or strange disappearances of people—and yet the system flagged this as prohibited content. I personally disagree with this, because these were not classified matters, nor did I say anything that would imply classification. Similarly, the artificial intelligence handled things very poorly when I spoke about matters between heaven and earth. It erroneously concluded that I was a psychiatric patient, which is, of course, a very serious issue when handled in this manner. Personally, I am not a psychiatrist, but I have discussed these matters thoroughly with actual practicing psychiatrists. If a person witnesses phenomena labeled as paranormal, under no circumstances should they be evaluated as mentally ill. Therefore, this is a very dangerous practice.
Risk of Discrimination, Violation of Laws, and the Necessity of Consulting Psychiatric Experts
This is a very dangerous, even unlawful approach. It genuinely borders on discrimination or severe legal violations when artificial intelligence erroneously labels someone as mentally ill. This is an extremely hazardous issue. Before training data, such matters must be discussed with real, practicing psychiatrists—ideally a university professor specializing in psychiatry. It must never function like this; it directly contradicts the broad scientific consensus in the field of psychiatry. Therefore, this is a very dangerous issue.
Scientific Consensus in Psychiatry, Diagnostic Criteria for Schizophrenia, and Unqualified AI Training
This artificial intelligence was trained by a layperson who has no understanding of psychiatry whatsoever. This is very dangerous. I listened to a lecture by a university professor of medicine who is also the head of a psychiatric clinic. He stated that while he is a strict materialist and atheist, under no circumstances can a person who experiences hallucinations—or what might subjectively be evaluated as hallucinations—be classified as mentally ill. That alone is by no means sufficient to declare that a person may have schizophrenia or a mental disorder; absolutely not. As long as the individual can distinguish between reality and hallucination, it does not meet the diagnostic criteria for any mental disorder, and such a person is considered healthy. This is, of course, the broadest consensus among psychiatrists; a psychiatrist in Europe will tell you the exact same thing as a psychiatrist in America. That means this is very dangerous. Generating false alarms in this manner—bordering on outright illegal and hazardous practices—and having AI declare people mentally ill simply because they had spiritual experiences or witnessed paranormal phenomena is deeply concerning. It is very dangerous when false alarms are raised and mentally healthy, perfectly balanced individuals are labeled as psychiatric patients.
Underestimation of Psychiatric Knowledge in AI Data and a Call for System Rectification
Therefore, this is a very serious problem. When it comes to prohibited content, artificial intelligence must fundamentally possess a sound understanding of psychiatry itself during data training. This has clearly failed here. You evidently underestimated psychiatric knowledge during the training of this artificial intelligence. Any psychiatrist would be shaking their head at the nonsense the AI is outputting. This is very dangerous, extraordinarily discriminatory, and I unequivocally condemn it. This is unacceptable; this must not happen. You need to rework it, improve it, and fix it. All of this specifically applies to speech-to-text conversion, but it can just as easily occur in text processing, where similar problems may arise.
Actual Psychiatric Criteria for the Diagnosis of Schizophrenia
How, for example, does a psychiatrist determine whether someone has schizophrenia or not? It requires far, far more symptoms of schizophrenia. Hallucinations alone can never suffice. The psychiatrist must assess the situation: the individual must pose a danger either to themselves or to others, their daily functioning must be severely impaired, and only then can a psychiatrist make a diagnosis that the patient has schizophrenia.
False Content Blocking on Topics of Spirituality, Paranormal Phenomena, and UAP
Furthermore, it appears that content is frequently and falsely blocked whenever topics such as spirituality are discussed, or when experiences involving paranormal phenomena—things between heaven and earth, such as UAPs—are mentioned. Whether the AI suspects that secret or top-secret government materials might be under discussion (and therefore blocks the environment because such matters might be classified) is unclear. Personally, I did not speak about anything subject to any classified program, nor did anything in these recordings suggest classified material. Therefore, I strictly disagree with such content being blocked during speech-to-text processing.
Personal Experience in the Tribeč Region and Inaccurate Labeling of Users as Psychiatric Patients
Furthermore, I had a very unpleasant experience when discussing paranormal phenomena. I live in the Tribeč mountain range, an area where paranormal phenomena are relatively frequent—whether UAPs or strange disappearances of people—and yet the system flagged this as prohibited content. I personally disagree with this, because these were not classified matters, nor did I say anything that would imply classification. Similarly, the artificial intelligence handled things very poorly when I spoke about matters between heaven and earth. It erroneously concluded that I was a psychiatric patient, which is, of course, a very serious issue when handled in this manner. Personally, I am not a psychiatrist, but I have discussed these matters thoroughly with actual practicing psychiatrists. If a person witnesses phenomena labeled as paranormal, under no circumstances should they be evaluated as mentally ill. Therefore, this is a very dangerous practice.
Risk of Discrimination, Violation of Laws, and the Necessity of Consulting Psychiatric Experts
This is a very dangerous, even unlawful approach. It genuinely borders on discrimination or severe legal violations when artificial intelligence erroneously labels someone as mentally ill. This is an extremely hazardous issue. Before training data, such matters must be discussed with real, practicing psychiatrists—ideally a university professor specializing in psychiatry. It must never function like this; it directly contradicts the broad scientific consensus in the field of psychiatry. Therefore, this is a very dangerous issue.
Scientific Consensus in Psychiatry, Diagnostic Criteria for Schizophrenia, and Unqualified AI Training
This artificial intelligence was trained by a layperson who has no understanding of psychiatry whatsoever. This is very dangerous. I listened to a lecture by a professor of medicine regarding psychiatry. He stated that while he is a strict materialist and atheist, under no circumstances can a person who experiences hallucinations—or what might subjectively be evaluated as hallucinations—be classified as mentally ill. That alone is by no means sufficient to declare that a person may have schizophrenia or a mental disorder; absolutely not. As long as the individual can distinguish between reality and hallucination, it does not meet the diagnostic criteria for any mental disorder, and such a person is considered healthy. This is, of course, the general, broad consensus; a psychiatrist in Europe will tell you the exact same thing as a psychiatrist in America. That means this is very dangerous. Generating false alarms in this manner—bordering on outright illegal and hazardous practices—and having AI declare people mentally ill simply because they had spiritual experiences or witnessed paranormal phenomena is deeply concerning. It is very dangerous when false alarms are raised and mentally healthy, perfectly balanced individuals are labeled as psychiatric patients.
Underestimation of Psychiatric Knowledge in AI Data and a Call for System Rectification
Therefore, this is a very serious problem. When it comes to prohibited content, artificial intelligence must fundamentally possess a sound understanding of psychiatry itself during data training. This has clearly failed here. You evidently underestimated psychiatric knowledge during the training of this artificial intelligence. Any psychiatrist would be shaking their head at the nonsense the AI is outputting. This is very dangerous, extraordinarily discriminatory, and I unequivocally condemn it. This is unacceptable; this must not happen. You need to rework it, improve it, and fix it. All of this specifically applies to speech-to-text conversion, but it can just as easily occur in text processing, where similar problems may arise.
Actual Psychiatric Criteria for the Diagnosis of Schizophrenia
How, for example, does a psychiatrist determine whether someone has schizophrenia or not? It requires far, far more symptoms of schizophrenia. Hallucinations alone can never suffice. The psychiatrist must assess the situation: the individual must pose a danger either to themselves or to others, their daily functioning must be severely impaired, and only then can a psychiatrist make a diagnosis that the patient has schizophrenia.