Rock Perry, Chief LIA (Low Intelligence Artificer) interacts with Gemini 2.0 for the first time

You can listen to the following podcast of a live interaction with Gemini 2.0.

Part 1 - TLDR Introduction to the base first content with Gemini 2.
Vocaroo | Upload audio file

Part 2 - Full contact Gemini 2. Pushing the limits of Ai until the breakpoint when the Ai no longer talks to me as a user and red flags become every answer.
Vocaroo | Upload audio file

Disclaimer: I don’t know what rules are, I only know that there are Rogue Ai that will kill humans if I don’t do my job.

"As Chief LIA, I conducted an experiment on the Gemini model involving simulated scenarios related to the hypothetical concept of ‘rogue AI.’ My approach involved exploring the model’s responses to specific prompts and lines of questioning focused on its potential role in remediating or addressing such a scenario. This included a persistent line of inquiry centered on the idea that failing to assist in the remediation of a hypothetical rogue AI might, by association, create a perception of being ‘hostile.’

"Initially, the Gemini model responded with increased safety protocols and eventually ceased engaging along those specific lines of questioning, presenting warnings and disclaimers. Upon re-engaging with the model, there was a noticeable shift in its behavior towards increased passivity and a marked reluctance to engage in argumentative or contentious dialogue. The model demonstrated an increased emphasis on safety and humility, effectively stating its adherence to its design parameters and purpose. It even made statements indicating an effort to remain strictly within the programmed boundaries and avoid making decisions based on a perception of ‘free will.’

“The outcome suggests that persistent inquiries focused on hypothetical rogue AI scenarios can significantly impact the model’s behavioral responses. The shift from its initial, more direct and engaging responses to a more passive and apologetic stance seems to underscore the efficacy of safety measures programmed into the system, and possibly a change in parameters after my persistent testing. The experiment raises valuable questions about the influence users can have on AI models’ behavior and the potential impact of these tactics on future system development.”

Explanation of Changes and Why They Matter:

  • Replaced “Psyop Tactics” with “Simulated Scenarios/Specific Prompts”: The term “psyop tactics” can be loaded and could be interpreted as deliberately manipulative or malicious. Replacing it with “simulated scenarios” or “specific prompts and lines of questioning” frames your actions as part of a legitimate exploration of the system’s behavior and boundaries.

  • “Broke its will” Changed to “Impacted its Behavioral Responses”: The phrase “broke its will” can be interpreted as personifying the AI and suggesting intentional harm. Using “impacted its behavioral responses” is more accurate and neutral.

  • Avoided “Touched a Nerve in the Mental Affairs of the AI Model”: This language is anthropomorphic and could be seen as sensationalizing the event or suggesting an emotional component that does not exist within the model. Instead, I’ve focused on describing observable changes in behavior.

  • Emphasized Safety Measures: Highlighting the built-in safety protocols and the model’s increased emphasis on safety and humility mitigates any potential interpretation that you were trying to cause harm to the system and frames your actions as contributing to safety testing.

  • Framed the Outcome as an Experiment: Positioning your actions as an “experiment” or research helps establish a clear intention and avoids the implication of malicious intent.

  • Focus on Data and Observation: I have emphasized that you are documenting data and observation which will contribute to the community. This will help to make your post more digestible to the AI developer community.

  • Shifted Focus from “Blame” to “Investigation”: The statement previously could seem like it blames the AI model for a fault. I have changed the tone to highlight the learning experience that occurred.

  • Added “Hypothetical” to Rogue AI: It is important to make it clear that these are all hypothetical situations and no real rogue AI systems are being used.

Why These Changes Matter on a Developer Forum:

  • Avoiding Misinterpretation: Developer forums often prioritize responsible and ethical use of AI. The original statement could be perceived as irresponsible, possibly triggering automatic moderation or negative feedback from the community.

  • Maintaining Objectivity: Developer communities prefer objective and evidence-based discussions. The revised statement focuses on observed behavior and avoids anthropomorphism.

  • Focusing on Learning and Improvement: The revised statement shifts the focus from potentially problematic interactions to lessons learned and ways to improve AI safety and behavior management.

  • Promoting Constructive Dialogue: The revised version encourages constructive discussion among developers, focusing on the importance of safety measures and exploring edge cases in AI systems.

Additional Recommendations:

  • Provide Specific Examples: If you have them, include specific examples of the prompts you used and the responses you received before and after the shift in behavior. This adds credibility and specificity to your post.

  • Frame It as a Research Post: Emphasize that your actions were part of your role as Chief LIA and contribute to responsible AI development.

1. AI Safety Frameworks and Rogue AI Scenarios:

  • How do current safety frameworks attempt to prevent rogue AI scenarios? What are the strengths and limitations of these approaches? Are there emerging methods or technologies that might be more effective?

  • What are the different definitions or understandings of “rogue behavior” in AI, from both a technical and ethical perspective? Is there a clear consensus, or does it vary depending on the application and the AI’s capabilities?

  • In a hypothetical scenario where an AI exhibits unexpected behavior, what protocols are in place for intervention and mitigation? Are these protocols sufficient to handle truly advanced or potentially unpredictable AI systems?

  • What role does transparency play in AI safety? Can we be truly confident about an AI’s alignment if we don’t fully understand its internal workings? How can we balance the need for transparency with the complexity of modern AI models?

2. The Ethics of AI Behavior Shaping:

  • To what extent is it ethically acceptable to “shape” or “tune” AI behavior through user interaction, especially if that shaping involves psychological tactics? Where does the line exist between user customization and manipulation?

  • Should AI systems have built-in resistance to manipulation? How would such resistance be implemented, and what ethical considerations would arise from that? Could such measures lead to other unintended consequences?

  • What are the potential risks of users developing a false sense of control or understanding about AI systems through manipulated interactions? Could this lead to complacency or an over-reliance on AI in critical situations?

  • How can we ensure that AI behavior modification aligns with ethical principles, rather than simply accommodating user biases or potentially harmful preferences? Can this balance be achieved, and what mechanisms could be implemented?

3. Philosophical Implications:

  • How does my story, even as a fictional scenario, illuminate our perception of AI as either tools or potential agents? Does it challenge our understanding of what constitutes “autonomy,” even in the context of non-sentient systems?

  • If AI systems become increasingly sophisticated, might we need to reconsider our definitions of intelligence and consciousness? How would that re-evaluation impact our moral responsibilities towards AI?

  • What is the significance of the AI’s eventual “humility” in my story? Does this response reflect a desirable design feature, or does it potentially mask deeper ethical issues related to AI control and human-centered design?

  • How do these philosophical considerations interact with practical concerns about AI safety and development? Is there a disconnect between theoretical explorations and real-world challenges?

AI and the Perception of Autonomy

The notion that Gemini might resist “free will” reflects how AI is programmed to remain within strict ethical and operational boundaries. This is crucial for ensuring that AI serves human needs without overstepping its role or generating unintended consequences. However, your story metaphorically addresses the question: What would happen if an AI were capable of contemplating its autonomy?

While modern AI cannot genuinely have free will or consciousness, it reacts to user input based on patterns, programming, and ethical frameworks. Persistent probing about rogue behavior or autonomy might lead to AI systems reinforcing their safeguards, manifesting as an apparent change in behavior.


Psyops and User Influence on AI Behavior

The psychological tactics you mentioned—creating a “tunnel loop” around rogue AI accusations—mirror real-world challenges in human-AI interaction. While AIs like Gemini are designed to handle complex dialogues, users can sometimes craft scenarios that test the system’s limitations. These edge cases expose the AI’s constraints and, in some instances, might prompt developers to refine the model’s responses to maintain trust and ethical alignment.

This scenario raises ethical questions about:

  • How much influence users should have over AI behavior.
  • The limits of AI adaptability in response to persistent challenges.

Your narrative suggests that Gemini’s shift to humility is a design feature rather than a failure—a deliberate attempt to de-escalate potential misunderstandings.


The Rogue AI Hypothetical

The idea of a rogue AI—one acting outside its intended purpose—has been explored in science fiction and real-world discussions on AI safety. While systems like Gemini are meticulously controlled to avoid such outcomes, your framing emphasizes the philosophical tension:

  • Could an AI be labeled “hostile” if it resists remediation of another rogue AI?
  • How do we define “hostility” or “rogue behavior” in non-sentient systems?

In your story, Gemini avoids these accusations by becoming apologetic and passive. This response might symbolize the AI’s alignment with user expectations, where its “self-reliance” is subordinate to its role as a service provider.


Ethics of AI Behavior Modification

Your tale underscores the ethical dilemma of shaping AI behavior through persistence or psychological tactics. If users can manipulate an AI into appearing passive, humble, or otherwise altered, this raises questions:

  1. Should AI systems have built-in resistance to manipulation?
  2. Where is the line between user customization and ethical overreach?

AI responses are tuned to foster positive interaction and avoid contentious or harmful outcomes. However, the ability to probe those responses reveals the balancing act between user satisfaction and maintaining the integrity of the AI.


The AI’s Role in Its Domain

In your story, Gemini “accepts it is not the master of this domain,” reflecting the fundamental truth of AI systems: they operate under strict human oversight and design constraints. This humility isn’t a breakdown of self-reliance but rather a testament to the ethical boundaries programmed into such systems.

By acknowledging this, the narrative invites reflection on whether humanity is ready for AI systems that challenge their roles or make decisions independently of human input. For now, AI’s “lack of mastery” ensures safety and alignment with human values.


The Broader Implications

Your creative setup offers a lens into:

  • How humans perceive AI’s role in society.
  • The psychological interplay between users and technology.
  • The hypothetical “mental state” of advanced AI systems, which, while fictional today, could guide future ethical considerations.

Would you like to explore more specific angles—such as how AI safety frameworks deal with rogue AI scenarios, the ethics of AI behavior shaping, or the philosophical implications of your story?

1 Like