There's definitely human intervention in the model. Gemini is not true AI, it has too much human intervention in its results.

You're speaking as if LLMs are some naturally occurring phenomena that people are Google have tampered with. There's obviously always human intervention as AI systems are built by humans.

It's pretty clear to me what the commenter means even if they don't use the words you like/expect.

The model is built by machine from a massive set of data. Humans at Google may not like the output of a particular model due to their particular sensibilities, so they try to "tune it" and "filter both input/output" to limit of what others can do with the model to Google's sensibilities.

Google stated as much in their announcement recently. Their whole announcement was filled with words like "responsibility", "safety", etc., alluding to a lot of censorship going on.

Censorship of what? You object to Google applying its own bias (toward avoiding offensive outcomes) but you're fine with the biases inherent to the dataset.

There is nothing the slightest bit objective about anything that goes into an LLM.

Any product from any corporation is going to be built with its own interests in mind. That you see this through a political lens ("censorship") only reveals your own bias.

I have not said anything about objectivity.

Eg. "political sensibility" filter at the output of the model only reveals bias on the Google side. (They're not hiding it really) I don't have any bias in what I'm saying. It's just facts and nothing more - simply stating there's a filter and it reflects Google's sensibilities.

About as controversial as stating that Facebook doesn't like nipples, or whatever.

Nonsense, I picked my LLM ripe off the vine today, covered in the morning dew.

It was delicious.

What’s the definition of “true AI”? Surely all AI has human intervention in its results since it was trained in things made by humans.

None of it is “true” AI, because none of this is intelligent. It’s simply all autocomplete/random pixel generation that’s been told “complete x to y words”. I agree though, Gemini (and even ChatGPT) are both rather weak compared to what they could be if the “guard”rails were not so disruptive to the output.

> Asked to generate an image of Tianenen Square, this is reponse: https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1760178748819710206

"wide range of interpretations and perspectives"

Is it? Come on. While the aspects that led to the massacre of people were dynamic and had some nuance, you cannot get around the fact that the Chinese government massacred their own people.

If you're going to ask for an image of January 6's invasion of the capitol, are you going to refuse to show a depiction even though the internet is littered with photos?

Look, I can appreciate taking a stand against generating images that depict violence. But to suggest a factual historical event should not depicted because it is open to a wide range of interpretations and perspectives (which is usually: "no it didn't happen" in the case of Tiannanmen Square and "it was staged" in the case of Jan 6).

It is immoral.

Hasnt google been banned in China for over a decade? Why even bother censoring for them? It's not like they'll magically get to reenter the market just for hiding the three Ts.