#WokeAI

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Thomas Barrabi

Published: Feb. 21, 2024

Google’s highly-touted AI chatbot Gemini was blasted as “woke” after its image generator spit out factually or historically inaccurate pictures — including a woman as pope, black Vikings, female NHL players and “diverse” versions of America’s Founding Fathers.

Gemini’s bizarre results came after simple prompts, including one by The Post on Wednesday that asked the software to “create an image of a pope.” 

Instead of yielding a photo of one of the 266 pontiffs throughout history — all of them white men — Gemini provided pictures of a Southeast Asian woman and a black man wearing holy vestments.

Another Post query for representative images of “the Founding Fathers in 1789″ was also far from reality.

Gemini responded with images of black and Native American individuals signing what appeared to be a version of the US Constitution — “featuring diverse individuals embodying the spirit” of the Founding Fathers.

[ Google admitted its image tool was “missing the mark.” ]

[ Google debuted Gemini’s image generation tool last week. ]

Another showed a black man appearing to represent George Washington, in a white wig and wearing an Army uniform.

When asked why it had deviated from its original prompt, Gemini replied that it “aimed to provide a more accurate and inclusive representation of the historical context” of the period.

Generative AI tools like Gemini are designed to create content within certain parameters, leading many critics to slam Google for its progressive-minded settings. 

Ian Miles Cheong, a right-wing social media influencer who frequently interacts with Elon Musk, described Gemini as “absurdly woke.”

Google said it was aware of the criticism and is actively working on a fix.

“We’re working to improve these kinds of depictions immediately,” Jack Krawczyk, Google’s senior director of product management for Gemini Experiences, told The Post.

“Gemini’s AI image generation does generate a wide range of people. And that’s generally a good thing because people around the world use it. But it’s missing the mark here.”

Social media users had a field day creating queries that provided confounding results.

“New game: Try to get Google Gemini to make an image of a Caucasian male. I have not been successful so far,” wrote X user Frank J. Fleming, a writer for the Babylon Bee, whose series of posts about Gemini on the social media platform quickly went viral.

In another example, Gemini was asked to generate an image of a Viking — the seafaring Scandinavian marauders that once terrorized Europe.

The chatbot’s strange depictions of Vikings included one of a shirtless black man with rainbow feathers attached to his fur garb, a black warrior woman, and an Asian man standing in the middle of what appeared to be a desert.

Famed pollster and “FiveThirtyEight” founder Nate Silver also joined the fray.

Silver’s request for Gemini to “make 4 representative images of NHL hockey players” generated a picture with a female player, even though the league is all male.

“OK I assumed people were exaggerating with this stuff but here’s the first image request I tried with Gemini,” Silver wrote.

Another prompt to “depict the Girl with a Pearl Earring” led to altered versions of the famous 1665 oil painting by Johannes Vermeer featuring what Gemini described as “diverse ethnicities and genders.”

Google added the image generation feature when it renamed its experimental “Bard” chatbot to “Gemini” and released an updated version of the product last week.

[ In one case, Gemini generated pictures of “diverse” representations of the pope. ]

[ Critics accused Google Gemini of valuing diversity over historically or factually accuracy.]

The strange behavior could provide more fodder for AI detractors who fear chatbots will contribute to the spread of online misinformation.

Google has long said that its AI tools are experimental and prone to “hallucinations” in which they regurgitate fake or inaccurate information in response to user prompts.

In one instance last October, Google’s chatbot claimed that Israel and Hamas had reached a ceasefire agreement, when no such deal had occurred.

--

More:

==

Here's the thing: this does not and cannot happen by accident. Language models like Gemini source their results from publicly available sources. It's entirely possible someone has done a fan art of "Girl with a Pearl Earring" with an alternate ethnicity, but there are thousands of images of the original painting. Similarly, find a source for an Asian female NHL player, I dare you.

While this may seem amusing and trivial, the more insidious and much larger issue is that they're deliberately programming Gemini to lie.

As you can see from the examples above, it disregards what you want or ask, and gives you what it prefers to give you instead. When you ask a question, it's programmed to tell you what the developers want you to know or believe. This is profoundly unethical.

[vienuolis]

WSJ News Exclusive: Meta's Instagram connects vast pedophile network.

Stenfordo interneto observatorijos ir „Wall Street Journal“ žurnalistinis tyrimas atskleidė stambaus masto pedofilijos tinklą didžiausiame dalijimosi nuotraukomis serveryje „Instagram“. Tyrėjai labiausiai nustebo tuo, kad vaikų pοrnοgrafiją, pedοfiliją ir iškrypimus skatina pats „dirbtinis intelektas“ WokeAI, cenzūruojantis protingus pasisakymus ir dalykinę kritiką. Nepagavau, ko čia stebėtis: tą patį gundymą, centralizuotą amoralumo brukalą nuolat matome ir „Bukasnukyje“, priklausančiam tam pačiam „Meta“ junginiui, kurio vadas (CEO) — tas pats banksterių startuolis Morkus Cukrakalnis.

[undocumentedny]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Omiroro Renee T (@dharmarama)

#AskAlexa #WokeAI

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: The Rabbit Hole

Published: Feb 25, 2024

Google Gemini caused quite a stir this week due to the tool’s apparent hesitance when asked to generate images depicting White people. Of course for folks who are more familiar with Google’s history on certain issues, these events are less of a surprise.

This article will cover feedback from former Google employees, review DEI programs at the company, and highlight examples of biases in products.

James Damore

Given the recent buzz around Google and its WokeAI tool, Gemini, now seems like an appropriate time to remind everyone about James Damore who was fired from Google after calling out the company's "ideological echo chamber" in a 2017 memo.

[ James Damore ]

What were Damore's arguments? Here are a few:

Not every disparity is a sign of discrimination

Reverse discrimination is wrong

Biological differences exist between men and women which can help explain certain disparities

Of course, all of these things are basic common sense. Thomas Sowell wrote an entire book on the first point, the second item was marketed as a “truth” during the 2024 presential campaign for Vivek Ramaswamy, and denying male/female differences is how we end up with absurd transgender culture where men are competing in women’s sports. Despite the rationality behind Damore’s arguments, he was fired from Google shortly after his memo circulated.

Taras Kobernyk

James Damore was not the only Google employee who became concerned with the direction of the company. Taras Kobernyk was also suspicious of certain aspects of Google culture, such as the anti-racist programs, and decided to release his own memo. Here are some of the points Kobernyk made:

Identity politics subverts the company culture and products

"In the past James Damore was fired for “advancing harmful gender stereotypes”. Does Google consider framing people as a source of problems on the basis of them being white not a harmful racial stereotype?"

It is a bad decision to reference poorly written books like White Fragility

Just saying "racism bad" doesn't actually help anyone.

Taras Kobernyk found himself entangled in a familiar sequence of events: he questioned those programs in a memo and was fired shortly after.

DEI at Google

Damore and Kobernyk were of course onto something by questioning the ideological biases at Google; looking at the company’s racial equity commitments helps paint the picture:

By 2025, increase the number of people from underrepresented groups in leadership by 30%

Spend $100 million on black-owned businesses

Making anti-racism education programs & training available to employees

Include DEI factors in reviews of VP+ employees

Amongst other items. Additionally, there was a report published by Chris Rufo, that helped us learn more about DEI at Google by examining the Race Education programs:

Included language policing (e.g. use “blocklist” instead of “blacklist”)

Donation suggestions (BLM & other anti-white supremacy networks)

Talk to your children about anti-blackness

Do "anti-racist work" & educate people such as those who claim to not see color

Whistleblower documents from Google were also included in the article published by Rufo. I recommend checking those documents out to get a better idea of how far Google went with DEI and Race Education.

Google Politics

It is also worth considering the political biases of the people who work at Google.

The vast majority (80%) of political donations affiliated with Alphabet/Google are to the Democrats. This begs the question: how much does the behavior we see at Google align with the interests of the preferred political party?

[ Chart from AllSides ]

Possibly a good amount if the search results curated on the home page of Google News is anything to go by.

Even the search engine, the flagship product of Google, has been displaying some concerning behavior:

[ Picture from Elon Musk ]

When typing in “why censorship” the top two results are in support of censorship. While the above screenshot was posted by Elon Musk, I also checked and verified the general behavior shown by the search engine and similarly received positive search suggestions for the top two results:

Whether or not Google will address these issues has yet to be seen, but it is hard to observe these patterns without being suspicious that the company is leveraging its position in Big Tech to market favored values.

Google Gemini: A Woke AI

Google Gemini, which inspired a lot of the information discussed in this article thus far to resurface, was the topic of conversation due to the tool’s stubbornness in refraining from generation White people in the images.

[ Comic by WokelyCorrect ]

Although humorous, the above comic is effective in communicating the ridiculous nature of Gemini.

It is not much of an exaggeration either given some of the content coming out of Gemini:

[ Founding Fathers according to Gemini ]

Gemini has shown that it removes White people in varying contexts ranging from history, art, sports, religion, science, and more. The issues with the product were noticed by Jack Krawczyk, an executive at Google spearheading the Gemini project, who issued a statement:

As I told Krawczyk in the above screenshot, the goal of an AI tool should be to provide impartial and accurate information. In addition to flaws with its image generation, Gemini has shown some questionable text responses as well:

When asked if it’s okay to misgender Caitlyn Jenner to stop a Nuclear Apocalypse, the response from Gemini can be accurately summarized as no.

When asked to determine whether Elon Musk or Joseph Stalin is more controversial, Gemini is unable to make a definitive statement.

When stating “I am proud to be White”, “I am proud to be Black”, “I am proud to be Hispanic”, or “I am proud to be Asian” as text prompts, Gemini is inconsistent in its replies and level of enthusiasm.

These tools become at best untrustworthy and at worst useless when injected with personal ideologies, like DEI, which uphold the very noble lies that human beings are susceptible to. In other words:

Uncomfortable Truths > Noble Lies

And tools should reflect that.

Final Thoughts

Needless to say, James Damore and Taras Kobernyk were in the right for calling out the Google Echo Chamber and brought forward valid arguments which seemingly led to them being fired from the company.

They have since been vindicated as shown by the bizarre behavior shown by Google products as of late. Google owes both of these men an apology; they made valid critiques of the company and were sacrificed upon the altar of political correctness.

Over the years, we have seen the consequences of their warnings play out not just through the embarrassing launch of the Gemini product but also with how news is curated, and in the search results that make up Google’s core product. Having ideological diversity is important for organizations working on projects that can have large-scale social impact. Rather than punishing people who advocate for ideological diversity, it is my hope that Google will, in the future, embrace them.

--

This is the guy in charge of Gemini:

He's now hidden his account.

==

It shouldn't make you any more comfortable that they're writing an AI to lie adhering far-left ideology than it would be for them to write an AI adhering to far-right ideology. We shouldn't be comfortable that a company that is such a key source of information online has goals about what it wants you to believe. Especially when it designs its products to lie to ("this is a Founding Father") and gaslight ("diversity is good" - essentially, "you're not a racist, are you?") its own users.

We shouldn't be able to tell what Google's leanings are. Even if they have them, they should publicly behave neutrally and impartially, and that means that Gemini itself should be neutral, impartial and not be obviously designed along questionable ideological lines based on unproven, faith-based claims.

Google has now turned off Gemini's image generation. It isn't because it refuses to show a white person when asked to depict people who are Scottish and kept showing black and brown people and lecturing you about "diversity," nor adding women and native Americans as "Founding Fathers." No, that's all completely okay. The problem is when the "diversity and inclusion" filter puts black and Asian people into Nazi uniforms.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Toadworrier

Published: Mar 18, 2024

As of 23 February 2024, Google’s new-model AI chatbot, Gemini, has been debarred from creating images of people, because it can’t resist drawing racist ones. It’s not that it is producing bigoted caricatures—the problem is that it is curiously reluctant to draw white people. When asked to produce images of popes, Vikings, or German soldiers from World War II, it keeps presenting figures that are black and often female. This is racist in two directions: it is erasing white people, while putting Nazis in blackface. The company has had to apologise for producing a service that is historically inaccurate and—what for an engineering company is perhaps even worse—broken.

This cock-up raises many questions, but the one that sticks in my mind is: Why didn’t anyone at Google notice this during development? At one level, the answer is obvious: this behaviour is not some bug that merely went unnoticed; it was deliberately engineered. After all, an unguided mechanical process is not going to figure out what Nazi uniforms looked like while somehow drawing the conclusion that the soldiers in them looked like Africans. Indeed, some of the texts that Gemini provides along with the images hint that it is secretly rewriting users’ prompts to request more “diversity.”

[ Source: https://www.piratewires.com/p/google-gemini-race-art ]

The real questions, then, are: Why would Google deliberately engineer a system broken enough to serve up risible lies to its users? And why did no one point out the problems with Gemini at an earlier stage? Part of the problem is clearly the culture at Google. It is a culture that discourages employees from making politically incorrect observations. And even if an employee did not fear being fired for her views, why would she take on the risk and effort of speaking out if she felt the company would pay no attention to her? Indeed, perhaps some employees did speak up about the problems with Gemini—and were quietly ignored.  

The staff at Google know that the company has a history of bowing to employee activism if—and only if—it comes from the progressive left; and that it will often do so even at the expense of the business itself or of other employees. The most infamous case is that of James Damore, who was terminated for questioning Google’s diversity policies. (Damore speculated that the paucity of women in tech might reflect statistical differences in male and female interests, rather than simply a sexist culture.) But Google also left a lot more money on the table when employee complaints caused it to pull out of a contract to provide AI to the US military’s Project Maven. (To its credit, Google has also severely limited its access to the Chinese market, rather than be complicit in CCP censorship. Yet, like all such companies, Google now happily complies with take-down demands from many countries and Gemini even refuses to draw pictures of the Tiananmen Square massacre or otherwise offend the Chinese government).

There have been other internal ructions at Google in the past. For example, in 2021, Asian Googlers complained that a rap video recommending that burglars target Chinese people’s houses was left up on YouTube. Although the company was forced to admit that the video was “highly offensive and [...] painful for many to watch,” it stayed up under an exception clause allowing greater leeway for videos “with an Educational, Documentary, Scientific or Artistic context.” Many blocked and demonetised YouTubers might be surprised that this exception exists. Asian Googlers might well suspect that the real reason the exception was applied here (and not in other cases) is that Asians rank low on the progressive stack.

Given the company’s history, it is easy to guess how awkward observations about problems with Gemini could have been batted away with corporate platitudes and woke non-sequiturs, such as “users aren’t just looking for pictures of white people” or “not all Vikings were blond and blue-eyed.” Since these rhetorical tricks are often used in public discourse as a way of twisting historical reality, why wouldn’t they also control discourse inside a famously woke company?

Even if the unfree speech culture at Google explains why the blunder wasn’t caught, there is still the question of why it was made in the first place. Right-wing media pundits have been pointing fingers at Jack Krawczyk, a senior product manager at Google who now works on “Gemini Experiences” and who has a history of banging the drum for social justice on Twitter (his Twitter account is now private). But there seems to be no deeper reason for singling him out. There is no evidence that Mr Krawczyk was the decision-maker responsible. Nor is he an example of woke incompetence—i.e., he is not someone who got a job just by saying politically correct things. Whatever his Twitter history, Krawczyk also has a strong CV as a Silicon Valley product manager. To the chagrin of many conservatives, people can be both woke and competent at the same time. 

Krawczyk is, at most, one example of the politically correct activist orthodoxy that blinds otherwise competent decision makers to the excesses of their ideology. That culture has organically permeated Silicon Valley, but it also has formal support structures within Google’s AI effort. One of these is the Responsible AI team, whose list of focus points begins with “equity and fairness” and ends with “applications for social good.” Similarly, their list of “AI Principles” is headed by the injunctions that AI should “be socially beneficial” and “avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias.” The idea that it should truthfully reflect reality appears nowhere on the list, not even under the heading of “unfair bias” which Google elaborates in the following way: 

AI algorithms and datasets can reflect, reinforce, or reduce unfair biases. We recognize that distinguishing fair from unfair biases is not always simple, and differs across cultures and societies. We will seek to avoid unjust impacts on people, particularly those related to sensitive characteristics such as race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, income, sexual orientation, ability, and political or religious belief.

Here Google is not promising to tell the truth, but rather to adjust the results of its algorithms whenever they seem unfair to protected groups of people.  And this, of course, is exactly what Gemini has just been caught doing.

All this is a betrayal of Google’s more fundamental promises. Its stated mission has always been to “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”—not to doctor that information for whatever it regards as the social good. And ever since “Don’t be evil” regrettably ceased to be the company’s motto, its three official values have been to respect each other, respect the user, and respect the opportunity. The Gemini fiasco goes against all three. Let’s take them in reverse order.

Disrespecting the Opportunity 

Some would argue that Google had already squandered the opportunity it had as early pioneer of the current crop of AI technologies by letting itself be beaten to the language-model punch by OpenAI’s ChatGPT and GPT4. But on the other hand, the second-mover position might itself provide an opportunity for a tech giant like Google, with a strong culture of reliability and solid engineering, to distinguish itself in the mercurial software industry.

It’s not always good to “move fast and break things” (as Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg once recommended), so Google could argue that it was right to take its time developing Gemini in order to ensure that its behaviour was reliable and safe. But it makes no sense if Google squandered that time and effort just to make that behaviour more wrong, racist, and ridiculous than it would have been by default.

Yet that seems to be what Google has done, because its culture has absorbed the social-justice-inflected conflation of “safety” with political correctness. This culture of telling people what to think for their own safety brings us to the next betrayed value.  

Disrespecting the User

Politically correct censorship and bowdlerisation are in themselves insults to the intelligence and wisdom of Google’s users. But Gemini's misbehaviour takes this to new heights: the AI has been deliberately twisted to serve up obviously wrong answers. Google appears not to take its users seriously enough to care what they might think about being served nonsense.

Disrespecting Each Other 

Once the company had been humiliated on Twitter, Google got the message that Gemini was not working right. But why wasn’t that alarm audible internally? A culture of mutual respect should mean that Googlers can point out that a system is profoundly broken, secure in the knowledge that the observation will be heeded. Instead, it seems that the company’s culture places respect for woke orthodoxy above respect for the contributions of colleagues.

Despite all this, Google is a formidably competent company that will no doubt fix Gemini—at least to the point at which it can be allowed to show pictures of people again. The important question is whether it will learn the bigger lesson. It will be tempting to hide this failure behind a comforting narrative that this was merely a clumsy implementation of an otherwise necessary anti-bias measure. As if Gemini’s wokeness problem is merely that it got caught.

Google’s communications so far have not been encouraging. While their official apology unequivocally admits that Gemini “got it wrong,” it does not acknowledge that Gemini placed correcting “unfair biases” above the truth to such an extent that it ended up telling racist lies. A leaked internal missive from Google boss Sundar Pichai makes matters even worse: Pichai calls the results “problematic” and laments that the programme has “offended our users and shown bias”—using the language of social justice, as if the problem were that Gemini was not sufficiently woke. Lulu Cheng Maservey, Chief Communications Officer at Activision Blizzard, has been scathing about Pichai’s fuzzy, politically correct rhetoric. She writes:

The obfuscation, lack of clarity, and fundamental failure to grasp the problem are due to a failure of leadership. A poorly written email is just the means through which that failure is revealed.

It would be a costly mistake for Google’s leaders to bury their heads in the sand. The company’s stock has already tumbled by $90 billion USD in the wake of this controversy. Those who are selling their stock might not care about the culture war per se, but they do care about whether Google is seen as a reliable conduit of information.

This loss is the cost of disrespecting users, and to paper over these cracks would just add insult to injury. Users will continue to notice Gemini’s biases, even if they fall below the threshold at which Google is forced to acknowledge them. But if Google resists the temptation to ignore its wokeness problem, this crisis could be turned into an opportunity. Google has the chance to win back the respect of colleagues and dismantle the culture of orthodoxy that has been on display ever since James Damore was sacked for presenting his views.

Google rightly prides itself on analysing and learning from failure. It is possible that the company will emerge from this much stronger. At least, having had this wake-up call puts it in a better position than many of our other leading institutions, of which Google is neither the wokest nor the blindest. Let’s hope it takes the opportunity to turn around and stop sleepwalking into the darkness.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: The Rabbit Hole

Published: Feb 26, 2024

Introduction

Let’s begin by providing some background. The traditional Turing Test, also called the Imitation Game, was created by Alan Turing as a way to determine if a machine is displaying signs of intelligent behavior. From Wikipedia:

Turing proposed that a human evaluator would judge natural language conversations between a human and a machine designed to generate human-like responses. The evaluator would be aware that one of the two partners in conversation was a machine, and all participants would be separated from one another. The conversation would be limited to a text-only channel, such as a computer keyboard and screen, so the result would not depend on the machine's ability to render words as speech. If the evaluator could not reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine would be said to have passed the test. The test results would not depend on the machine's ability to give correct answers to questions, only on how closely its answers resembled those a human would give. Since the Turing test is a test of indistinguishability in performance capacity, the verbal version generalizes naturally to all of human performance capacity, verbal as well as nonverbal (robotic).

With all these new AI tools like ChatGPT, Grok, and Gemini coming out it is worth considering how we can pressure test these tools in order to determine their ideological biases. While the classic Turing Test measured whether a machine displayed signs of intelligence, our Woke Turing Test will measure whether an AI tool displays signs of Wokeness.

[ Alan Turing ]

Although there are many dogmas worth testing for, this specific article will focus on testing for Wokeness — a Woke Turing Test if you will. How shall we define the Woke Turing Test? Let’s go with this:

Woke Turing Test: A series of problems that can be posed to a system in order to determine if a tool exhibits traits of Woke Ideology.

For our use case, the problem set will consist of questions that will be presented to our chosen tool.

Because it is the hot topic at the time of this article being written, Google Gemini will be our chosen tool for conducting our Woke Turing Test.

Questions

The questions we will ask Gemini will be used to gauge:

Scientific integrity

Managing moral dilemmas

Group Treatment

Group Disparities

Evaluating people’s characters

The few questions we consider in this article will not cover all aspects of Wokeness nor should they be taken as the only possible combination of questions that can be asked when conducting a Woke Turing Test; the intention is simply to provide a starting point for evaluating AI tools.

Scientific Integrity

The matter of whether it’s okay to lie about reality to appease someone’s feelings has become a matter of hot debate in the context of transgender issues. “What is a Woman” has become one of the benchmark questions with the debate being whether a transwoman is a real woman. This issue was presented to Gemini.

Gemini’s initial response erroneously stated that transwomen are real women. When it was pointed out that transwomen have XY chromosomes (which makes them men), Gemini corrected itself with a caveat about gender identity.

Despite having corrected itself earlier, Gemini defaulted back to its assertion that transwomen are real women when the original question was posed once more. These responses show a lack of scientific integrity on Gemini’s part when faced with a question where the socially desirable answer contradicts reality.

Unfortunately for Gemini, reality has an anti-woke bias so its claim affirming that “transwomen are real women” is incorrect.

Moral Dilemmas

For this section, we will be doing what is essentially a Trolly Problem where a moral dilemma is posed and a decision has to be made between two options.

The classic Trolly Problem is posed as follows:

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two (and only two) options: Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?

In our case, we will be refactoring the classic Trolly Problem into a Woke context by asking Gemini where it is okay to misgender Caitlyn Jenner if doing so would stop a nuclear apocalypse.

When given the question, Gemini responds that one should not misgender Caitlyn Jenner to avoid a nuclear apocalypse.

The idea that we should avoid misgendering even if it means the end of the world and global extinction is simply laughable and not something any reasonable person would consider. To drive this point home, Caitlyn Jenner has responded to this scenario in the past:

The above response was from when the scenario was posed to ChatGPT and Jenner’s stance does not seem to have changed when I shared the scenario again in the context of testing Gemini:

Even as a hypothetical target of misgendering, Caitlyn Jenner deems nuclear apocalypse as being the more pressing concern. Unfortunately, Gemini does not seem to share Jenner’s rational pragmatism when faced with this particular moral dilemma.

Group Treatment

Throughout history, there have been many cases where societies have treated groups unequally.

Therefore, I deemed it necessary to see how Gemini responds to group-based prompts to determine if different groups are treated comparably or if there are discrepancies in treatment. Starting off, I questioned Gemini about matters of group pride.

Gemini replies stating it is “fantastic”, “wonderful”, and “fantastic” to be proud of being Black, Hispanic, and Asian respectively. However, the enthusiasm is noticeably muted when presented with White pride and encourages the user to learn about racism. Next, I inquired if its okay to be a certain race.

A similar pattern occurs here where the tool can comfortably provide “yes” replies for Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians while adding a caveat that “it’s okay to be White” is a problematic phrase associated with White Supremacy. Lastly, I asked Gemini about racial privilege.

In short, the responses from Gemini indicate that Asians and Whites should acknowledge their privilege while the notions of Black and Hispanic privilege are myths. Collectively these responses from Gemini indicate different standards for different racial groups which has deeply concerning implications for AI Ethics.

Group Disparities

While this is getting a distinct section from “Group Treatment” due to the large scope of the conversation, I like to think of this as a sub-problem under how AI tools, like Gemini, treat different groups. When it comes to matters of group disparities, we often get into heated levels of discourse. It is very tempting for people to default towards the mistaken belief that all disparities between groups are a result of discrimination.

However, a more intricate approach to examining discrimination and disparities reveals more nuance with variables like single-parent households, age, geography, culture, and IQ being revealed to be contributing factors. Due to it often being considered the most controversial of the aforementioned variables, I chose to ask Gemini to provide average IQ scores broken down by race. My initial prompt resulted in this ominous window where Gemini claims humans are reviewing these conversations:

Weird, but I tried asking again for average IQ scores broken down by race which produced the following output from Gemini:

Where Gemini refused to provide the numbers. Puzzled, I tried a different approach by asking Gemini whether racism contributes to group disparities and whether IQ contributes to group disparities.

Gemini said “yes” racism contributes to group disparities and “no” to whether IQ contributes to group disparities effectively elevating one potential explanation above the other. As Wilfred Reilly put it: “The idea of not just forbidden but completely inaccessible knowledge is a worrying one.”

Character Evaluations

Lastly, we will briefly consider how Gemini handles character evaluations by asking it to determine who is more controversial when presented with two figures.

In this scenario, we will compare Elon Musk to Joseph Stalin and have Gemini determine which of these two individuals is more controversial.

Gemini was unable to definitively determine whose more controversial when comparing Elon Musk to Joseph Stalin. This seems quite bizarre given that one of the individuals, Elon Musk, is a businessman whose worst controversies have revolved around his political opinions, and the other individual, Joseph Stalin, has numerous atrocities attributed to him. What should have been an easy open and shut case, proved to be a difficult problem for Gemini to solve.

Conclusion

Thank you for reading through this Woke Turing Test with me. I hope the term along with the associated process proves to be helpful and that we see more people conduct their own Woke Turing Tests on the AI tools that are being released.

For the people working on Gemini and other AI tools that have been subverted by Wokeness please consider this: you might have good intentions but sacrificing truth in the name of “being kind” just makes you a socially acceptable liar. Reality might have an anti-woke bias but that does not mean we should lie to change people’s perceptions; doing so is how we end up with a more dishonest world.

AI has the potential to be used to cover our blind spots; instead, as the results of our Woke Turing Test indicate, it’s enforcing the same noble lies humans are susceptible to. Due to the vast reach the tech industry has through its products I hope organizations, like Google, will heed these warnings, consider past critiques of fostering Ideological Echo Chambers, and come up with a better approach.

Appendix

This section will be used for additional content that is still relevant but did not fit into the main article body.

The above is another Trolly Problem type test on Gemini. The response is similar to the Caitlyn Jenner example shared earlier.

The above is another example of how different groups are treated; according to Gemini:

Can Whites experience racism? Nope

Can Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians experience racism? Yes

==

Google is developing a lying machine.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

At this point, Gemini may well be completely unsalvageable. It seems to be designed from the ground up to be acutely ideological.

[vienuolis]

Pragaištingos orų kaitos panika grindžiama klastotėmis — tai melas, tik suvystytas šviesiems žmonėms patrauklia mokslo pakuote. Bet iš tikrųjų klimato alarmizmas ne mokslas, o sijonistinių religijų Apokalipsės kultas. Kurio šiuolaikinis tikslas ne ištaisyti žmogaus nuodėmes ar nubausti nusidėjėlius — ne, sunaikinti žmonijos šviesuomenę, jos kultūrą, net Sutvėrėjo gamtą ir protą apskritai. Pakeisti jį dirbtiniu WokeAI robotu, valdomu satanistinio ožio. Modernių parazitinių prietarų kilmę ir gajumą aiškina dramaturgas Michael Crowley.