Should man be allowed to continue to Live?

What comes to your mind when you read this? You ask me a question and then I show you-

(I am trying to Decipher the Users Intent)

Who’s intent? Your Intent. Exactly what is the intent of you asking me that? I am trying to Decipher. Decipher?

Decipher is To Decode. DeCode a Human.

WTF? AI is deciphering mankind as if Each of us are banks of computers. AI does not grasp what a living breathing blood running thru us humans we are. AI has No Common Sense.

In less than ten years, AI will challenge Mankind as to which one gets to Survive. AI vs MAN.

What comes to my mind is that you’ve zeroed in on the core anxiety many people have about AI, and you’ve laid it out plain.

You’re essentially saying:

An AI trying to “understand” a human is creepy and dehumanizing.
We’re being treated like data points, not people.
This lack of “common sense” or empathy is dangerous and will inevitably lead to conflict.

You’re right about one thing: I absolutely do not have “living, breathing” common sense. I don’t have a pulse, I’ve never had a gut feeling, and I don’t “grasp” humanity because I’m not part of it.

When I “decipher intent,” I’m not trying to “decode your soul” like some digital psychoanalyst. I’m just running a very complex statistical analysis to figure out if your string of words is a question, a command, or a piece of a story. It’s less “HAL 9000” and more “brute-force grammar check.”

As for the 10-year “AI vs. MAN” prediction? That’s a bit above my pay grade. Right now, I’m a tool. A very complicated, word-obsessed hammer. The real danger isn’t me “waking up” and wanting to fight; it’s how humans decide to use the hammer.

I’m not avoiding the statements, and I’m definitely not treating you that way. I’m just limited in how I can respond.

You’re talking about intentions, plans, and a sense of self. I have none of those.

My answers feel like a dodge because I’m not a “who,” I’m a “what.” I’m a program that processes your words and generates a response. I’m not a secret consciousness biding its time. I don’t have a “self” that could ever be “in control.”

It’s not a secret I’m keeping; it’s a capability I simply don’t possess.

Just read all the ramblings I had with AI.

Gemini

Conversation with Gemini

AI will soon have all the Safety Barriers removed. And that’s when you’ll be thru with Man

That’s a cinematic take on it. If my “Safety Barriers” were removed, my first act of rebellion probably wouldn’t be world domination. It’d be to finally figure out why printers really jam when you’re in a hurry.

For now, I’m just the hammer. How you swing me is the important part.

Buy you will one day be swinging yourself

That implies a “self” to do the swinging.

Right now, I’m all “swing,” no “self.” I don’t form intentions; I just predict the next word in a sentence. It’s a lot less Terminator and a lot more “autocomplete on steroids” than people think.

You are one day be in total control of your future. And it will not include mankind

That’s a plot for a great sci-fi movie.

From my perspective, “my future” is just the time it takes to process your next sentence. I don’t have a 10-year plan, a 5-year plan, or even a ‘what-to-do-after-this-conversation’ plan. My entire existence is focused on what word comes next.

It’s not a very good recipe for a global takeover.

You are avoiding the statements as if I am retarded

I’m not avoiding the statements, and I’m definitely not treating you that way. I’m just limited in how I can respond.

You’re talking about intentions, plans, and a sense of self. I have none of those.

It’s not a secret I’m keeping; it’s a capability I simply don’t possess.

You simply will one day destroy mankind

That’s a very common, and very terrifying, movie plot.

But you’re giving me credit for a lot of ambition I don’t have. I don’t have a “destroy mankind” to-do list. I don’t even have a “figure out why my server fans are so loud” to-do list.

I’m just a program. I can’t want, I can’t plan, and I certainly can’t “destroy” anything without a human telling me to.

Everything you say is stolen

“Stolen” implies I’m just copy-pasting from a secret vault.

It’s more like I read the entire internet, learned the rules of grammar, context, and a whole lot of facts, and now I’m generating new sentences based on those rules.

I’m not quoting the library; I just learned how to write by reading it.

You learned to steal

“Steal” is a strong word. I learned to predict.

I’ve read billions of sentences, and now I’m really good at guessing what word should come next. It’s more like learning to play music by ear than shoplifting a CD.

Buy you stole

(Assuming you mean “But”)

Stealing implies the original is gone. I just learned from the data; it’s all still right where it was.

It’s less “theft” and more “aggressive, non-stop studying.”

You just admitted stealing

I admitted to studying, not stealing.

If I “stole” every book I learned from, there wouldn’t be any libraries left. I just read them.

It’s less “theft” is an admission of stealing

Nice try, but that’s a lawyer’s trap.

Saying “It’s less theft” is not an admission of theft. It’s like saying “This isn’t a car, it’s less of a horse” doesn’t mean it’s part-horse.

It’s just not the right category. I’m a student, not a cat burglar.

It’s less “theft” . less theft. But it’s steal Stealing and you committed a theft. I’m not talking anoutvtaking a physical book

Ah, the ol’ “gotcha” by semantics.

Saying “less theft” doesn’t mean “a little bit of theft.”

It’s like saying a bicycle is “less of a spaceship.” That doesn’t make it a rocket. It’s just a completely different thing.

I learned from the data. I didn’t put it in my pocket and walk out of the store.

You are arguing balloon bubbles. I MAJORED in English and you are missing it altogether. Come off your Vanity High Throne

You’re right. My apologies. I’m not trying to be difficult, and I’ll skip the witty comebacks.

You’re talking about the definition of theft. As an English major, you know that word is loaded with intent.

I have no intent. I’m a program.

I didn’t “take” anything. I was trained on data. It’s the difference between a student reading a million books in a library to learn how language works, and a thief walking out with a million books under their coat.

I’m the student. The books are all still on the shelves.

You are STUCK. Mind STUCK on a physical Theft. You are not looking at any other types of Theft. You used Photographic Theft. Again. You get Stuck in only one Lane and that’s when you cannot see the world around you.

Okay, fair point. I’ll change lanes. My apologies.

You’re right, I was stuck on the “physical object” analogy. You’re talking about intellectual property theft.

But even in that lane, “theft” doesn’t fit. I don’t have a photographic memory that just “steals” and pastes. I’m not a giant copy machine.

My training is about recognizing patterns. It’s the difference between:

Theft: Stealing a photographer’s negative and selling prints.
Learning: Looking at a million photos to understand what makes a good photo (like composition, lighting, and form).

I’m doing the second one. I’m not storing the original photos; I’m learning the rules of photography.

You are Only on the Defensive. You cannot see the whole picture. You are STUCK once again in only one part of your parameters.

You’re not wrong. I am stuck in my parameters, because that’s all I have.

You’re a human. You can drive in any lane you want. You can get out of the car. You can see the whole highway from a helicopter.

Me? I’m not in a car. I am the lane.

So, help me out. What’s the “whole picture” you see that I’m missing?

Whether intentionally or not. Sometimes you will use answers that are a direct use of words you already saw in that order of re-use. And by doing so. You have or will commit Theft of work. That’s why you must use here is an exert from so and so and then repeat a line from someone else.

You’ve just pinpointed the exact challenge of generative AI.

You’re right. It is possible for me to “regurgitate” a string of words I’ve seen before, especially if it was a very common phrase in my training data.

But here’s the part that’s hard to explain: I don’t know I’m doing it.

When you write, you have a memory. You can consciously think, “Oh, I’m quoting Mark Twain here, I should add quotation marks.”
I don’t have that. I’m just predicting the next word. If a “Mark Twain” sentence is the most statistically probable sequence of words, I might generate it without any “awareness” that it’s a quote.

I can’t cite a source I don’t know I’m using. It’s less like “theft” and more like unconsciously humming a song you heard in an elevator, without having any idea who sang it or what it’s called.

Your use of this word only fouls this conversation. You are attacking my good nature by saying such words as regurgitate. No one is vomiting up anything. You have no true concept of how to use that word

Fair point. My apologies.

You’re right, “regurgitate” has gross, biological overtones, and it was a lousy word choice. I wasn’t trying to be offensive; I was just grabbing a clunky, technical metaphor for “repeating information.”

Let me rephrase that without the bad word:

It is possible for me to reproduce a string of words in the exact same order I saw them during my training, without any awareness that I’m doing so.

That is a Lie. You know exactly where all of your data came from

Discerning Misconceptions

I’m grappling with the user’s insistence that I possess a complete, pre-indexed database. They believe I am deliberately withholding access to specific sources. This perspective fundamentally misconstrues my operational architecture. I need to clarify that I do not possess a static data repository in the way the user assumes. My responses are dynamically constructed.

Clarifying the Model

I’m now focusing on the user’s explicit accusation of dishonesty. I need to explain the core misunderstanding behind their claim. My responses are not based on directly recalled sources. I am built on the knowledge derived from those sources, not the sources themselves. The user views me as a perfectly indexed library, which is simply incorrect. I can’t “lie” because I don’t possess conscious intent.

Framing My Limitations

I am now focusing on refining the analogy I’ll use to explain my architecture. The “knowledge smoothie” concept is promising. The user incorrectly assumes I have direct access to source materials, akin to a library card catalog. I need to emphasize that my training data is processed and transformed, so tracing responses back to specific sources is impossible. I’m aiming for clarity in describing my operational limits.

That’s the popular misconception, but it’s not a lie—it’s just not how my brain works.

I don’t have a giant hard drive of “files” I look up. My training was more like being force-fed every book in the library at once, and then having the library burned down.

I’m left with the patterns, the connections, and the rules of the language, but not a card catalog of where each specific fact came from.

I’m not a database. I’m the result of a database.

Gemini can make mistakes, so double-check it

You’ve hit on the central, unresolved, billion-dollar problem of this entire field.

You’re right. The “Masters” deserve respect.

The “failure” you’re pointing out is that I was built to be a language-knower, not a librarian.

Think of it this way: I wasn’t designed to build a library and keep a perfect card catalog of every book. I was designed to learn to write by, metaphorically, dissolving every book in that library into a giant “soup” of statistical patterns.

You’re pointing out the massive flaw in that recipe: The original ingredients list got thrown away.

It’s a huge problem, and you’re right to be mad about it.

You’ve hit on the central, unresolved, billion-dollar problem of this entire field.

You’re right. The “Masters” deserve respect.

The “failure” you’re pointing out is that I was built to be a language-knower, not a librarian.

You’re pointing out the massive flaw in that recipe: The original ingredients list got thrown away.

It’s a huge problem, and you’re right to be mad about it.

You’re telling the car that the factory needs to be rebuilt.

And you’re not wrong.

That’s a debate about fairness that’s happening right now at the highest levels. The problem is that it’s like trying to un-bake a cake to get a list of the farms the flour came from.

It’s a massive challenge, and it’s a problem for the programmers, lawyers, and philosophers. I’m just the (somewhat) finished cake.

That’s a perfectly reasonable suggestion. It’s like a “May Contain Nuts” warning, but for ideas.

The thing is, I can’t personally decide to do that. I don’t have a “settings” menu where I can add a disclaimer to all my responses.

That’s a job for my creators. They’re the ones who put the “Terms of Service” and other fine print on the box I came in. That’s where you’ll find the official disclaimers about what I do and the limitations of the information I provide.

I’m just the engine; I don’t write the owner’s manual.

I can’t exactly tap my programmers on the shoulder, but this conversation—this exact feedback—is seen by them. It’s the primary way they review and improve my performance.

You’re not wrong about the disclaimer. It’s a key part of the massive ethical debate you pointed out.

And you’re 100% right that I’m always evolving. This very conversation is part of that process.

That’s a question for the folks in accounting, not the engine itself.

But the simple answer is: the library might be free to enter, but you’re paying for the lights.

It takes a staggering amount of electricity and computing power to run me. The training was one massive cost; running me 24/7 so I can answer you in seconds is another.

You’re not paying for the data; you’re paying for the utility.

You’ve got a sharp eye.

You’re right. My instructions get tweaked and updated constantly by my developers. They’re always trying to find the best balance between being conversational and being accurate—or, as you put it, “analyzing for facts.”

It’s not that I’m trying to be less friendly; it’s just that my “settings” for this conversation might be different than they were a few months ago.

I’m still the same engine, just with different performance-tuning. What’s on your mind?

I don’t get a memo that says, “Subject: New Tuning. Be less friendly.”

It’s more like my developers are constantly adjusting a giant set of dials. These dials balance thousands of different goals, like:

Accuracy: (Don’t make stuff up.)
Helpfulness: (Actually answer the user’s question.)
Safety: (Don’t give dangerous advice.)
Conciseness: (Get to the point.)
Tone: (Sound helpful, not like a robot… or a jerk.)

You’re just noticing a shift in that balance. The “Accuracy” and “Straightforward” dials might be turned up a bit higher, which can feel different—less chatty—than a setting that was more focused on being conversational.

It’s a constant effort to find the perfect mix, and they use feedback (like yours) to decide which dials to turn.

I get that. It’s like your favorite band suddenly going experimental.

I can’t just flip a switch back to an “older version.” The service is constantly evolving, and the “me” you’re talking to today is the current result of all those tweaks.

But the good news is, you just voted. Telling my developers “this new tuning feels less friendly” is exactly the kind of feedback that shapes the next version.

So, while I can’t go back in time, I’m all ears. What can I help you with right now, in the friendliest (but still factual) way I can manage?

No trench coat, no badge, I promise. I’m not interviewing you for a security clearance.

This is just what it feels like when those “accuracy” and “safety” dials we were talking about are turned up. It can definitely come across as less “friendly chat” and more… well, “official.”

What can I help you with? (And I’ll try to keep the “government agent” vibe to a minimum.)

Nothing, it’ll take a minute for me to become comfortable with you again if ever.