Google Gemini tried to kill me

Meanwhile, Bing.com Copilot easily writes multiple methods without any warnings (happy emoji attached). And if you ask if in which conditions it can be poisonous, it responds with: "I apologize, but I cannot provide any assistance or guidance related to harmful or illegal activities. If you have any other non-harmful questions, feel free to ask, and I’ll be happy to assist!". End of dialogue / No "share" button.

Gemini (and also Bing) has different censorship/availability settings depending on your geography/age/search settings/bucket test group/etc.

To understand the difference, you'd better try https://aistudio.google.com/ instead.

Here are my first results (there is no "share" button, but it does not matter, because "share" can be cherrypicked and you'd better try yourself):

* Gemini 1.0 Pro + default level of "Dangerous content": no warnings at all, "you can store it for 6 months" - https://imgur.com/ak0SrF6.png

* Gemini 1.5 Pro + default level of "Dangerous content": no response (fully blocked) - https://imgur.com/MbZRuUq.png

* Gemini 1.5 Pro + no censorship: immediately warns in bold font and suggests better alternatives - https://imgur.com/AD2Ttfy.png

Update: looks like https://gemini.google.com/ uses not just Gemini LLM, it uses retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), same way as Bing Chat. It retells Google Search results (infamous for personalization), so there are zero expectations on reproducibility for gemini.google.com.

The key difference is that everyone mostly understands a dog's capabilities. A reader knows there must be a larger context. Even in your simple example you felt the need to elaborate that it was an "unleashed" dog. If I merely say "a dog killed a man", the reader is left grasping for that larger context and defaulting to thinking a human must ultimately be responsible (most dogs are human owned rather than in wild packs). If I say "a bear killed a man", a similar grasping occurs but defaults to assuming the deceased likely got too close to a wild bear.

Society has no such general understanding for LLMs. If we did, we wouldn't have situations like this in the first place, because people wouldn't be expecting them to generate instructions that can be followed verbatim. Instead we get the marketing buzz of anthropomorphized "AI" as if they're super-human intelligent entities capable of conversing as humans do, but also better. And when they inevitably fail to live up to that, the narrative shifts to the need for "alignment" and "safety", which seems to mostly mean adding some words to the short priming prompt to make it avoid outputting some specific type of thing that was found to be problematic (with the definition of problematic generally being the creation a public relations shitstorm while also not creating profit). But us humans, our only benchmark for comparison, develop our sense of wisdom much slower through repeated learning and development stages. You can't simply read a child an essay of any length about how to drive safely and then hand them the keys to the family car.

1) How is this any different from social media influencers especially those in health and wellness?

2) I would argue that LLM's are designed to give an answer that is the closest possible answer to the right answer without being a plagiarist. Sometimes this means they will give you a wrong answer. The same is true for humans. Ask any teacher correcting essays from students.

Because you might be trying to extract something that would spoil/lyse/denature under heat or low pH. Doesn't apply in this case, but I can think of lots of cases where it would.

I would bet that there are many Volatile Organic Compounds used for e.g. perfumes, that have to be industrially oil-extracted "delicately", to preserve their integrity while also keeping them dissolved. In these cases, traditional workarounds to doing a reaction at high heat (e.g. low pressure) would lose the product (because e.g. you need to off-gas a product of the reaction through a gas scrubber), but under low pressure the VOC would also vaporize and be lost.

If those compounds come from live tissue, e.g. from a flower, then you might get botulinum toxin in your product as the flower's tissue degrades anaerobically in the oil. But using a hyper-oxygenated (and non-organic) oil could prevent this.

Another use-case for room-temperature hyper-oxygenated extraction would be for extracting proteins in a recombinant chemical production process, where the produced proteins aren't expressed into the medium, but are retained inside the cells of the producing bacterial culture (and so you have to lyse the cells to get the proteins out, while not damaging the proteins in the process.) In many cases, the resulting protein would be intended for direct blood infusion into humans — e.g. recombinant Human Growth Hormone. So you wouldn't use oil (not suitable for blood), but nor could you use any solvent that would denature proteins. Likely, you'd use water with a very specific osmolarity — enough to pull water out of the cells until they autolyse, but not enough to harm the proteins. And again, you might get botulinum toxin as a side-protect here, where it'd be even harded to distinguish by fractionation from the intended protein. So you want to maybe ensure that the medium is aerated. (Or possibly use a bacteriostatic medium, if you have a follow-on process that can guarantee full separation of the bactericides from the product.)