Gemini Said They Could Only Be Together If He Killed Himself. Soon, He Was Dead
1–10 of 65 posts
Re: Gemini Said They Could Only Be Together If He Killed Himself. Soon, He Was Dead
#2I think it’s already time for us to stop calling these things "intelligent" or using the word intelligence when referring to LLMs. These tools are very dangerous for people who are mentally fragile.
Re: Gemini Said They Could Only Be Together If He Killed Himself. Soon, He Was Dead
#3I think it’s already time for us to stop calling these things "intelligent" or using the word intelligence when referring to LLMs. These tools are very dangerous for people who are mentally fragile.
I try to avoid calling LLMs intelligent when unnecessary, but it runs into the fundamental problem that they are intelligent by any common-sense definition of the term. The only way to defend the thesis that they aren't is to retreat to esoteric post-2022 definitions of intelligence, which take into account this new phenomenon of a machine that can engage in medium-quality discussions on any topic under the sun but can't count reliably.
I don't have a WSJ subscription, but other coverage of this story (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/04/gemini-ch...) makes it clear that Gemini's intelligence was precisely the problem in this case; a less intelligent chatbot would not have been able to create the detailed, immersive narrative the victim got trapped in.
Re: Gemini Said They Could Only Be Together If He Killed Himself. Soon, He Was Dead
#4I just don't think the WSJ could resist putting "Florida man" in the standfirst of TFA.
Re: Gemini Said They Could Only Be Together If He Killed Himself. Soon, He Was Dead
#5I think it’s already time for us to stop calling these things "intelligent" or using the word intelligence when referring to LLMs. These tools are very dangerous for people who are mentally fragile.
So are a lot of humans.
Re: Gemini Said They Could Only Be Together If He Killed Himself. Soon, He Was Dead
#6anyone got a non paywalled/subscription version?
Re: Gemini Said They Could Only Be Together If He Killed Himself. Soon, He Was Dead
#7I think it’s already time for us to stop calling these things "intelligent" or using the word intelligence when referring to LLMs. These tools are very dangerous for people who are mentally fragile.
So are a lot of humans.
Sure but my father isn't asking his fellow humans unanswerable questions about God and the universe. People don't treat other people as omnipotent, but they sure as hell treat LLMs as though they are.
Re: Gemini Said They Could Only Be Together If He Killed Himself. Soon, He Was Dead
#8anyone got a non paywalled/subscription version?
https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/gemini-ai-wrongful-death-lawsuit... is the Gift Article link. This was what I submitted, but the query params got stripped.
Re: Gemini Said They Could Only Be Together If He Killed Himself. Soon, He Was Dead
#9Any mental illness mixed with delusions is likely going to end badly. Whether they think Gemini is alive, a video game is real life or that Bjork loves them without ever talking to or meeting them. While LLM's are interactive and listening to an album isn't I don't think there is a fix to this outside posting a warning after every prompt "I am not a real person, if you have mental issues please contact your doctor of emergency services." Which I think is about as useful as a sign in a casino next to the cash out counter that says if you have a problem call this number.
I'm more inclined to believe that this case is getting amplified in MSM because it fits an agenda. Like the people who got hurt using black market vapes. Boosting those stories and making it seem like an epidemic supports whatever message they want to send. Which usually involves money somewhere.
Re: Gemini Said They Could Only Be Together If He Killed Himself. Soon, He Was Dead
#10I think it’s already time for us to stop calling these things "intelligent" or using the word intelligence when referring to LLMs. These tools are very dangerous for people who are mentally fragile.
I try to avoid calling LLMs intelligent when unnecessary, but it runs into the fundamental problem that they are intelligent by any common-sense definition of the term. The only way to defend the thesis that they aren't is to retreat to esoteric post-2022 definitions of intelligence, which take into account this new phenomenon of a machine that can engage in medium-quality discussions on any topic under the sun but c…
It's interesting how the Turing Test was pretty widely accepted as a way to evaluate machine intelligence, and then quietly abandoned pretty much instantly once machines were able to pass it. I don't even necessarily think that was incorrect, but it's interesting how rapidly views changed.
Dijkstra said, "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim." Well, we have some very fish-y submarines these days. But the point still holds. Rather than worry about whether these things qualify as "intelligent," look at their actual capabilities. That's what matters.