In writing my previous post, I asked Gemini to take a look to see if it could spot any mistakes. Among the things it pointed out was that I was incorrect in thinking that Charlie Kirk was murdered.
To be fair, Gemini backed down on its claim when I challenged it. That being said, the fact that such a mistake like this could happen is cause for concern.
I understand that Gemini is imperfect and that it is necessary to not take everything it says at face value, but this is frankly dangerous. We are dealing with one of the key political events of the past year, something whose consequences are going to be felt for years. On top of that, there are all kinds of conspiracy theories floating about. If I were Candace Owens and I saw this response from Gemini, I would certainly start "just asking questions" and "wondering" if, perhaps, Charlie Kirk was not really killed at all. Maybe, he is being held in a Mossad facility in order to brainwash him into helping them recruit teenage girls for Jewish Zionist Frankist Satanic orgies on Epstein Island.
Clearly, it is of the utmost importance that we can trust the information that we have. We need a stable set of facts to work from so that we can then offer some kind of interpretation and reach an understanding as to what Charlie Kirk's death means. By contrast, there would be little at stake if Gemini failed to realize that Sam Neill was dead. I am sure that he was a wonderful person and he was certainly a gifted actor. I will always maintain fond memories of his roles in Hunt for Red October and Jurassic Park. His death is presumably a tragedy for his family and they probably miss him greatly. That being said, the survival of this country does not depend on getting his death right. If you have never heard of Sam Neill or were unaware of his passing, I will not think any the less of you.
You want 1984? AI already has us on almost constant surveillance in ways that go beyond telescreens. Now, it can also literally rewrite history. I am a simple person with a faulty memory and all kinds of biases. I never met Charlie Kirk and I was certainly not present for his assassination. I know about the same way I know the rest of the news, I read mainstream news outlets and assume that the basic outline of facts that I am given is mostly correct. If someone engineers Gemini to tell me that Charlie Kirk was not really murdered and that I am confusing this with something else as part of their plan to redesign the country, who am I to disagree. Individual human knowledge is deeply limited. We must rely on institutional knowledge such as written history. What happens, though, when those very same institutions are weaponized against us?
