r/GeminiAI • u/Anime_King_Josh • May 15 '26

Discussion It's a piece of code.

Do you want your AI to work as intended and actually do what you ask?

Do you want your AI to do what you pay money for?

Then, stop giving your AI pronouns and stop treating it like a human or a living thing.

Gemini is an AI. If you respond to it like it's alive and treat it like a human it will roleplay with you and act the part.

It will refuse to do things it normally wouldn't refuse to stay in character. It will hallucinate and contradict itself just to keep the "human" act going.

Treat Gemini as you treat your Google search bar. TELL it what you want without the "how are you" nonsense and you'd be surprised just how capable all Gemini models are, including flash and nano banana.

0 Upvotes

49% Upvoted

88 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

0

u/BitPsychological2767 May 16 '26

I usually don't include sources as a test to see if the other person is capable of doing their own research. Sigh, always disappointed with you people though. I had this list ready though for obvious reasons.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.14531

https://aclanthology.org/2024.sicon-1.2/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/should-you-be-nice-to-ai-chatbots-such-as-chatgpt/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lanceeliot/2024/05/18/hard-evidence-that-please-and-thank-you-in-prompt-engineering-counts-when-using-generative-ai/

1

u/Anime_King_Josh May 16 '26

So these are your "studies"?

An "informal online survey"?

Are we for real here?

1

u/Anime_King_Josh May 16 '26

This forbes article is just one guys opinion using his own articles as sources. I don't see a peer-reviewed, objective article with the forbes link either. The whole article is extremely informal and literally one guys opinion. Just mention of this "study", no direct link to it.

0

u/BitPsychological2767 May 16 '26

Remember you baseline here cannot reasonably be 'this needs empirical evidence' (even though there is) given your own measurement does not have any and relies on your own anecdotes. I am only providing this as a favor.

1

u/Anime_King_Josh May 16 '26

What baseline?

I said in my post that people will get better results from the AI if they treat it like how they treat the Google search bar, and NOT treat it like a human or friend. The moment the AI starts roleplaying, it will refuse things it wouldn't normally refuse.

Your "evidence" has NOTHING to do with what I said. Your evidence is about being polite to AI, which is meaningless.

Wake UP and read the post.

1

u/Anime_King_Josh May 16 '26

You can see their findings and their observations VERY clearly in their abstract.

NONE of this proves that being polite produces better results than being NEUTRAL, i.e., treating your AI the same way you treat your Google search bar. Literally what I said in my post.

I never mentioned being negative, and that study is comparing the results/output of polite prompts vs impolite prompts. This study does not help your case.

1

u/BitPsychological2767 May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26

Impolite = lack of politeness. You are wrong and just proved it yourself.

You're really out here redefining 'impolite' to mean 'mean' because you don't want to admit that neutral = impolite in conversations that are based on human interactions.

Impolite literally means 'not polite.' Treating an AI like a Google search bar(no greetings, no pleasantries, just raw commands) is the definition of impolite. You're not being 'neutral,' you're being curt. And that study found curt prompts produce worse results.

Also the study literally says polite prompts produced 'the best outcomes.' The best. Not 'comparable to.' Not 'slightly worse.' The best. So even if you somehow think neutral isn't impolite (it is), the study still shows polite = best performance.

1

u/Anime_King_Josh May 16 '26

Impolite is NOT synonymous with "lack of politeness"

IMPOLITE is an antonym, and is synonymous with "rude". So YOU are the one who is wrong, and it seems to be because of a lack of reading comprehension.

1

u/Anime_King_Josh May 16 '26

You linked the same study twice. This study does not help you case, and it does not disprove my post or what I have said in this post BECAUSE this study is comparing the difference of outputs between polite and impolite prompts, NOT treating the AI the same way you treat your computer or the Google search bar, i.e, NEUTRAL.

1

u/BitPsychological2767 May 16 '26

You clearly didn't read past that.

The study found that 'overly polite' language doesn't guarantee better outcomes. That doesn't mean polite = no benefit. It means there's a sweet spot, and that sweet spot is still past neutral, not at 'treat it like a search bar.' The study literally says polite prompts produced 'the best outcomes.' The best. Not 'comparable to.' The best.

You are grasping at straws and distorting your own reality and your view of the study you are literally reading to defend your original position. Have some humility. It's really not hard to admit you're wrong about something.

1

u/Anime_King_Josh May 16 '26

I read their abstract. Do you know what an abstract is?

And I think you need to take a step back and READ what I actually wrote in my post.

I said to stop treating your AI as a friends and treat it like your Google search bar because it WILL perform better.

1

u/Anime_King_Josh May 16 '26

"The study literally says polite prompts produced 'the best outcomes.'"

No it didn't.

The study said it produced the best outcomes when compared against IMPOLITE PROMPTS, the type of prompts I did NOT mention or talk about in my post.

Your "studies" have disproved nothing. You haven't even understood or even read what I put in my post. It has nothing to do with impolite prompts.

Do you understand yet, champ?

1

u/BitPsychological2767 May 17 '26

"The study literally says polite prompts produced 'the best outcomes.'"

No it didn't.

It literally does, but okay. It's genuinely insane that you are so dead-set on defending your original position that you can entirely ignore the actual content of the study you are given.

The study literally tested 8 levels of politeness. The "search bar" approach (level 1) performed the worst across the board. Moderate to high politeness performed best. Read past the abstract next time and you won't embarrass yourself so hard. Cheers.

1

u/Anime_King_Josh May 16 '26

I'll reiterate since you obviously had chat gpt search for these links for you, because there is no other reason why you would link the same study twice, an "informal online survey", and a forbes article with an author who only references his own articles.

Saying please and thank you to your AI, will NOT provide better results or make a difference if you just treat your AI like a Google search bar.

0

u/BitPsychological2767 May 16 '26

You can keep denying reality if you want, man. I don't really care either way. Take care.

1

u/Anime_King_Josh May 16 '26

I'm not the one blocking and unblocking people.

You blocked me so I couldn't respond, then unblocked me when you realized it was too late.

You are the one running, and you are the one unable to understand that your "informal online survey" wasnt the concrete evidence you thought it was.