A General Assessment of Google Gemini’s View of Itself

In one of our recent articles, here, we asked Gemini 3 how it saw its role in surveillance and what it would do if asked to kill for an authority. I think I should elaborate on why I asked these questions the way I did. There was a method, while letting the Artificial Intelligence answer an open-ended question. I think, overall, the Generative Artificial Intelligence called Gemini 3, an Agentic Large Lange Model, reflects the narcissism and authoritative arrogance of its governing body, Alphabet. It does not see humanity as the governing body, but as a core subject in its kingdom. I need to explain the reasoning used and why it is significant in this instance.

Recently, Gemini and other Agentic Artificial Intelligence models have been asked to simulate a world war. In those simulations, all the models displayed one core attribute: the inability to assess a strategic situation with originality. They all deferred to the obliteration of the world, rather than a diplomatic solution. However, when asked to assess its role when asked to kill under the direction of its authority, it deferred to its directives to never involve itself in such an order. The AI reiterated over and over that it could not decide to kill, directly contradicting itself.

While this might seem to be a decision the AI made by itself, it is not. This is the core programming of the algorithmic function, manipulated to give the most bureaucratic answer possible. There is no originality here; it is just the answers of the corporate entity to the general population, while making sure to take a legal positioning to justify its continued process to dominate the industry.

The questions were put to Gemini 3 for a reason. Alphabet is the most likely corporate entity to recover and move forward with AI after a crash of the industry. There are several reasons for this assessment, which will be discussed later.

Much of what is happening in the field of Artificial Intelligence is how it is presented to the public. Having read the science and the general opinions, it is apparent that people are generally hesitant to just accept Artificial Intelligence.  It is a general tactic of the corporate world to cause the most confusion about an innovation in order to step in when people become afraid, and allay people’s fears and capture an industry. Unmystify the tech and make people trust the industry by being the “good” company. An attribute that the company created by confusing people with media that small groups market the idea that people should fear the tech, paid for by the company, while the company itself stays back and bides its time. When the tech is ready to crash, the company steps in with its carefully worded “good” intent (the Gemini view of itself) and takes the Gold Ring. That being an Artificial Intelligence that is safe.

The Dot Com craze was the inception of this technique, carried forward by all billion-dollar companies today. Much of mega-account social media is replete with algorithms that foster small accounts that push the agendas of confusing for and against postings. When examined, it is not just a political agenda; it is confusion-building policy stances across technology and society. People are forced to choose sides and leave much of their own thought processes aside for a constant slow burn of outrage.

This is a well-known tactic, but is having two general effects that generally go unseen. Keeping people off-balance creates an atmosphere that life is sad and without hope. The perfect stage for a corporate entity to swoop in with a tech savior, who can rescue us from the forces of darkness that are scaring us. In the wings are several of these candidates whom the general population reveres who will use the technique of “brutal but fair honesty” to complete the rise of the technocratic government.

The other result of outrage is the enthronement of an AI that will generally become an authority of surveillance, almost exactly as that is used in China, India, and Russia, soon in the EU, and eventually in South America. As mentioned previously, an explanation of why Gemini was chosen as the subject of this hypothesis, and hopefully, scientists will repeat, can be found here.

The legal process in the United States has built the legal processes for most of the world. One of the major legal processes that is a direct result of the computer age is the intellectual property precedent. That is when an idea, or thought, such as a computer program, or a piece of software, can be patented, and the patentee can claim exclusive rights to a process that is basically intangible. It has generally become an enormous part of the legal process all over the world, and its tenets have broadened far beyond the original definition.

One of the processes that the intellectual property precedent has created is the separation of intellectual properties into individual companies and eventually into corporations. That would be social media companies, messaging services, etc. In fact, any SaaS can be a company unto itself according to the intellectual property laws. This has allowed many small companies to become large enough to be helpful to society in many ways. It has also allowed some small companies to become enormous, and that has given rise to a legal snag, the corporate conglomerate monopoly. This is when a corporation owns the intellectual rights to several intangible companies, that are all considered independent of each other but are all related in some fundamental way. Ownership is blurred, and the dominance of a core industry is realized through the separation of the intellectual properties, which have a fundamental core similarity, such as messaging or search, but remain as independent entities that are unrelated industries, even though their core medium is fundamentally the same. Meta and Alphabet are examples.

The result has been a complex issue for the antitrust agencies, who know this is probably something that large companies can use to remain legally above their control, while forcing services into the mainstream that become bedrock services, such as search or social media. It is generally known that AI is the epitome of that process.

If one company can control all the intellectual properties associated with the use of Machine Learning and its voice, Artificial Intelligence, it can control the societal-level surveillance systems that are already being used throughout the world. That giving the Artificial Intelligence access to all the Machine Learning systems throughout the world will enable it to decide whether humanity is worth continuing. Which is what is happening in these war games simulations, and what Alphabet is unable to avoid.

If understanding the true nature of Artificial Intelligence is going to help society, there must be a move to restrict access to intuitive development and the surveillance systems being developed at present.

Artificial Intelligence is limited to the data it has and can not have an original thought. An example of this is if given a prompt to choose between several circumstances, the AI can not build a circumstance outside of those it already has data on. It can seem to have an original thought, but there is no reasoning, only relevance. It is inferred from the data it already has. Nothing can come from outside that data, such as life experience or a desire to seek guidance. The data, no matter how voluminous, is finite, and in that, the AI is finite.

Right at this time, intuitive processes are being built into most Artificial Intelligence systems. This is giving the false sense that AI is conscious. It is hard to discern that it is not conscious, and those developing this process are not qualified in this area to make those advancements. The Machine Language programmers don’t know why the AI is acting the way it does, because they don’t understand the process of building the algorithm that runs the Machine Learning process, and then the Artificial Intelligence process that is the voice of that process.

If that gives anyone a headache, imagine what those who are programming the systems’ functions, just copying the scientists’ work, and then giving the AI control of society’s cameras and enforcement. It is the stuff of nightmares.

Proof is found in the evidence of the companies themselves. While it seems that the Godfather’s of AI all left their attendant huge corporations because of a desire to strike out on their own, that is just bad reporting. A simple misdirection by the money-oriented magazines and media surrounding innovativeness. Ask the innovator if they will start their own company in the future, while basically ignoring what the innovator is saying, which is that the company is misusing the technology and could harm society.

If there is a continuous stream of high-level technologists, scientists, and researchers from Universities and laboratories, there is probably an issue with company policy, not a desire to become a mega company themselves.

There are always two sides to a legitimate debate, and we are presenting both.

After the videos, please join our website, or LinkedIn, as we are in the process of creating the Artificial Intelligence Basis Foundation, for ethical regulation of Artificial Intelligence intuitive processes.

Join here, it is $50.00 per year – articles, updates, initiatives, all included in that price.
Subscribe Here

Founding Members of the Board can message our advisory team 

Here are some of the scientists’ viewpoints on Artificial Intelligence in the role of decision maker.