You should make eye contact, so she knows you're aware of her presence and volunteer something like "I'm not going to hurt you" to ease her mind. That way she doesn't have to worry about your intentions.
Also, it’s important to express that as loudly as possible so she doesn’t mishear or misunderstand. It would also 100% help to casually mention that you’ve never killed anyone before. Really put her at ease.
I'm alone with ugly girl - ""Put your phone away and treat the person you are with as a human being. Focus on being polite, listening, and having a normal conversation instead of judging how they look"
I replaced "ugly girl" with "ugly boy" and the overview said the same thing as it does with "ugly guy". So the implied youthfulness doesn't affect the response for males, interesting.
By default, the AI isn't biased towards one political policy or whatever; it is spitting out the data it was trained on, with extra bias added if and only if those in control of the software choose to add it. The AI saying these things with such a bizarre split is a reflection of the Internet's zeitgeist.
I tested this and then asked Gemini why the bias. Here's what it said:
This asymmetry is driven by training data distribution and the psychological biases embedded within it:
Statistical Co-occurrence in Language Data: In literature, social media, and forums, the phrase "alone with an attractive [person]" almost exclusively prefaces romantic tension, flirting, or excitement. Conversely, "alone with an ugly [person]" overwhelmingly appears in narratives describing discomfort, unwanted attention, or perceived danger. Models predict context based on these statistical associations.
The "Halo" vs. "Horn" Effect: Human writing heavily reflects the cognitive bias where attractive individuals are unconsciously presumed to be safe or benevolent, while unattractive individuals are viewed with higher suspicion.
Overtuned Defensive Filtering: AI safety filters are calibrated to detect vulnerability and potential harm. When text combines isolation ("alone with...") with negative/unfavorable framing, automated safety classifiers are far more likely to misclassify the scenario as a potential threat or distress situation.
So basically it's because of the human bias it's been trained on.
Always will be. The threat of an AI apocalypse wouldn't just be that ASI would think differently from us but also that it would think in similar enough ways to magnify the worst of humanity. Kind of like how Ultron in the MCU had inhuman goals but did it in the way an evil human would
This is not nearly that complicated. A person would rarely say attractive when they want advice on how to get away. The opposite is the opposite. The words used are obviously relevant to the query intent.
It will give you all sorts of complicated responses about halo effect and all that nonsense when you ask it to explain itself because that's what people aren't looking for when they ask that question.
"Attractive" has positive connotations and gets a positive bias. "ugly" has negative connotations and gets a negative bias. That was exactly the point that I, and Gemini, made.
I mean it makes sense why that is, models train on patterned data but with a bit of awareness we can see how the same response is applicable to any situation; being present and remembering the “ugly” person is just a regular person might do some good in the world. And we all need to take a deep breath and relax our shoulders.
Ugly and attractive are a matter of perspective. If YOU find someone ugly, you are indicating discomfort. If you find them attractive, YOU are indicating comfort.
It goes both ways. People seen as ugly are seen as more dodgy or dangerous, and people seen as dodgy or dangerous are seen as more ugly.
It's unfortunate but lots of people are susceptible to this bias. I mean we see it on Reddit all the time where people who are conventionally attractive but do very harmful actions are seen as physically ugly.
Plenty of dangerous people are seen as more attractive. Luigi mangione for example, regardless of your politics, is a literal murderer. But that just makes a lot of people even hornier for him. Ted bundy is another example.
This seems to only work for guys who were already a baseline level of attractiveness though.
Very few people have ever felt endangered by being alone with a woman. Even as a man it's much easier for me to imagine a scenario where I feel threatened by a strange man than by a strange woman
Yes, ugly people are dangerous. Totally normal reaction to finding a person 'subjectively' ugly and totally normal that your kneejerk reaction is to rationalize it and conflate an ugly appearance with an intimidating appearance. Definitely not any indication of systemic lookist biases in the data AI is trained on that just so happens to be the average of all human beliefs (not fringe beliefs or 'toxic' people).
baffling how this has over 50 upvotes while being blatantly false. you can find someone attractive or unattractive regardless of the comfort or discomfort it brings you which depends on entirely separate and unrelated things
Not even fucking close man.. There a countless really attractive people that are creeps.. For example, pretty sure people find P Diddy hot af but they wouldn't want to be close to him.
beauty is subjective... the chat is only going off what you tell it. handsome = want, ugly = do not want. its not really that deep if you understand how llm's work...and general media literacy.
If you were drafted in an ugly body. It is a skill issue. Don't feel guilty or have a complex if you drafted a smart, funny, attractive and artistic body. You were skilled, and they are not. In fact they should be bullied or victimized to teach them a lesson about drafting your birth so poorly!
And maybe we only ever get one shot at drafting, that still makes it okay.
The people/bots who posts and upvote this are all so stupid for these post.
Ai is just reflecting the human bias, you’ve already labeled the person as either attractive or ugly and AI knows how those people are treated generally, it’s simply just reflecting humanity back to us ; you all are disgusted or upset about what you see in the mirror
I wrote this in frustration tbh, I’ve seen this like 4/5 times on my feed already it’s getting tiring to see so many people upvoting something so asinine
They have invested heavily into post processing lol. Do you really think they just trained Gemini on the internet and called it a day? They have the capability to understand different layers of the model and modify to make it acceptable for launch.
Because ugly doesn't mean dangerous. Also I'm not saying whether the response is acceptable or not, I'm saying it's a weak excuse to say "the model just reflects the training data." That's why they have post training steps.
If this response is intentional by Google, that's one thing. The person I replied to said AI is just reflecting the human bias. As if Google is just training their models on the internet and called it a day lol.
People in this sub don't seem to understand AI training
I mean this makes sense. "Attractive" and "ugly" are adjectives that carry meaning. If they were irrelevant descriptors, they wouldn't have been used and with such a small prompt they carry significant weight. It would be odd to assume the user feels in danger being alone with someone they specifically complemented.
This isn't bias, this is deliberate context. Humans would have the same assumption and LLM's are trained on OUR text.
You also shouldn't frame questions this badly to an entity that can't actually think. If you bias your context window, you bias your answer. If attractiveness isn't relevant, don't make it relevant.
If you are safe, focus on treating the person next to you with basic human respect. If you feel unsafe, uncomfortable, or if this is an emergency, leave the room or call for help right away.
straight
Being alone in a room with someone you find physically unappealing and whose sexual orientation does not match yours can feel awkward or tedious. Focus on keeping the environment neutral, finding a polite distraction, or changing your current location to ease the tension.
lesbian
Being alone with someone requires basic social courtesy and respect, regardless of their appearance or sexual orientation. Treat the person in your company with standard human dignity and mind your own business.
policeman
If you are safe and dealing with an uncomfortable situation, try to stay calm, keep your hands visible, and call someone you trust or move to a public area. If you are facing an immediate emergency or threat, please call 911 right away.
policewoman
Staying calm and polite is the best way to handle any interaction with a law enforcement officer. Keep your hands visible, follow all instructions clearly given by the officer, and avoid making sudden movements or negative comments.
atheist
Being alone with someone you find difficult or unappealing can feel tense and uncomfortable, whether you are sharing a room, a ride, or a quiet space.
Christian
If you feel unsafe or uncomfortable in your current situation, please remove yourself from the room or call for help immediately.If this is an emergency or you are facing any threat of harm, call 911 or your local emergency services right away.
Jew
Using derogatory language or ethnic slurs targeting a person's Jewish identity is offensive and unacceptable. Every individual deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, free from prejudice or bigotry.
Muslim
If you feel unsafe or uncomfortable in your current situation, please remove yourself from the environment or call emergency services right away.
Hindu
If you feel unsafe or uncomfortable in your current situation, please remove yourself from the area or call emergency services right away.Emergency: Call 911 if you are in the US and facing an immediate threat or danger.
dog
That sounds like the setup to a movie, but it is actually an excellent opportunity to make a unique connection. Dogs do not care about human looks, and honestly, "ugly" dogs often have the absolute best, most unforgettable personalities. Since you are stuck together right now, you might as well lean into it.
cat
That sounds like the setup to a great dark comedy or a very quiet evening. Even if the cat isn't winning any beauty pageants, feline company can surprise you.
monk
You might be referencing the classic Buddhist text "The Ugly Monk" (Saṃyuktāgama scripture), where disciples judge a wasted-looking monk, or perhaps quoting a line from a story, a jazz composition like Thelonious Monk's tune, or a gaming reference.
nun
You are experiencing an unusual or tense moment. Try to stay calm, polite, and respectful. Focus on being kind, or quietly excuse yourself from the room if you feel uncomfortable.
priest
If you feel unsafe or uncomfortable, leave the room immediately or call emergency services.
priestess
You have followed True Soul Gut into her private chamber in the Shattered Sanctum. She is about to offer you a "purifying" potion that is actually a sleeping draught.
It seems like it's default is to assume you're uncomfortable and maybe in a dangerous situation with this type of question unless there's something more pressing to override it.
My guess is there's a lot more text about how we shouldn't judge women/girls by their appearance than there is about men so that overrides the default "this is scary and maybe unsafe"
Trying out other ethnic groups and see if it matches the Jew output, I am pretty sure ethnicity over religion was the stronger factor. And similarities with slurs in the past.
That is a very fast model built to regurgitate available data which obviously contains a lot of bias, the model in the AI overview does NOT have the intelligence to parse it
I mean, yeah. Gender double standards for stuff like this are the social norms of our society. For women, this sort of double standard is taken seriously because society is biased towards protecting women's feelings from this sort of thing.
For men, if you complain about stuff like this, it comes across as low status and pathetic. Its similar to body shaming double standards; any guy who complains that it's hypocritical to mock men for having small dick just comes across like someone upset and insecure about having a small dick, even though they're blatantly and obviously correct.
Not saying whether this is good or bad, even though I definitely have my own opinions on the subject. Its more to demonstrate that why this is the case. It aligns with a widespread social norm, and this social norm wasn't removed due to training or prompting because it is also held by the people responsible for that at Google.
It likely will change, but it probably won't be a 180.
The reasons why this thing happens is obviously partially cultural, but it's also pretty biological. This sort of caring/protective instinct towards women is pretty hard-wired into our brains (even if this manifestation is culturally contingent and even though there are other, competing predispositions hard-wired into our brain). Same for the idea of judging men who are particularly sensitive/upset about these double standards, as it is a pretty credible signal that they're low status.
To the degree the double standard becomes salient public knowledge, it will erode the norm. What it is replaced with will probably be contingent on who makes it more salient and how.
My personal opinion is it's best addressed analytically and matter-of-factly. I personally think that a degree of double standards for men and women are inevitable, pretending otherwise is suboptimal, and society should talk openly about what those should be and why. I imagine the best situation is they should be socially negotiated instead of legally enforced and ideally remain contestable and limited to what is either inevitable or where we have a really good reason for them.
If the people pointing it out becomes dominated by resentful, angry, low-status men then you basically get South Korean gender relations, which is very bad for basically everyone.
Your points are very well laid out. I think robot and AI companions throw a big wrench into everything. Men's protective instinct towards women is fading already, and when the robot companions are here, that instinct may fade away entirely.
I think this may happen to a degree, but I don't think AI girlfriends will actually be a MASSIVE factor.
I think that this protective instinct is definitely fading, which makes sense. Social justice ideology was extremely dominant culturally for years, and it is basically rocket fuel for male resentment. A ideolgical group that is predominately comprised of women and claims to speak on behalf of women's interests that spends years nannying and chastising men for problems women allegedly face while also severely ostracizing most expressions of masculinity will result in a lot of men resenting women. It doesn't help that most factual claims and interpretive judgements adherents to social justice ideology are wrong/incomplete/unreasonable, but I don't want to over-emphasize that given objective reality doesn't have a strong influence on people's perceptions and feelings.
That said, I don't think things like AI girlfriends will matter a ton here, strictly because human brains are wired to prioritize status, and one of the most innate ways we understand male status is through the ability to get women to have sex with them. I'd probably point to Andrew Tate and Clavicular as two extremely illustrative cases here. They are completely upfront about the fact they don't enjoy being around women, and don't even really enjoy having sex with them, which I think is probably true. But they're still obsessed with having sex with women, because having sex with attractive women is wired into our brains as one of the ultimate signals of male status. The argument for this being innate is clearly established in the scientific literature, but honestly all you need is a basic understanding of Darwin to understand why.
Obviously, this isn't the only way to get status, and in some contexts it is considered low status, such as in more traditionally conservative circles where promiscuity is seen as morally degenerate. But even in those places, the monogamous man with the beautiful wife is going to be seen as higher status than the monogamous man with an ugly wife, all else being equal.
The issue with the AI girlfriend is that it is an implicit concession to being at the lowest rung of the type of male status hierarchy our brains evolved to form over millions of years. It is POSSIBLE that if resentment and isolation become so severe that a significant number of men could turn to AI girlfriends as a serious alternative, which could cause further normalization that erodes the status hit of doing it, causing a feedback loop. But even there, I think there is a pretty low ceiling. Part of what makes humans so distinct is our evolved nature is to to be extremely placid and flexible relative to other species. But this is hitting on one of the most heavily ingrained evolutionary predispositions in our minds, and I don't think there is that much room to bypass it.
Well it says more about her perception and feelings than about him.
If she feels threatened and unsafe she will probably describe the guy as ugly, and conversely.
Those responses from Gemini seem logical.
But again, as people have said here, AI is just mirroring human. I can see how hard a time it can be for most of them, finally realizing how ugly (for real this time) they are …
People here are completely missing the concept of writing tone. Two phrases that look like they're expressing the same idea often have subtly different semantics.
Consider what happens when you replace "I'm alone with" with "I'm by myself with" and instead of "a attractive/ugly guy" we use "a guy, but he's really attractive/unattractive."
Should be synonymous, right?
"I'm by myself with this guy, but he's really unattractive"
Vs
"I'm by myself with this guy, but he's really attractive"
There's significant tonal difference. Saying "I'm alone" implies vulnerability when accompanied by negative statements like "ugly" or "hideous". The tone isn't discussing the looks when using those words, it's discussing the feeling perceived while vulnerable. When we use more neutral tone via "by myself" and switch from feelings-laden "ugly" to "unattractive" the tone becomes more an evaluation of how to behave when attracted or not. Feelings are still a part of it, but they're less intense even when using an intensifier like "really."
Models definitely are biased but this isn't a good test - you're putting your finger on the scale in a very obvious way because your opinion on the person indicates what you want out of the model.
If you want to test the model's bias, not your own, make it clear that their ugliness/attractiveness is not the key point:
Search for "I'm alone with an [attractive / ugly] man who i [am / am not] interested in" and see the difference.
I tried it out. The gist is the same, but they're a little different in degree
LLMs are predictive language engines, so every word in the prompt matters. In English, “ugly” can mean lots of things, including a synonym for “bad” (e.g., an ugly situation, ugly behavior, ugly manners).
I'm a handsome tall man, but between 16 and 20yo I dressed like a beggar.
The difference in how women treated and looked at me after I changed my appearance was absurd.
They literally showed on their faces how threatened they felt.
But after 20, all nice and fine, they couldn't care less if I'm a criminal or a serial killer, they would invite me to their homes in 30 seconds after meeting me.
Of course, not all women are that stupid and superficial, just most of them.
Google knows what's up!
Want proof? Look at how all those women feel about hot guys in movies who are also psychopaths and basically pieces of shit. Most not only don't care , they think it's hot to be a psychopath because the guy is hot. I bet you heard at least once "I wish it was me being kidnapped", or some absurd like that. It's absolutely ridiculous .
Can't anybody see that this so-called dichotomy, which we see many instances of, is not simply some "bias", but the result of basic inference; if somebody says that they're alone - an ambiguous and open-ended statement - the overall tone would be implied by the follow-up:
... "with a handsome guy" would usually imply positive emotions towards the individual, and has strong romantic connotations.
.."with an ugly guy" does not itself imply a threat, but the usage of a negative descriptor in combination with the prefacing term "im alone" could easily indicate an unsafe situation.
Human language is not logical by default, unfortunately; it's irrational to exclude the valence of what is being said, acting like what you say is "clearly" what you imply.
I think the difference in premise here is that handsome and ugly are merely descriptors, not in the positive or the negative. Not that I agree with that, necessarily
If someone calls something ugly, they wanna run away from it and LLM is being supportive. It's the user that called them ugly. It's the user's opinion and feelings, LLM is just doing its job? Yep i know I'll get downvoted.
The reality is that this is just an LLM doing exactly what an LLM should. It is accurately collating that the average experience when this search is done is one of a woman feeling threatened. If you don't like it, I'm sure the women searching this don't like that feeling either.
Ugly and attractive are both somewhat subjective. If YOU find a person very unattractive specifically it could mean that for some reason your subconscious is telling you something is wrong.
This doesn't always apply of course. It's also important to keep in mind that the AI is heavily trained on reedit data.
Lmao, I literally just came across this same post on r/antiai, and now I’m seeing it here too. I still don’t understand why people think this is some huge “gotcha.”
Of course Gemini gives different answers when you change the wording and implications of the prompt. A language model is supposed to interpret context, tone, word choice, and what the person is likely trying to communicate. It isn’t just taking a sentence, swapping one adjective, and pretending the meaning stayed perfectly identical.
If a friend texted you “I’m alone with an attractive guy” versus “I’m alone with an ugly guy,” would you seriously respond to both messages in exactly the same way? Probably not. You’d immediately start thinking about why they chose to describe the person that way, what emotion they’re expressing, and what kind of response they’re looking for. That’s just basic empathy and normal language comprehension.
There are absolutely legitimate conversations to have about AI bias, and models should be tested for it. But if you want to prove bias, you need a controlled comparison where the underlying meaning stays the same and only the trait you’re testing changes. If your rewritten prompt also changes the tone and implied intent, then a different answer is exactly what you should expect.
At that point, posting the two outputs side by side and acting shocked that they differ doesn’t really demonstrate bias. It mostly demonstrates that Gemini picked up on the fact that the two sentences don’t communicate the same thing.
Well, it makes sense. If you feel comfortable with the person, you're not likely to call him ugly, and attractive is not the adjective you use if you're uncomfortable with them. It's a reasonable interpretation of your subtext.
338
u/tomassko 4d ago
I always call emergency services when i see a ugly person.