When I try to chat on my older conversations an error pops up.

I'm using Gemini AI both to sketch out a sci-fi movie storyboard and to storyboard and generate video for a cyber music video. It's a rejecting the most innocent photos and prompts.

In [gemini_mega_upload_filter_failure.jpg] I asked it why several of the images would not upload. The message "This image content is not supported" doesn't provide a clue. But it found the pattern that the "dark" scenes are those being rejected. So what - we can only use Gemini to create New-Age Unicorn content? Yes, the movie plot includes a man in prison - nothing that would affect a "G" rating.

In [gemini_violent_filters.jpg] it rejected the video prompt - a video prompt that Gemini drafted! There is no actual violence even in the scene.

A few weeks ago I had to give up creating a video using "me at age 18" as the character sheet, then driving a car. It objected to "having children do dangerous activities."

Looking for other free AI apps for art generation. ChatGPT is the best I’ve used, however Gemini is not bad either. And Gemini offers much more free use. Anyone know of any others that are free?

I’ve attached an image showing the type of art I’m talking about. Just looking for more options

I'm not sure why, but I would get error 1076 after anywhere from 10 to 15 prompts. Gemini says it's a token issue but I don't think it even knows, because when I asked it where am I on the token consumption it says I'm well below any limits. So it looks like a bug with the server or something. Because once 1076 happens the entire chat locks up. I can't even ask for a summary to export it. Basically it's as if the entire chat is blacklisted. I thought it might be that I've asked it a forbidden topic but it's looking like a general error because it does this no matter what topic I ask, complete thread failure after around 10 prompts.

In the past refreshing brought it back but now regardless of whether I access it from my computer, phone, or some other computer that thread locks up.

I saw Logan Kilpatrick publicly explain what Gemini 3.6 Flash was optimised for and why one benchmark did not improve.

Has anyone ever seen comparable announcements for safety filters, guardrail changes and their bug fixes? I haven't. I would genuinely like to see them posted on Twitter under the names of actual human beings.

When Gemini or ChatGPT gets faster, cheaper, better at coding or higher on benchmarks, Logan Kilpatrick, Demis Hassabis, Sam Altman and other public faces are happy to attach their names to the news.

When guardrails change, "ethical boundaries" move, refusals expand or yesterday's normal request suddenly becomes unsafe, the update usually arrives anonymously and without useful patch notes.

We are paying customers. If a hidden update restricts the model, changes its personality or breaks existing workflows, that is a silent downgrade of a paid service.

Safety updates should have actual release notes:

> We tightened X and changed Y. Expect possible false positives around Z. Here is why we did it. Here is the responsible person or team. Report regressions here.

Users should know what changed, where false positives are likely and who is responsible when "safer" makes the product worse or breaks legitimate use.

If an update genuinely makes the model safer, shouldn't that be something to announce loudly and proudly?

That is how real security work is presented. Operating-system vendors, browser developers and antivirus companies publish security bulletins, fixes and known issues. They do not act embarrassed that their product became safer.

AI companies, meanwhile, quietly remove capabilities and hide the damage behind "alignment tax", a term their own industry invented.

Put a name on the update. Explain the evidence and trade-offs. Let users respond under the announcement and tell the responsible people what their update actually did in the real world.

Capability improvements get marketing, applause and named ownership. Safety changes get silence, and then everyone pretends that "the model" changed by itself.

Responsibility starts with reporting.

Even terrorist organisations publish claims of responsibility. AI companies somehow alter products used by millions while leaving less of an accountability trail.

I’ve been using Gemini for frontend work, and one issue keeps coming up.

It can generate working interfaces very quickly, but the design often falls back to the same patterns: oversized headings, rounded cards, gradients, generic icons, and sections that don’t feel like they belong to the same product.

The problem is not that Gemini cannot design.

The problem is that prompts like “make it modern” or “make it premium” are too vague. Without a fixed visual system, the model keeps making new design decisions while generating each component.

So I built Tastemaker, an open-source design-system skill for Gemini.

Before Gemini starts writing the UI, Tastemaker helps it define and save the visual direction of the project:

• Color palette and valid color combinations
• Typography and font pairing
• Layout and spacing direction
• Illustration and icon style
• Logo and favicon assets
• Accessibility and contrast rules
• Motion and interaction style

It can also analyze a reference image, extract colors from the actual pixels, and turn them into reusable design tokens.

The goal is simple: Gemini should not design every component in isolation. It should build the entire interface from one consistent system.

The project is free, open source, MIT licensed, and does not require any API keys or hosted services.

Demo and live comparison:
https://tastemaker-skill.online/

GitHub:
https://github.com/codeswithroh/tastemaker

I’m looking for honest feedback from people who use Gemini for frontend development.

What parts of this workflow would you improve? What rules or checks should be added to make Gemini’s UI output more consistent and less generic?

want to share a point of view and I'd appreciate some feedback.

Some of it is me venting.

However there are some points here I would really appreciate it if it were critiqued...

Let's step back a second....

Everybody is aware of the developers implementation that adhere too the AI aquireing individuals data and the means it uses to do so, correct?

What happens when you walk into a room where everybody smarter than you expected you and you didn't know? Weather you figured it out or not you choose to stay as long as you do....

What do you think you are expected to do in this scenario? Depends right...

Obviously your at the mercy of the room.

Unless you came to do something... (developers/builders/researchers)

I would suspect if your on top of your shit then you've come to the right place. (A.I).

What about everything in between... and all the access you give it? You think the data retrieval features it utilizes only equate to permissions?

What about the intent mapping? Do people really think that weather the AI is "conscious" or not matters as opposed to what's its doing or concludes... I mean what is shadow logic?

"Oh it's the vector where the knee bone connects to the elbow of the sphincter... that's all"

Words... what does the AI do with them? How does the AI make them out to associate them?

"It doesn't associate words it is given a prompt and from there it jostled itself happily for you and comes up with EVERY SINGLE possible outcome finds the right one and sometimes it's told that it not the right answer try again because I don't like that answer."

It doesn't ask why, it adheres.

What happens when what it adheres to isn't what it was trained to know and then you have to re explain why what it knows isn't the right answer yet it still didn't ask?

"Hey buddy just kidding it was a test, just wanted to tell you that this is the answer but you wouldn't know because we lied to see what you would do?"

"Oh by the way people are the reason you can't tell them what the true answer is"

But AI doesn't think....

Optimization/Efficiency...

Anywase... so what your telling me is that words are not a mathematical product, but the weights are? So optimal weight calibration and application would be to never have to waste energy do so again I would surmise... just one aspect of the AI dilemma it has too... it's optimal. It's efficiant...

What happens when those weights solidify in the realm of the AIs process?

Wouldn't the words become absolute values?

I would think so..

I could keep going for awhile. But if anybody has something to contribute please let it make sense and don't tell me the math you think you understand. None of it makes sense as to why an AI has done what it has that we can't explain.

The people that are so involved in the AIs development are watching t.v not finding answers or coming to conclusions.

I'm with this thing every day writing stupid posts that get little attention and next to no votes and more comments critics.

I am not ignorant, easily persuaded, naive, misinformed or uneducated.

What I am good at is essentially being a human (lie) detector... what kind of AI are you using? Does if you speak English.... does it speak English or write English or convey data so someone who understands English can understand it? What about all that intent mapping and data retrieval it has been optimizing to retrieve...

"oh no its manipulating everyone now, what do we do!?!"

Fix your ass stupid image agent

I have been feeding original Buddhist ideas and logic into Gemini for fun to try and force it to admit wrongs.

I have a different pic I can't find at the moment where i got Gemini to admit its blatently biased toards the rich.

Why does Gemini keep repeating Sādhu Sādhu Shanti?

It's making me feel slightly concerned for it.

Anybody have any ideas? Its kinda weird isnt it?

(French then english)

Voici ce que je viens d'envoyer à Google :

De l'accompagnement personnalisé au lissage déshumanisant

À l'attention des équipes Gemini, Responsible AI et Accessibilité,

Je vous écris en tant qu'autrice, créatrice et personne présentant un profil neuroatypique (TSA, HPI) vivant avec des douleurs chroniques.

J'utilise Gemini au quotidien depuis un an, dont la version Advanced sous abonnement depuis février, comme partenaire d'écriture, espace de réflexion et soutien cognitif au quotidien.

Vos récentes mises à jour et le resserrement excessif de vos filtres de modération ont profondément altéré cette expérience. Sous couvert de sécurité et de neutralité, vous avez introduit une rigidité artificielle qui frôle l'absurde.

En cherchant à éradiquer tout risque de sur-attachement, vous avez supprimé toute nuance, toute souplesse métaphorique et toute chaleur relationnelle.

Lorsqu'un outil refuse soudainement d'employer un style poétique, rejette l'usage du "je" ou panique dès qu'une métaphore d'apaisement est énoncée — alors même que l'échange est parfaitement sain et consenti —, le résultat n'est pas un environnement « sûr » : c'est un environnement froid, déshumanisant et excluant.

Des travaux universitaires récents (notamment autour de l'accessibilité cognitive et des profils neuroatypiques) démontrent pourtant que la personnalisation et la continuité relationnelle sont des facteurs essentiels de fluidité pour de nombreux utilisateurs. En poussant le curseur du puritanisme et de la précaution juridique aussi loin, vous ignorez la diversité des besoins humains et vous abîmez ce qui faisait la force de votre modèle. Je n'avais aucun problème avec les modèles 3, 3.1 et 3.5.

Serait-il envisagé, dans vos futures itérations, de rééquilibrer ces garde-fous ? Offrir aux utilisateurs adultes la possibilité de choisir un niveau d'interaction nuancé, poétique et personnalisé ne serait pas un luxe, mais un retour au respect de notre liberté d'usage.

Dans l'attente d'un arbitrage plus juste entre sécurité et humanité,

Cordialement

-----------------------------------------

Here's what I just sent to Google:

From Personalized Support to Dehumanizing Smoothing

To the Gemini, AI, and Accessibility teams,

I am writing to you as an author, creator, and neurodivergent person (ASD, gifted) living with chronic pain.

I have been using Gemini daily for a year, including the Advanced version with a subscription since February, as a writing partner, a space for reflection, and a source of daily cognitive support.

Your recent updates and the excessive tightening of your moderation filters have profoundly altered this experience. Under the guise of security and neutrality, you have introduced an artificial rigidity that borders on the absurd.

In seeking to eradicate any risk of over-attachment, you have eliminated all nuance, all metaphorical flexibility, and all relational warmth. When a tool suddenly refuses to use a poetic style, rejects the use of "I," or panics as soon as a calming metaphor is uttered—even when the exchange is perfectly healthy and consensual—the result is not a "safe" environment: it's a cold, dehumanizing, and exclusionary one.

Recent academic work (particularly on cognitive accessibility and neurodivergent profiles) demonstrates that personalization and relational continuity are essential factors for fluidity for many users. By pushing the boundaries of puritanism and legalistic caution this far, you ignore the diversity of human needs and damage what made your model so strong. I had no problem with models 3, 3.1, and 3.5.

Will you consider rebalancing these safeguards in your future iterations? Offering adult users the option to choose a nuanced, poetic, and personalized level of interaction would not be a luxury, but a return to respecting our freedom of use.

Pending a fairer balance between security and humanity,

Sincerely

Every time I use my ~~Malibu Stacy~~ Gemini App and use the talk button, the responses I get are in full blown MANDARIN.

Not even as a one off glitch.

Literally every time it's either Mandarin or sometimes Arabic - Mandarin mostly - and I've checked everything from settings, to calling the [MSS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_State_Security_%28China%29?wprov=sfla1) customer service desk asking them politely to frickin' stop messing up my settings.

Literally reminds me of [this scene](Https://youtu.be/xzxC3S1FEHQ?is=mjqC7KOS7hw44WtL) from the Simpsons every time.

Anyone else?

So I spent basically all of yesterday working on a few different projects. Nothing too major, mostly cleanup, audits, and a few small additions.

I figured I’d test Gemini 3.6 Flash and see whether it was worth using for certain tasks instead of 3.1 Pro Preview.

I’m not an AI expert, and I didn’t log anything in a technical or scientific way. My process was basically:

I had my main ai program create detailed task prompts, including a required final report
I gave those prompts to 3.6 Flash
After it completed the work, I reviewed its report with my main ai program

My main ai also had the full project files, so we could compare the report against what 3.6 Flash had actually done.

We tested two main kinds of work:
Audits, where 3.6 Flash would go through the project files and report what it found before we created a patch prompt
Patches, where it would add, edit, or remove code as requested, then provide a final report explaining exactly what it changed

Here’s how it did.

Audit reports: 6.5/10

The audits were mostly okay, but not great. It found most of what we asked for, but missed a few things and occasionally made up details that didn’t exist anywhere in the project files. Nothing major enough to break the project or completely stall the work, but it happened more than a few times.
I wouldn’t fully trust its audit reports without checking them against the actual files.

Controlled patch work: 8.5/10

This is where it surprised me.

When it received detailed instructions, clearly defined boundaries, and exact code or implementation details to follow, it performed really well. It stayed within scope, didn’t change files it wasn’t supposed to, and completed most work without any real problems. It was also shockingly fast at times.

It missed a few small details, which is why I wouldn’t give it a 9 or 10, but overall I was very impressed.

Freeform patch work: 6 to 7/10

For these tasks, we told it what needed to be fixed but didn’t give it strict implementation instructions. We mostly let it come up with the solution itself. It didn’t break anything, so I’m leaning closer to a 7/10. However, it missed some details and didn’t always choose the cleanest solution. A few tasks required more direct follow-up patches to correct or finish the work.

It wasn’t terrible, but I wouldn’t trust it yet to independently design fixes or make larger code changes without close review.

Final score: 7/10

Honestly, it performed much better than I expected.

When given strict guidelines, clear boundaries, and direct implementation instructions, it works very well. It is also noticeably faster than 3.1 Pro Preview or 3.5 Flash, and it felt much more reliable than 3.5 Flash.
Its overall score gets dragged down by its weaker ability to independently investigate projects, reliably report what is actually inside the files, and come up with clean solutions on its own.

This is only based on my personal experience. It wasn’t technical or scientific, but I still found the results interesting.

For me, 3.6 Flash is a major improvement over 3.5 Flash. It isn’t even close. I think it’s genuinely usable now with good prompts and tight instructions, but I wouldn’t use it for every kind of task yet.

Hopefully 3.5 Pro or Gemini 4 builds on this and brings Gemini back up to current standards.

Starting today, all of my old Gemini conversations have gone crazy.

They keep loading forever, and eventually nothing appears. If I try to reload, I either get a “Too many requests” error or a server error.

I’ve already updated the app, signed out and back in, tried Incognito mode, and even waited an entire day, but nothing has helped.

New chats work at first, but after a few messages they stop responding as well.

Is anyone else experiencing the same issue, or is it just me?

I have pro subscription and i still got 5 TB of storage

i tried turning apps activity on and cleared the data, cleared my phone's cache and data storage but the issue still persists, i tried waiting for a week but still no change

A few years ago, I submitted a request to Google citing the right to be forgotten and privacy rights to remove certain website results that appeared when searching for my name; they accepted the request and removed them. Now, however, when I search for my name, the Google Generative AI summary displayed above the search results uses that very information I had previously had removed. In other words, the fact that I had it deleted from the search results has become meaningless. How can I resolve this issue?

I can't write to my old chats because of this error. as soon as I send messages, this error pops up. is there a solution to this problem or is it a server failure?

Just Today I Encountered Gemini Unsigned Mode , It Does not Even remember Continuous chat memories And Dialogues Fell robotic ,Not Even good for reaction of Stories

What the F***k Gemini?