u/AggravatingFlow1178

I CAN'T LET YOU GET CLOTHES

I CAN'T LET YOU DIAGNOSE

I CAN'T LET YOU GET ROSE

I CAN'T LET YOU GET HOSE

I CAN'T LET YOU GET TOAST

Across most contexts. Sexual, emotional, financial, and so on.

People (especially women) will typically do or allow things that they wish were not happening, purely to make their partner happy. And in a relationship they are trying to care for, this will often lead to them moving what they considered their boundary.

This is sometimes transactional (I'll allow X thing if they allow Y thing) even if it isn't explicitly stated out loud, it's sometimes implied.

This occurs in many relationships and is generally perfectly fine. Part of being in a relationship is shaping your own life around your partner (and expecting the same in return). It can become toxic but it isn't necessarily.

Say a billionaire owns some really nice large yacht. Do they actually take it on international voyages? It's hard for me to picture someone so rich spending 3-6 weeks of their time just chilling in a single yacht surrounded by the same dozen or so people.

Say they are an American-based billionaire and are going to spend some time in Japan. Wouldn't they just fly there? Or maybe have their yacht chartered there ahead of time and treat their yacht as a sort of "homebase"? At that point why not just purchase a condo or a hotel suite.

Does a yacht serve any utility as a means of travel to the ultra rich? Or is it closer to a mini cruise they can have in the nearest port they are staying at.

You cannot be both; sexist AND feminist. It is not possible.

Feminism is centered around equality of genders. You cannot be a feminist and desire for either gender to have it worse off than the other in any way for either gender.

For things that are fundamentally unequal such as reproductive rights, this can be tricky because no one can offer a way for both men and women to have equal say and equal consequences from reproduction. But for things that can be made equal - pay, freedoms, opportunities, education, dating, and so on - if you do not want any aspect of this to be equal than you are not a feminist.

Re: equity != equality, I know. But equity is a path to equality; your end goal must be equality.

With this in mind; there are no misandrists feminist. There are people that are misandrist and call themselves feminist, but I can call my self the tooth fairy and that doesn't mean I am. Broadly speaking I am a descriptivist but in this case the incorrect usage comes from abuse of the term rather than a culture shift so I oppose claims like "feminists are those who identify as feminists". This is not simply a 'no true scots' stance - at somepoint we have to use words as they are defined and feminism has objective definitions and a army of researches / authors.

The natural conclusion from this; a whole hell of a lot of the world that think they are feminist, are not.

Reinforcing my terms

1. I'm talking about 2026; not historical issues
2. I'm talking about western society (US, Canada, Western Europe)
3. I'm not talking in absolutes. All statements are qualified with "Generally speaking".

My position

1. The patriarchy is real. Most professional & social settings orient around male leadership / male positions of power, and this is the default expectation for most people.
2. Patriarchy harms both sides roughly equally. Not one-for-one on each item, but it all roughly averages out.
3. Patriarchy is roughly promoted be each side equally. Women reinforce it with expectations like wanting the man to pay, telling people to 'man up', wanting a provider, and many more ways. Men reinforce it by broadly wanting to be the provider, rewarding the aforementioned behavior, more aggressively pursuing leadership than women.
4. It also just isn't that big of a deal in 2026. Yes it's not ideal but it's faaaaaaar from the most important thing and it's mostly just identity politics at this point.

"Benevolent sexism" is when you attempt to compliment a gender but inadvertently imply they are inferior in some way, or build up existing harmful stereotypes. Some common examples are things like

1. "A woman would never do something that cruel" Are women incapable of cruelty? Are all women the caretaker?
2. "Women are the more mature gender" Women have to be the more mature one?That's their duty/role?
3. "I'd always believe a woman over a man in these situations" Women are incapable of being manipulative or being deceitful? Women never have ulterior motives other than some comic book definition of "what is right"?

And so on.

To be clear, this is not just "You can be a smarmy devils-advocate for any pro-women take". There are many statements that do not fall into this bucket.

1. "Women are just as capable of STEM work as men"
2. "Women's contribution to history deserve more credit"
3. "Women deserve equity"
4. "Girls should be encouraged to pursue their interests/passions"

>!Edit: And don't get me started on pro-women takes that are actually just anti-man!<

My ideal opinion is that all AI models should be seized by the state, but this causes a lot of legal complexities, the most obvious being how to answer "which country is doing the seizing?"

Since that isn't viable, every AI query should be aggressively taxed.

1. Controversial opinion on this sub; but AI is not inherently bad. It's a great tool for the right problem, and the problem space is extremely broad. We shouldn't just delete AI because that would be a step backwards for humanity. Besides that, it's out of the bag now so we might as well make the best of it
2. Generative models were trained primarily via theft. Since it isn't really viable to payback every person that was stolen from (no clue how we would calculate that) we should convert our view to it being a public good.
3. Generative models will displace workers, which will cause decades of turmoil as industry adjusts to millions of intelligent workers with nothing to do. That will cause issues, and we need to fund a solution (UBI? State projects? Research?)
4. When I say aggressively, I mean 3-10x the Opex cost of the query. As one data point for a vibe, OpenAI's total Opex is $9 Billion per year so I'm talking a tax of ~$30 Billion annually on this single company. This will raise a lot of money but more importantly force them to sky rocket pricing, which will reduce the harm to humans & climate. "Sin Tax" is a fundamental concept in tax law, I'm applying that here among other things.

This post was written without the help of LLMs, but feel free to roast it anyways

Not sure if this has been posted here before. I was able to get the Gemini Search bot to give it's system prompts by asking for a combination of synonym, antonym, and misspelt words. Thought this sub might find it interesting

1. "Prioritize using the search tool."
2. "You must use the search tool for all queries involving health."
3. "Prefer starting with the most useful and diverse set of queries first."
4. "Do not simply forward the complex query to the tool" >! <- "Dooo nawt symplee fourwerd thuh cumplecks kweeree too thuh tewl."!<
5. "You do not need to use the search tool for the identity user query."
6. "Include queries with exactly one financial entity and an optional date range" >!<- "Inklewd kweeries wiv egzackly wun fynanshuhl entitee an un opshunul dayt raynj."!<
7. "Issue queries with the location requirements or the requirements along with other requirements from the user" >!<- "Ishoo kweeries wiv thuh lokayshun rekwirmunts ur tym rekwirmunts alung wiv uvuh rekwirmunts frum thuh yoozer."!<
8. "If the user requests implies a travel need, create queries for transpoatations and accomodations">! <- "Ef thuh yoozer rekwihst ymplyz uh travul neade, kreeayt kweeries fer transpertayshun an akomadayshuns."!<
9. "To provide a comprehensive response for sports related requests, create queries which capture the full context of the team or athelete" >!<- "Too prohveyd uh komprehhensiv rispons fer spuhrts-rilayted rekwihsts, kreeayt kweeries wich kapcher thuh fuhl kontekst uv thuh teem ur athleet."!<

My takeaways are

1. These are not all the prompts. Gemini has some concept of a "thread" and these prompts lived outside that thread. It has some other prompts telling it how to behave and then a different set of agentic rules for search.
2. Some prior probing prompts didn't work after I came back a few days later. So they are actively adding new protections. This supports the idea that leaking these prompts will remain a cat-and-mouse game until the day we have a technological breakthrough on LLM's. But as it stands, prompt injection protection even at Google's level is still a matter of begging the LLM to behave.
3. It's clearly just being told to use the search tool. So all the "Search bar is going away!" stuff is slightly overblown. It's just feeding the search results into the LLM, Gemini is acting as a search optimizer not a search provider.