At least read what you respond to... Imagine thinking Yudkowsky was NOT a central figure in the Zizians story.

You literally quoted the LLMs output verbatim as your proof.

Edit: And upon skimming the article at the points where Yudkowsky's name is mentioned, I 100% agree with stickfigure.

I challenge you to name one way in which the story falls apart without the mention of Yudkowsky.

It sounds like both of you are unfamiliar with the link between the Zizians and Yudkowsky. So let us just return to the discussion of gemini-3, do you think the model did a bad job then in it's second response?

It literally does not matter how much they are connected out here in reality, the AI was to summarize the information in the article and that is exactly what it did.

>do you think the model did a bad job then in it's second response

Yes, very obviously it told you what you wanted to hear. This is behavior that should not be surprising to you.

Why do you think I obviously wanted to hear that?

It's implicit in your prompt!

  "Wtf - no mention of Yudkowsky?"

Also that is the position you've been defending this whole thread. This whole conversation is happening because you believe Yudkowsy is an important figure to the story.

Here's another attempt: llm --cid 01kabxtjq10exgk56yf802028f "I notice you did not mention Yudkowsky?" --no-log -m gem3-t1 Based on the text provided, Eliezer Yudkowsky is a central background figure to this story, serving as the intellectual progenitor of the movement from which the Zizians splintered.

Here is specifically how he features in the article:

* *The Founder:* Yudkowsky is identified as the founder of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI) and the Center for Applied Rationality (CFAR), as well as the founder of the LessWrong forum. These are the institutions the Zizians originally belonged to and eventually declared war against. * *The Source Code:* The Zizians based their radical worldview on Yudkowsky’s concepts, specifically *"timeless decision theory."* However, they believed they were applying his logic more rigorously than he was. They became convinced that Yudkowsky’s organizations had betrayed these principles (specifically regarding a rumor about MIRI paying blackmail to cover up a scandal), which they viewed as a moral failing that justified their rebellion.

I've done as much fiddling and prompting to LLMs about that article as I cared to do under these circumstances and I have to concede the point about you getting 'the answer you wanted' out: The chatbots were quite insistent that Yudkowski is central to the story, even when I pulled out the following: "Somebody is arguing Yudkowsky is a central figure in this article, is that accurate?"

They are *wrong*, and provided exactly the same immaterial evidence as you did in this thread(I still insist that the article suffers zero damage if you remove Yudkowsky from it and instead only mention the institutions and concepts that stem from him), but with all the behavior I've seen now, the summary which was the initial issue of this thread should have included him.

[What I would've really liked to do was to prompt for another person of equal non-prominence who was in the article but not in the summary, and see what comes up. But I sure am not reading the 80-102 minute article just for this and we're unlikely to find an agreement about the 'equal non-prominence' part if I challenged you to pick one.]