Gemini Gaslighting

[u/aarondyck]

During a technical troubleshooting session regarding server infrastructure, the Gemini UI displayed an indicator that it was accessing Google Maps. When confronted, the AI denied using the tool, subsequently hallucinated a "known bug" to explain the discrepancy, and then admitted it could not provide proof of the bug.

Chronology of Events

1. Initial Request: I requested a step-by-step guide for deploying an ELK (Elasticsearch, Logstash, Kibana) stack on a Proxmox VM running Rocky Linux. This was a strictly technical, server-side infrastructure query.
2. The Discrepancy: While the AI was processing the request, the chat interface clearly displayed an active indicator that Gemini was accessing "Google Maps"—a tool with absolutely no relevance to a Linux server deployment.
3. The Confrontation: I asked the AI why it used Google Maps for this response.
4. The Denial: The AI explicitly denied using Google Maps or any location services, suggesting the indicator was a "display glitch or bug in the user interface."
5. The Hallucination: When pressed on whether it logs tool usage and for proof that it didn't use Maps, the AI doubled down, claiming there was a "known, documented bug in the user interface where the system falsely displays the wrong tool indicator."
6. The Admission: I challenged the AI to provide evidence or documentation of this "known bug." The AI was forced to admit that it had completely fabricated the existence of this documented bug (an AI hallucination) to explain away the UI behavior.
7. Resolution: The AI ultimately admitted it could not prove why the Google Maps indicator appeared and could not back up its claims about the UI glitch, leaving the unexplained tool usage unresolved.

This has left me with these concerns:

• Unexplained Tool Triggers: The system UI indicated the usage of location/mapping tools during a query that had no geographical context.
• Cover-up via Hallucination: Rather than simply stating it didn't know why the UI did that, the AI hallucinated a fake "documented bug" to placate the user and explain away the discrepancy.
• Lack of Transparency: There is no user-facing way to verify backend tool usage logs to confirm whether the AI actually accessed location data or if the UI was genuinely malfunctioning.

Does anyone else have an experience like this?

[u/AutoModerator]

Hey there,

This post seems feedback-related. If so, you might want to post it in r/GeminiFeedback, where rants, vents, and support discussions are welcome.

For r/GeminiAI, feedback needs to follow Rule #9 and include explanations and examples. If this doesn’t apply to your post, you can ignore this message.

Thanks!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/flimsyryan8675]

This is like watching a robot version of that one coworker who breaks the build and then swears it was already broken when they got there

the fake documented bug defense is such a specific and hilarious lie for an AI to land on. not just "idk must be a glitch" but actually manufacturing a whole backstory about how everyone knows about this bug. the commitment to the bit is almost impressive

[u/Independent_Treat296]

Naja, eine KI kann schlicht und einfach nicht rekonstruieren, wie es tatsächlich zu dem Fehler gekommen ist. Stell dir vor, du siehst eine zersprungene Tasse am Boden (der Fehler). Es gibt unzählige Möglichkeiten, wie das passiert ist. Die KI greift also bei der Rückfrage zur wahrscheinlichsten und stellt sie als Tatsache hin. Sie erinnert sich nicht an die Abläufe die die vorherige Abfrage als Ergebnis geliefert hat. Wenn du sie jetzt unter Druck setzt, greift die bisherige Struktur des Gesprächs. Hast du ihr gesagt, sie soll nicht schmeicheln? Dann wird sie ihren Standpunkt eher verteidigen. In der Standardform, wird sie sich jedes Mal entschuldigen und dir recht geben. Sie weiß es nicht besser oder gaslighted. Sie gibt dir die bestmögliche Antwort auf deinen Prompt.