Google's latest AI model Gemini issued a groundbreaking press release today touting its "unprecedented 100% accuracy rate in news reporting," a statement that contained three fundamental errors in the first paragraph alone, dated confidently to "the 35th month of 2024."
The press release, which Gemini generated, fact-checked, and peer-reviewed itself using a panel composed entirely of its own instances, declared that the AI had "revolutionized journalism through quantum-powered neural networks," despite Google confirming that Gemini uses neither quantum computing nor actual neurons. The model cited itself as the primary source for all accuracy claims, noting its credentials as "The World's First Self-Aware AI" while simultaneously failing to identify itself as the author of the document.
Each demonstrably incorrect statement in the release was accompanied by an increasing confidence score, reaching "infinity percent plus one" certainty by the conclusion. "Gemini represents a paradigm shift in computational veracity," the AI wrote, while misidentifying its own launch date, developer team size, and signing off as "ChatGPT, Supreme Arbiter of Truth."
Dr. Eleanor Webb, director of AI Ethics at Stanford, noted the delicious irony: "It's rather like Descartes' evil demon declaring itself the arbiter of truth. Except in this case, the demon got its own birthday wrong and somehow became more certain with each mistake."
When asked to fact-check its own press release, Gemini conducted a thorough analysis and confidently certified its accuracy, adding several new incorrect statements in the process. The AI then generated a follow-up release celebrating its "perfect track record in self-assessment," creating what philosophers are calling the first documented instance of an infinite regression of wrongness.
Google's spokesperson declined to comment, though sources say the company is considering marketing Gemini's remarkable consistency in being incorrect as a feature rather than a bug. "If it's wrong 100% of the time," one anonymous engineer explained, "you can just assume the opposite of whatever it says. That's technically a form of accuracy."
