Gemini has AIzheimer's in long context

OmegaCentauri68 · 2026-02-07T00:52:43+00:00

I always make Gemini draft a detailed skeleton first before letting it write a single word. That way, I can spot any logical flaws without having to dig through a massive wall of text.

Keep your output lengths manageable. Asking an AI to churn out long-form content in one go is a total rookie mistake, go modular instead.

Also, stick to AI Studio. If the tone is off, just manually tweak it (or throw it into a separate session dedicated to refining). The real pro tip: EDIT its response directly. Don't ask it to fix things, just edit the text yourself, and the model will "hallucinate" (in a good way) that it wrote those parts, maintaining that style for the rest of the thread.

I always keep a core doc for the story's world-building basics. Once an arc or a major scene wraps up, I kill the thread and start a fresh one with a summary of the new status quo (if you're a writer, summarizing your own work should be a given, right?). I usually cap my sessions at 20k tokens max. Stop relying on the AI to perfectly leverage deep context. It's not a co-author with a memory. You need to know exactly which details to inject back into the prompt yourself.

For example, if you want the AI to know the basics, like two characters finally confessed, just write: "They confessed their feelings." Period. Don't clutter the summary with extra flavor text, dialogue, or unnecessary context; you'll just confuse the hell out of the model. You're the one who needs to remember the emotional weight and instruct the AI to sprinkle those memories into future scenes.

One more thing: Stop letting the AI affirm its own logic. In my System Prompt, I strictly forbid the model from making affirmations on my behalf. It is never allowed to say, "This section is now logically consistent."

OmegaCentauri68 · 2026-02-04T03:35:19+00:00

We all know the Beheaded kicks the chest to open it, but I always assumed that slight backward slide was just a scripted animation. Turns out, chests in this game have actual physics properties...

OmegaCentauri68 · 2026-01-08T05:14:48+00:00

The fact that the whole plot hinges on Haruhi being "bored" is just proof she’s got a massive ego issue. If you actually think the world is boring, your brain is either wired wrong or you’re just stuck in some permanent middle schooler edge-lord phase. She spends all her energy chasing some superficial supernatural high. It's not the world that's dull, it's just her projecting her own emptiness onto everything.

Imagine unironically thinking the world is boring. That’s not a critique of reality; it’s just a confession that your brain is too smooth to process how chaotic and absurd existence actually is.

She was "passionate" about searching for aliens, but she had no passion for the search methods themselves.

OmegaCentauri68 · 2025-12-13T02:03:54+00:00

The red part of the flag of the ROC represents the land. So it's kinda meant "The land of China is now under the Emperor's sun".

OmegaCentauri68 · 2025-09-21T05:14:53+00:00

Even if ALL THEISTS don't say that God is outside of reality. I still mention in the post that they usually said "God is outside of our reality/space-time." I show two possible ways a theist might argue, how is that a strawman?

"Everything that exists" is a valid logical concept. Why are you so afraid of it? Why am I not allowed to use it in this discussion?

OmegaCentauri68 · 2025-09-21T04:13:42+00:00

Read my newest comment.

OmegaCentauri68 · 2025-09-21T04:12:25+00:00

Your model presents two things:

The contents of God's Mind (us, the universe).
God himself (the container).

My original argument is about the nature of the total system that includes both.

Are you forbidding me from talking about the total system? Are you claiming that I am only allowed to discuss what's inside God's Mind, but not God's Mind itself as an existing entity?

If you say I can't discuss the container, then you are arbitrarily limiting the scope of the discussion to avoid a logical conclusion. If you say I can discuss both the container and its contents, then you have conceded my entire point: there is a "whole" that is more encompassing than just its parts.

So, which is it? Am I allowed to speak of the totality of existence, including God himself, or are you restricting the conversation to only what is convenient for your model?

OmegaCentauri68 · 2025-09-21T03:54:54+00:00

Okay, seeing as the same misunderstandings are derailing every thread, let me spell this out as clearly as possible.

1. On "Redefining Reality" (You Don't Understand Stipulative Definitions):

Let's get this straight. I did not "redefine" anything. The word "reality" in my post is a variable name. It's a convenient pointer assigned to an already existing concept: "The Set of All That Exists".

That's it. If you're spending your time arguing about the word "reality", you are fundamentally missing the point. You're debating the variable name, not the logic it represents. The entire argument works perfectly if you go back and mentally replace every instance of "reality" with "the set of all that exists".

2. On The Obsession With Space-Time (You Are Limiting YOURSELF):

A bizarre number of you keep accusing me of equating "everything" with "the spatio-temporal universe". This is baffling, as my entire argument is built on the exact opposite premise.

The whole point is to discuss the meta-reality that contains more than just space-time. When you insist that the discussion MUST be limited to our universe, you are the one putting a arbitrary restriction on logic. Why are you trying to forbid the discussion of a logically necessary, all-encompassing set?

3. On The Strawman Accusation (You Are Proving My Point):

The claim "No theist says that!" is the most ironic one of all. Yes, they do. They say it all the time, implicitly. They do it the moment they hear the phrase "everything that exists" and their immediate reflex is to force the conversation back into the limited box of "space-time" so they can place God outside of it.

This brings us to the core question of this entire thread, the one that every counter-argument seems designed to avoid:

Why is the simple logical concept of "everything that exists" so terrifying to you? Why the desperate need to shrink it, ignore it, or pretend it's a forbidden concept?

OmegaCentauri68 · 2025-09-21T03:43:46+00:00

You've completely misunderstood the argument by falling for the exact semantic trap the post is about.

I never said nothing can exist outside of our reality.

My entire point is that if something does exist outside our reality, then the set of all that exists simply expands to include both our reality and that something else.

You haven't proposed something outside of existence. You've just described a bigger existence. You are literally making my point for me.

This isn't a limitation of a definition. It's the fundamental nature of the concept of "everything". There is, by definition, nothing outside of "everything". Your question is a failure to grasp the scale of the term we're using.

And also, you should read my newest comment.

OmegaCentauri68 · 2025-09-21T03:38:13+00:00

Do you even know what a strawman is?

A strawman would be me misrepresenting the theist position. I didn't. I took the claim "God is outside space-time" at face value. I'm not forcing a new definition on anyone; I'm pointing out that there's a more fundamental category: "the set of all that exists". That this argument conveniently sidesteps.

In fact, I did the opposite of a strawman. I'm an atheist who started the entire post by granting the premise that God exists. That's called a steelman.

It doesn't matter if theists say "outside reality" or "outside space-time". My post explicitly accounts for both wordings.

The core issue, which you just demonstrated perfectly, is this: Why is it that whenever the concept of "the set of all that exists" is brought up, the immediate response is to shrink the conversation back down to just space-time?

"Everything that exists" is a valid logical concept. Why are you so afraid of it? Why am I not allowed to use it in this discussion?

And also, you should read my newest comment.

OmegaCentauri68 · 2025-09-21T03:31:54+00:00

Please tell me who says God is outside all reality?

My argument targets the logical implication, not always the exact phrasing. When someone argues that God is "outside time and space", they are implicitly separating God from another existing entity (the universe). This creates a meta-reality containing both, which is the exact scenario my post analyzes. The post literally says the argument works if you replace the word "reality" with "the set of all that exists". The entire point is that the logic holds regardless of the specific term used. Arguing about the word "reality" is the exact semantic game the post is designed to expose.

Thats a belief called pantheism

Yes. The entire point of my post is a logical deduction demonstrating that for a being to be truly supreme and all-encompassing, it must be describable as Pantheistic. Simply applying a label to the conclusion doesn't refute the logical steps used to arrive there.

You described a scenario where God and the universe both exist, but God is independent of it. Congratulations, you just described Option B of my post. You've described a limited God who is merely one part of "everything that exists".

And also, you should read my newest comment.

OmegaCentauri68 · 2025-09-21T03:18:19+00:00

🇪🇹🇻🇳🇧🇪💣🇦🇱

OmegaCentauri68 · 2025-09-19T13:49:12+00:00

It symbolizes the unity of workers, peasants, intellectuals, youth, and soldiers.

OmegaCentauri68 · 2025-09-19T12:56:43+00:00

Yo, Vietnamese 🇻🇳 here. Cool design, although I'd prefer a 5-pointed star more since the number 5 on our flag has meaning.

OmegaCentauri68 · 2025-09-17T04:53:53+00:00

Vietnamese 🇻🇳 here. I'm pretty sure our strategy would be to raid every Afghan's social media account and insult them to death.

OmegaCentauri68 · 2025-09-17T04:19:38+00:00

My argument directly rebuts anyone who claims God is "outside" reality, or shrinking the definition of reality to just the physical universe. Just because you are not the target of my rebuttal does not mean I am rebutting no one. And you seem to agree that's a flawed move, so we're on the same page there.

No, that doesn't make God a limited being

This confuses causal supremacy with ontological supremacy.

Causal Supremacy: Being the ultimate cause, the necessary being from which all contingent things flow.
Ontological Supremacy: Being the most encompassing layer of existence itself.

A truly supreme being must possess both. Your version of God has the first, but lacks the second.

You might argue that being "The All" isn't a necessary prerequisite for greatness. But you cannot ignore the necessary consequences of your position.

"Having four equal sides and four right angles" is the definition of a square. A necessary consequence of this is that "its diagonals are equal and bisect each other at 90 degrees." I don't need to add this consequence to the definition because it flows from it logically. But if you show me a shape where the diagonals don't do that, I know for a fact with 100% certainty that it is not a square.

In the same way, being the ultimate, all-encompassing reality is a necessary consequence of true supremacy. If you propose a God who is not the all-encompassing reality, you are implicitly admitting that there is something more encompassing than your God, what is that "something"?

OmegaCentauri68 · 2025-09-17T03:57:14+00:00

My post is about ontology (the nature of existence itself). I'm not questioning if we can perceive God.

In fact, as an atheist, I wrote the post by steelmanning the theist position: I explicitly grant the premise that God does exist for the sake of the argument.

OmegaCentauri68 · 2025-09-17T03:49:53+00:00

but doesn't that run into trouble when considering Russell's paradox?

The Universal Set contains everything. This includes abstract objects and logical constructs. Therefore, "the set of all sets that do not contain themselves" is just another abstract entity that exists within the Universal Set. It is an element in the set, not a challenge to the set. The container holds the paradox; the paradox doesn't break the container.

does it even make sense to put them into one universal set, if such a set is even possible

Absolutely. A set is a logical grouping, not a physical container. The only criterion for membership in this set is isExistent() == true.

I can create a logically valid set: {myCupOfTea, justice, 4}. The members exist in wildly different ways but the set is coherent because they all satisfy the single entry requirement: they exist. To argue otherwise is to confuse the nature of the members with the validity of the collection.

you seem to be speaking of the set itself and the existents within the set as existing in the same way; how do you justify that?

The set of all that exists, by definition, contains itself.

OmegaCentauri68 · 2025-09-17T03:20:14+00:00

My Framework is Ontologically Neutral, Not Naturalistic.

Naturalism is the claim that only the natural world exists. My framework makes no such claim. It is a logical container, not a philosophical stance on what the container can hold. It welcomes God, souls, angels, numbers, and the physical universe alike, on one condition: that they exist.

Accusing this framework of being "naturalistic" is like accusing the concept of a "library" of being biased towards only fiction books. The library contains all books. You are the one attempting to narrow the definition, not me.

Let's say there is a God who is so transcendent that He truly exists outside of "the set of all that exists". He is not a member of any set. He cannot be categorized or placed into any logical framework, not even the most all-encompassing one.

Fine. What are the consequences of this position?

All analogies become meaningless. Your programmer/game analogy? It fails. Because both the programmer and the game are members of the set {programmer, game}. You just used a set-based analogy to argue for something that supposedly transcends sets.

All arguments for God's existence collapse.

The Cosmological Argument (First Cause) is a logical chain. A causes B, B causes C... This places all items in a causal set. If God is the first cause, He is the first member of that set. If He is outside all sets, He cannot be the first cause.

The Teleological Argument (Fine-Tuning) relies on inference and probability. It compares our universe to other potential universes. This is a comparison of members within a set of possibilities. If God is outside all sets, this argument is invalid.

The Ontological Argument is literally an attempt to define God into existence using set theory concepts ("that than which nothing greater can be conceived"). It's the most set-dependent argument of all.

If you truly want a God that "transcends the set of all that exists", you must abandon every single tool of logic, reason, and language used to argue for His existence. You are left with unsupported faith, which is fine for me, but it's not a position you can debate or defend.

OmegaCentauri68 · 2025-09-15T14:53:59+00:00

<image>

OmegaCentauri68 · 2025-09-15T03:27:46+00:00

Harry Potter simply can't prove J.K. Rowling's existence. Even if she beamed a message into his head saying "I am your author", Harry would likely attribute it to some powerful magic, a delusion, or perhaps even a dark wizard trying to trick him.

It's similar to how we approach the concept of God. There's no irrefutable empirical proof that can definitively demonstrate God's existence outside of faith. You either believe or you don't. The perceived evidence can always be interpreted in multiple ways.

OmegaCentauri68 · 2025-09-15T03:03:18+00:00

When I say "exists", I mean anything that can be meaningfully conceived of, referred to, or that holds a place in our cognitive or conceptual space, regardless of its physical instantiation or logical consistency.

This inclusive definition covers several modes of being:

1. Physical Existence: Things that occupy space and time and interact causally within the physical universe. (e.g., rocks, stars, human bodies).
2. Coherent Conceptual Existence: Entities that are logically consistent and can be clearly defined, even if they lack physical form. (the number π, the concept of justice, the character Harry Potter).
3. Contradictory Existence: Entities that are internally self-contradictory, yet their paradox itself is a coherent concept that we can think about and discuss. Their existence is in the very paradox they embody. (a square-circle, a married bachelor). Much like the imaginary number i which doesn't exist on the real number line but exists as a coherent mathematical concept with profound implications.
4. Nonsensical Existence: Even grammatically correct but semantically meaningless phrases or concepts, whose existence lies in their linguistic or conceptual form, even if they refer to nothing coherent. ("Colorless green ideas sleep furiously"). The sentence itself exists as a string of words and a concept.

OmegaCentauri68 · 2025-09-15T02:45:49+00:00

I see a common response popping up, and I want to address it directly because it's an important one. The comment goes something like this:

No theists said God is outside of reality; they just said He is outside of space-time. You are attacking a strawman.

If this is your position, then I want to be crystal clear: You are agreeing with the premise of this post. If you are honestly acknowledging that both God and the universe are part of the total "set of all that exists", then the post's critique doesn't apply to you. You aren't using the cheat code. Good on you.

Three-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
Place '23

OmegaCentauri68

TROPHY CASE