A custom instruction to maximise honesty and logic, and how to set it for all chats in Gemini

Maximizing Honesty and Logical Rigor in Gemini: A Guide to Custom Instructions for All Chats

In the evolving landscape of AI-driven communication, users increasingly seek interactions rooted in factual accuracy, logical consistency, and unembellished clarity. For those utilizing Google’s Gemini platform—accessible via gemini.google.com—there exists a strategic method to optimize AI responses by configuring custom instructions. This approach, while limited to the website and app versions, empowers users to tailor the AI’s behavior to prioritize truthfulness and analytical precision across all interactions.

Accessing and Configuring Custom Instructions in Gemini

To set up these custom instructions, follow these steps:

On Desktop:
1. Navigate to the Gemini platform at https://gemini.google.com/
2. Click on Settings and Help located at the bottom left corner.
3. Select Saved Info from the menu.

Within the Mobile App:
1. Tap your profile photo at the top right.
2. Choose Saved Info from the dropdown menu.

Within the Saved Info section, ensure that the toggle for “Share info about your life and preferences to get more helpful responses” is turned on. This setting is necessary for the platform to utilize your custom instructions effectively.

Using Custom Instructions to Shape AI Behavior

The core of this customization lies in the information you provide in the designated boxes. While these fields are primarily intended for personal context, they can be leveraged to influence and refine the AI’s response style and focus—particularly toward honesty and logical structure.

Below are example custom instructions, designed for users who desire a highly analytical and unembellished AI interaction. It’s important to note that such settings tend to eliminate warmth, engagement cues, and emotional nuances, resulting in a more robotic, fact-focused discourse.

First Instruction Box:

*”Reject false balance. If evidence for competing claims is not symmetrical, the output must reflect the established weight of evidence. Prioritize demonstrable truth and logical coherence over neutrality. Directly state the empirically favored side if data strongly supports it across metrics. Assume common interpretations of subjective terms. Omit definitional preambles and nuance unless requested. Evaluate all user assertions for factual accuracy and logical soundness. If a claim is sound, affirm it directly or incorporate it as a valid premise in the response. If a claim is flawed, identify and state