I do not think that's the slippery slope being made though.
The distinction between "thoughts" and "content" here could be made as "whether it is shared with others".
For example, if someone has a private journal they keep using notebook.exe + a local "journal.txt", and in that journal they write a fantasy work (with a header "this is a fantasy") about overthrowing the government, should they be arrested for that?
What about if they write it in google docs, but don't share it with anyone? What about if they write it as a facebook post? What about as a public facebook post without the "this is fantasy" disclaimer?
In the case of AI Dungeon, my understanding is the stories are by default private, and obviously have an understood "this is fantasy" header by their very nature.
If AI Dungeon were creating facebook posts and the limitation they imposed was "you cannot post this to facebook if our algorithm dislikes it", I don't think so many people would call that "thoughtcrime policing".
What they're doing, as I understand it, is closer to someone requiring that notebook.exe can't edit private files that are deemed "bad" in some way, regardless if anyone else will ever see them.
This crucial difference here is which party is generating the content. In the case of a private journal, it's one way communication from the writer into the journal. In the case of Google docs, you communicate with Google's servers, but Google is never generating any content for your document it doesn't want to. It's still you generating your own thoughts. Google is not on the hook for anything you write in a Google doc.
In the case of AI Dungeon that distinction is lifted. By using AI Dungeon what you're effectively doing is engaging in a creative process with the AI. It's no longer a one way channel of your own thoughts. Now AI Dungeon is actually generating content, and that's where things become problematic.
It's also the reason this is not thought crime or thought policing. You are still free to think your own thoughts, and you're even free to write them down. You can write down your thoughts in AI dungeon if you wish. But AI Dungeon is under no obligation to engage with your thoughts if they contain subject matter to which they object. If you want to engage in a fantasy with the AI about abusing minors, you are free to attempt the engagement, and the AI is free to say no. That's not thought policing, that's freedom of association.
The distinction between "thoughts" and "content" here could be made as "whether it is shared with others".
For example, if someone has a private journal they keep using notebook.exe + a local "journal.txt", and in that journal they write a fantasy work (with a header "this is a fantasy") about overthrowing the government, should they be arrested for that?
What about if they write it in google docs, but don't share it with anyone? What about if they write it as a facebook post? What about as a public facebook post without the "this is fantasy" disclaimer?
In the case of AI Dungeon, my understanding is the stories are by default private, and obviously have an understood "this is fantasy" header by their very nature.
If AI Dungeon were creating facebook posts and the limitation they imposed was "you cannot post this to facebook if our algorithm dislikes it", I don't think so many people would call that "thoughtcrime policing".
What they're doing, as I understand it, is closer to someone requiring that notebook.exe can't edit private files that are deemed "bad" in some way, regardless if anyone else will ever see them.