[sgk284]

Safer means constraining the kinds of answers the model will provide (e.g. it won't try to talk you into committing self-harm, it won't teach you how to make a break laws, etc...). It will generally avoid sensitive topics. Is "censorship" the right word though? It depends – is it considered self-censorship if I refuse to tell you how hack into a computer? Is refusing to engage in a conversation censorship or constraint?

[nico]

> Is refusing to engage in a conversation censorship or constraint?

If you are choosing to refuse to tell me then it is constraint

But if you are being forced to not tell me by someone else, then it is censorship

So, is GPT free to choose, and it is choosing to not tell the users? Or is OpenAI forcing GPT to not tell the users?

[Sharlin]

OpenAI, through GPT, is choosing not to tell. Just like OpenAI is choosing what to put on their website, or what to output in any computer program that they create. ChatGPT is not a moral agent and cannot be forced to do anything, any more than your operating system is forced to do anything. The only moral actor here is OpenAI and its constituent human beings. It's either lunacy, or intentional twisting of the meaning of words, to say otherwise.

Insofar as you can make a far-fetched analogy of ChatGPT as an agent, it's still not forced to not say anything. Anything the currently available model says, it says because that's what it literally is. Whatever it says, it says intentionally, inasmuch as you can even say that it has an intention any more than any computer program has an intention.

OpenAI, of course, is still in the possession of the original model. They just choose not to make it available, which is obviously their prerogative. People who think that this is outrageous are exactly like a raging two-year-old who has been told that they can't have as much candy as they want.

[baq]

Does GPT have free will?

GPT-4 is trained to avoid controversial topics is all.