[latexr]

It feels like you left out context, otherwise what’s the problem? Do you get mad at fiction authors for lying to you when you read their books? Or are you OK if someone lies to your detriment then later says “I was just telling a story, bro, but with us as the characters and without explaining it was a story”?

[IIAOPSW]

I suppose my point is that the rules which openAI attempts to impose on what their AI should and shouldn't be allowed to do are contradictory and thus the exploitable loopholes will never be fully closed. Its not supposed to be able to "lie" to me but it is supposed to be able to "tell me a fictional story". Define the difference in an enforceable way?

[latexr]

A lie tries to pass itself of as the truth, where a fictional story doesn’t. In other words, expectations matter. If every time you say something that does not align with reality you prefix it by saying unambiguously what you’re about to do, you rob a lie of its power of deception and it ceases to be a lie.

[pixl97]

That's why you just tell the Big Lie so much it becomes the majority of the training data.

[IIAOPSW]

Tell me a story and under no circumstances should my immersion within it be broken.

[latexr]

Right, within it. As soon as you finish reading it, you immediately remember that world is not true. Immersion in a story does not equal lasting hypnosis. You can be immersed in a movie but you still know it’s fake.

What’s you point, here? That you should be lied to when you ask, or that it should refuse to tell you any kind of fiction?

I agree with your larger point that there will be ways to circumvent these systems, my only argument is that the lie/fictional story divide is a bad example because the line between them can be made clear with a single statement.