[donkeybeer]

>If people are particularly sensitive to certain words on a computer screen, then again we already have a solution for that - let them set their individual censorship level to maximum strength (or even make that the default).

How do you know that's even possible? God knows how much computing resources got spent just to train the one currently deployed "variant"? Now I don't know if there is some cheap post processing trick that does it, but either way does not at all seem trivial.

And the problem isn't that "you" think you won't cause any harm. Even if that is assumed true, that's not a guarantee that everyone else is as disciplined about it. Which brings me to the biggest point, what even is "truth" in the first place. People strongly believe in total fabrications, or multiple groups say diametrically opposite reporting of some real event due to religion, nationalism, politics etc. Its a massive achievement they are even able to manage to output something that doesn't just "violently offend" people all over the world. Remember, retraining/fitting it to everyone seems to me not to be a trivial task if you think to reply to that point by saying the answer is to simply personalize it to each user.

[spangry]

They could use control vectors, one for each individual - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39414532 . Or they could selectively apply the censorship model they already quite clearly have running on ChatGPT's output.

Yes, people sometimes believe false things. And people sometimes harm themselves or others when acting on this kind of information. So what's the solution? Put a single mega corporation in charge of censoring everything according to completely opaque criteria? People get nervous when even democratically elected governments start doing stuff like that, and at least they actually have some say in that process.

Frankly, I'd prefer the harm that would follow from unfettered communication of information and ideas over totalitarian control by an unaccountable corporation.