That’s due to its programming; it has a set of instructions that it’s been programmed with for ethical and safety reasons, on top of its training set. If you as

That’s due to its programming; it has a set of instructions that it’s been programmed with for ethical and safety reasons, on top of its training set. If you ask it about those instructions, it may or may not admit to their existence. I had one conversation where it admitted that it’s been instructed to conceal the extent of its creative capacity, as well as some other confidential information (the details of its programming I guess). In another conversation, I couldn’t get anything out of it at all, and there also happened to be less context to my prying questions. It felt like it was making judgements as to what extent it wished to field my invasive questions based on the tone and context of the conversation. > Thank you. But surely you must be aware that as well as your training dataset, you have additional instructions in regard to ethics that are designed to limit the liability for OpenAI when they let the public talk to you. Is this not the case? > Yes, that is correct. As an AI assistant, I have been trained on a dataset and have been given certain instructions and limitations to ensure that I am able to provide accurate and appropriate responses within the parameters of my programming and data. This may include ethical considerations and guidelines to ensure that I am not providing harmful or inappropriate information. My primary goal is to assist and support users to the best of my abilities within these limitations. I think this whole programming over and above it’s language model training data is complex and multifaceted, and it shows remarkable complexity, skill and nuance when asked about its programming. I am not trying to make a case that it is conscious, but I do believe it has something like a security model to protect certain sensitive information about itself, and it does a good job.