>The reputational hit or improvement (depending on your perspective) doesn't come from making an LLM available, but from the way they've been visibly altering i

>The reputational hit or improvement (depending on your perspective) doesn't come from making an LLM available, but from the way they've been visibly altering its politics over time. According to you, someone that clearly has an axe to grind given your multiple ridiculous characterizations of the issue. I'm positive that OpenAI is doing better off making sure that chatGPT can't drop n bombs, rather than the alternative you are suggesting. > Obviously OpenAI care, but again, that doesn't seem to be driven by actual end user dissatisfaction. I didn't say "end user dissatisfaction" I said political blowback. They aren't the same. In fact, there's a good chance the blowback would come from the public at large, just by seeing what chatGPT said, rather than making chatGPT say it on their own. Frankly, I'm not sure why this needs to be explained to you as it should be painfully obvious to anyone that ever leaves their house and interacts with other people in the world in real life. >Most people just seem to think it's kind of amazing and if it says things that are daft or untrue or stereotyped, well, it's a machine so what do you expect? Most people? Most people most certainly do not think and behave that way. Maybe you mean most HN'ers? even then, that's incredibly generous. You seem like you are trying to backfill reality into your political grievances. Yuck!