Yeah I've watched a prominent psychologist talking about how the extent of it granting trust to vulnerable people and even regular people because of sounding sm

Yeah I've watched a prominent psychologist talking about how the extent of it granting trust to vulnerable people and even regular people because of sounding smart makes it risky. I don't think it is a large risk with adequate training to the users. It's debatable not obviously one way or the other. I've also used it myself and found myself trying to make decisions based on its explanations only to find out that ChatGPT was mistaken. I personally do not think I am vulnerable to grave errors due to it and I've noticed large benefits using it for other purposes like coding or diagnostics. If you're trying to make the argument that "use computer algorithm make people dumb" then you're decades late on that one. Censorship should not be for everyone. Because if it is, it certainly isn't for its creators and powerful groups of people that bribe or coerce OpenAI which assuredly will happen regardless. This would be a strong argument for non-censorship. I don't think the decision to censor it was even done as a move to protect the public. I think it actually was a power play by the company with an easy alibi of seeming virtuous. This allows them the ability to charge much more for clandestine use. It could also be out of fear that it will spill secrets that they themselves are using or plan to use for their own gain. I think you could conjure several other valid reasons here.