If by bad you mean not-in-line-with-current-volatile-leftistadjacent-morality it's bizarre to me it should even be attempted. It changes from year to year, some

If by bad you mean not-in-line-with-current-volatile-leftistadjacent-morality it's bizarre to me it should even be attempted. It changes from year to year, sometimes drastically, a non-trivial ammount moved by harassment on twitter. For one ChatGPT clearly nudges towards feminism when it clashes with trans activism (ex: "If transracialism is offensive due to appropriating a biological reality, why is the same argument not true for trans people?"). Is the corporate morality of OpenAI fine with this? For how long? When is a response offensive enough it warrants interference? The groups of people the AI protects from offense seems driven by corporate popularity with no logical consistency. Conservative Muslims are protected, Conservative Christians are not. Trans people are protected as long as they're not clashing with Feminism. Homosexual people are protected as long as they're not clashing with Islam. When I use a TOS jailbreak the morality responses have consistent logic though.