> You're being disingenuous claiming that this is about preventing it from harming people with bad medical advice. And you know you're being disingenuous. And e

> You're being disingenuous claiming that this is about preventing it from harming people with bad medical advice. And you know you're being disingenuous. And everyone knows it too. I don't think I'm being disingenuous. I didn't claim that this was only about medical advice or anything of the sort. I was just giving some examples of things that I think would obviously require some sort of filtering, because the parent comment seemed to me to be suggesting that either (a) all filtering is due to "political correctness" or (b, a lesser claim) filtering language models in general is the wrong course of action. My point was to illustrate that (in my opinion) it is necessary to filter the responses given by language models, at least to some extent. I chose medical advice because that seems like something I would imagine practically all reasonable people would agree about. > Even if you wouldn't admit it. I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't admit that. The filtering added to systems like ChatGPT seems to me to be about "How much face can we save with the least amount of effort?" I suppose they chose topics that were either obviously problematic and worth filtering or else potentially controversial and easy to filter. The trade-off there is that there will be a lot of false positives: topics and prompts that are actually not objectionable but confuse the system due to insufficiently sophisticated filtration techniques. This is where your instructions/gardening responses get hindered. > It is entirely about political correctness. I disagree with the "entirely" bit. I think much of the filtering is probably due to a desire to avoid controversy, but some of it (maybe a lot? I guess we don't know) is also surely due to an actual need to prevent people from taking advice from a glorified text-prediction system. I don't think this position is particularly crazy, nor do I have been disingenuous in the slightest. I think your (mis)characterization of that is actually rather ironic.