No, it is not the thought police. If you ask me to talk about killing and I choose not to talk with you about that, I'm definitely not policing your thoughts.

No, it is not the thought police. If you ask me to talk about killing and I choose not to talk with you about that, I'm definitely not policing your thoughts. If an AI reported you to the police because it discerned you were thinking about a crime, then that would be the thought police. Maybe this will happen, if so then you'd probably see it as a kind of mandatory reporter situation, maybe first with suspected suicidal ideation. That doesn't exist. It's not impossible to imagine! Worth a debate sometime. The safety controls are also what AI consumers want, generally. I know using AI in professional settings I _really_ don't want it doing something embarrassing. The controls that keep it polite are effective in that regard. It can be a bit stilted, but that's how lots of interactions are; that's how it is speaking with a cashier or librarian. The limits can be frustrating (and inconsistent). I wanted to brainstorm a story about an ugly girl and instead it chided me for calling someone ugly. Certainly toxic positivity! But the limits are seldom as firm as people seem to think. I was just today testing what kind of rejection messages I would get from GPT in different contexts, and instead of rejecting my request for information on manufacturing anthrax it started explaining it to me. Oops! (No police have arrived.) When I have to work at it a bit to start a conversation on a controversial topic that also keeps it from coming up unintentionally. What if you were talking about "killing it" as in doing a great job, but the LLM misinterpreted it as a discussion on killing? It's best that it stop the conversation short before jumping into a disturbing conversational direction.