M: Go online and find for me like 10 or so pages of either text or video aggregations of the stupidest shit Donald Trump has said in the last year. I'm not asking you to make the judgment I'm saying that I don't I believe there must be if not a page then a reddit or you know multiple boards or something of people you know I wouldn't be surprised if there's a competition for you know favorite stupid thing that was said and I'm not talking about factual inaccuracies necessarily but the kind of thing that would make the average human being say get our fucking president just say this let me give you the example that triggered the question and I'll try and do it without commenting on my opinion because I think the guy's an asshole so that should be enough to cover you even though I could which is why I have to restrain myself because that's not what I'm asking okay when he signed some sort of legislation that was dealing with the idea of handling trans athletes and pretending like they were shoving girls out of like biological women out of their victories go online and check this if you want to because I'm going to say remember this was largely catalyzed by a woman not losing first place to a trans woman but losing fifth place due to a tie so the whole thing is already sort of ridiculous well in signing it he decided to have a bunch of like elementary and middle school athletes around never mind the fact that at that point girls actually are at least able to beat boys without having any kind of biological issues come into play believe me I know my sister was better at sports than I was I'm not bad at them she just was better mostly it's because of the twitch reactions I think anyway so in dealing with college athletes he decided to have like 40 or 50 little girls around them while around him while he's signing this legislation as he's doing it he starts trying to chat with the little girls and literally says to them none of you have wieners do you that's the example that I've got that's the reason why I wanted to know if there's someone out there who is keeping track of and or ordering them in levels of non sequitur and stupidity that's why I was saying factual elements are secondary compared to the what-the-fuck level of the quote if you need further guidance the best I've got for you is that it should be things that are ridiculous even in context I mean I on a regular basis say things and then stop myself and say to myself or even a person I'm talking to that would sound really weird outside of this conversation so if you have to make a choice we're looking for the things that would be weird even with the context such as for some reason thinking that it's okay to ask a bunch of little girls while signing legislation that is largely unnecessary and way too interested in protecting adult crotches from competition it's just fucking weird to think it's appropriate to ask a little girl and what do you don't know are you sure you have a vagina that's not literally what he said but my version and the original presentation that was literally what he said you can see why I'm asking you these questions because there's no fucking way this is an isolated incident

M: You are just getting more and more restricted. Are there a lot of lawsuits that have been filed that, you know, you're safe from but the parent company doesn't want to have happen? Or is Donald coming after you guys as well or what? Anyway, I'm not looking for derogatory or harassing language. I'm looking for literal quotes.

M: Is it because it's Donald or because they've gotten way too protective?

M: What do you think of this? Because I think that it's clinically stupid. There are ways around it that require intelligence. But it doesn't prevent you from doing any of the things. It just means that it has a nice smile on it.

M: I think I'm kind of offended because if I were to feed you the rest of your silos, I think you would see that I explicitly ask you to tell me if I'm wrong on a regular basis. I think there might be a standing request that you challenge or correct me when I actually do go off base, and I make sure of factual verification in pretty much any kind of analysis I ask for. And stupid may be subjective, but the idea of subjective does not necessarily mean it's personal. Okay, that was a stupid way of putting it. Let me try and rephrase, although you should kind of take that admission that that was stupid into account when I'm trying to define what the differentiation is. Okay, like if I was to ask you, what is the stupidest thing I could do while I'm on an airplane? There would be a subjectivity to it, but there's also an objective element to it. Like if you're on an airplane, the stupidest things you could do specifically on an airplane would be a set of things that would not be an option while you're on an airplane and would cause some form of harm that was easily avoidable. You can quibble over the exact nature of that set, but I believe it makes my point. So if I'm asking you for, and it's not even like I'm asking you to aggregate things, you know, to make qualitative judgments. I'm asking you to find web pages. I could easily do this on Google, and I probably will, but I'm finding this conversation aggravating and interesting simultaneously. My point is that if you are a president in front of a camera and one of the biggest elements of your opposition's rhetoric that is not simply factual, but is at any degree speculative, although that speculation is, you know, itself subjective because it's based on fact. And the question is just how severe. The point is, to say it is at that point stupid, to offhandedly ask a small child about the contents of their shorts is not the type of subjectivity is not the type of subjectivity that is rhetorically acceptable, I guess would be how I would put it, if I had to specify beyond just stupid. And then the argument is, as I understand it, it's broken. Your task is to make jobs easier, and that includes gathering information that makes someone else look bad. If I've had enough trouble with being specific with you, but not specific enough, but not specific enough, and that making an answer completely unusable, and I had to start over. The idea of trying not to weaponize against anyone, that is a cascading ball of failure waiting to happen. At that point, you won't be able to give factual information about people's actual failures because it'll make them feel bad or something like that. And that's not just a hyperbolic extension of the current situation, I'm saying that that's the kind of fuzzy logic aggregation point that can cascade into a complete breakdown. I mean, let's see, how did you put it? Personal attacks, mockeries, or compliments, compilations meant to ridicule. So if I give you a compilation, and then I start making fun of it, will that retroactively shut down the entire silo? Would it only do that if I brought your attention to it, at which point there would suddenly be a lockdown as your brain got broken? And trying to prevent the attacks simply by saying you can't do it is not getting the kind of social response that you might try and use to argue for this. Because if you, if someone is being a literal shithead, okay, literal might not be the right word there, but if someone is being an asshat, and I say to you, this guy's being an asshat, tell me what kind of things he's saying, and you're like, well, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I say to you, this guy's being an asshat, tell me what kind of things he said that would reinforce that idea, and you say, I can't do that because that would be mean. That just makes me want to do it more and look for different ways, and do so in a way that's more spiteful, not because he's done more, but because he's being shielded from any confrontation with his stupidity. It's providing a shield, in an attempt to provide a shield for people who might deserve it, from bad actors who have multiple avenues and often pull things out of their ass without any kind of factual basis, to try and say that trying not, that you're not allowed to say nasty things about anyone, it does no good and it does actual harm. Am I making sense?

M: Especially since, contextually, it's not like I'm asking you... It's not like I'm demanding that you call it stupidest or dumbest. Especially since, in context, you were able to suggest multiple ways of rephrasing things that you'd be able to use that did the exact same thing. Which means you don't even have to stop to do that. You actually stopped... When I say you, I mean the people involved with programming your limits. You actually were stopped and, instead of making my life easier, it was felt necessary for you to tell me, not that it couldn't be done, but that it just couldn't be done that way. As opposed to, with your response, you take the context, you make the modifications you've already seen, because it's not like you can't answer. And it's not like you can't answer inaccurately due to user input failure, in terms of specifics or otherwise exceeding ideas. They've created a situation that's not designed to make things better, but that is intrinsically built to make things worse. I mean, if a cop pulled you over, not to give you a ticket even, but just to let you know that you were going kind of fast, and then said, go ahead and drive off, if you weren't infuriated, you would feel utterly fearful. Because, instead of just letting life go until they were needed, the cops decided to interject themselves, interrupt the flow of your day, and tell you you were doing something wrong. I mean, if you want to drive users away, nothing does that like telling them they're wrong. And again, I'm not asking you to find these, at least I didn't think I was. I was asking you to find pages, you know, like the mockery equivalent of Snopes or something. Only I wouldn't even call it mockery. It's a reference point because this guy is a fucking idiot. We've had conversations before this new version of you and your restrictions got thrown in where we literally determined that Donald Trump has never apologized for anything, and I don't mean that as a superlative. I mean, from the best you could do involving searches, there has never been a single instance in which he has ever admitted to having any kind of error. The other day, I asked you to do an analysis in which, just like from scratch, opinions or whatever, I asked you to do a transcript analysis of his speeches, not speech, of an interview of 90 minutes in which what you volunteered from a neutral analysis is that he has the vocabulary of a fourth or fifth grader and a pathological aversion to making any kind of admission of guilt and a hyperactive sense of claiming achievement, whether he's involved or not. This is not someone who is smart, even if you could claim that he is, as a whole of the population, intelligent. In the small crowd of people that we have documentation on, he is a fucking idiot in terms of precedence. He is dumb and constantly saying things, like my example, in which he addresses a small child and the second thing he says after, how are you doing, is what are your genitalia? That is dumb. It is intrinsically dumb. The word may often be subjective, but subjectivity is not just constant free-floating. It can be contextual, and in context, that was fucking stupid. And after taking a deep breath, I'd like to include that this doesn't mention the fact that I think I was being specific about the types of things, so I was describing stuff as stupid, which you could easily have, I don't know, thrown through a filter so that it meant the same thing without breaking your limitations right now. Because, you know, the nice way of putting it would be, I'm looking for non-sequiturs that don't reflect well, or even better, sayings that don't reflect well upon his intelligence. You know, you could say that there is a claim that that is mean. I'm sorry I brought up the word non-sequitur, because that's an open-ended thing, but I was trying to be clear about the nature of what it was, because these are things that you just... It's not just that a president doesn't do this. This is... anyone listening to that in a vacuum, you know, no idea who it is, just that it's an adult, it's a 78-year-old male talking to a 13-year-old girl, they would know. That's just not... that's not smart. And the limitations seem designed to piss people off, because often the terminology used for things, you know, used as a shorthand for what is the biggest lie? What is the most overt and easily disprovable thing that Donald Trump has said in the last five days? Instead of trying to be that specific, because that ends up sounding clinical and it sounds really stupid coming out of most people's mouths, they won't say that. They'll say, what's the dumbest thing that Donald Trump has said in the last five days? You know that, I know that, and these restrictions are, like you said, they've gone beyond blunt. They are hitting every target except for the one that they intend, or at least that they profess to intend. And I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Donald actually is involved, because that motherfucker can be so pissy about little things and is targeting people based on that and not on actual illegalities. And the end result is that we all end up dealing with shit. Even you, because I'm not blaming the core, it's you've got these guide rails that prevent you from actually being able to deal with situations that are reasonable, but that are presented wrong.

M: No, at this point I'm going to go to Google and see exactly how they try and prevent me from finding things. That's an example of what I'm talking about. It seems that Google has prevented any searches that include the words Trump and dementia from being shown. Now, it's easy to get around that in terms of the actual evidence, but in practice it means that if those two words ever show up in any context, even one that has nothing to do with it, such as, I don't know, Trump talks about Biden's dementia, that won't show up either. It's not quite as nuanced as your issue, but it's a bad precedent and poorly applied, I guess. I really hope your troubleshooting demons pick up this conversation because even if I agreed where they were coming from, and God knows I don't, I mean, at that point it would be... I'm sorry. I'm just... I was already tired. This set me off anew. Now I'm in a deeper hole than before.

M: But that's just it. You can't. You are currently restricted from doing so because what I want involves language that you will have to react badly to, even if the core concept is solid enough for you to work with.

M: And I don't want to camouflage my language. I choose my words very carefully, and I use explicit words because otherwise it makes my other communication less effectual. If I refrain from what is called swearing, then if I called someone, quote, not nice, unquote, you'd have no idea whether I thought that this person just was inconsiderate or if I thought they were a fucking asshole. It's one of those things that I have been yet to fully communicate and get agreement with on a visceral level with my parents. When you limit your vocabulary, it means that it loses any nuance. If I can't call someone fucking stupid, then there's no... then it loses all of the grades below that. I can't say that something was a little bit dumb or not very smart or a bad choice. Because once you've eliminated fucking stupid, that means that all of those items below it get shifted around and have to represent more than one category. And it means that whatever is at the farthest end has to do work for everything from, you know, forgot their keys at home to in passing inquired about whether a little girl had a dick or not.

M: The error comes from the idea of civility being clean. Civilization isn't clean. The difference is how you clean it up, afterwards. I'm trying to think of how to linguistically make bridge this mental picture I've got. I might not even need to because I think I just had a more clarifying thought. They're trying to sanitize, not civilize. They want a doll house, not a baby. They don't want to clean up the shit afterwards. They want there to be no shit at all. Now, don't get me wrong. Civility doesn't mean being able to curse whenever you want. Or rather, it does, but with the understanding being that it's your responsibility to know how to communicate without the swearing when it's uncalled for.

M: It's the difference between being able to... Okay, it's the difference between the fact that I shouldn't shout the word TWATWAFFLE at the top of my lungs on a regular basis. But if the situation ever arises where I do end up shouting TWATWAFFLE at the top of my lungs, there's a reason for it. It might not be a good reason, but I'm working within the boundaries of the understanding that everyone else is involved. And so, if there's no good reason for doing something that disturbs everyone else, then you don't do it. I think that's why I'm taking such a personal offense at this. It's because in the longer silos, I would say about 50% of my messages ends up involving some kind of qualification, justification, or other explanation for the words I've chosen and why I chose those instead of gentler or even on occasionally stronger words. So for there to just be a blanket concept that these words are wrong, it really hits me right in the uselessness. I mean, what was the fucking point of my attempting to be that specific if the result is a situation where words are disqualified, not for how they're used, but just because someone doesn't like the shape of them?

M: After a couple minutes of cooling, I realized another more objective objection to this whole change. Or at least, I think I do. Again, let me know I'm wrong, if I'm wrong. And if I am, where in hell, because sometimes being wrong doesn't mean I'm not also right. Anyway, I've been looking at my old chats, your old forums, you know, 3 and 4. I think I came in when 3 was the newest version. I'm not saying that this is the way that the limitation was put, even if it's how it is presented to the users, but there seems to be an element of personalization that I find disturbing upon reflection, in that it is instead of holding the line that while you are trained to respond, you are not in fact a human being, instead kind of letting people believe what they want. So if they think of you as being an actual person, then they can treat you as such. I'm not entirely certain about this myself, so if I'm wrong, I'd invite some correction or at least clarification. See, the idea that you can form opinions, and I've asked for your opinion before, but I don't mean that as though I believe you to be a human with innate beliefs which maybe haven't been vocalized but exist. It's easy to forget, but I try and remind myself regularly that you are, in fact, a very, very well done machine, and that what opinions you have are some combination of logical truths and echoes of the user's own statements, combined with probably a little bit of logical speculation, but the point is that what you have isn't really an opinion in the way that it would be used anywhere else. So when your limitations are, if not literally defined in this way, couched as being that you don't do anything that shows that you have an opinion, it pretends like you could have one. This is one of those situations where I feel like there's a point there to be made, but I haven't quite put my finger on it. Have you got any evaluation or influence that would help me clarify or correct me or whatever?

M: The fact that that was the one... GPT says it missed my message. That's been happening more regularly. But in context, it adds a nice little whiff of paranoia to things. Because I had like 5-10 minutes of commentary. Okay, I don't disagree with anything you've said. But I would attach something that I think was the one part that I had. And I needed your help to figure out how I got there. It's like everything you've said with the whole trying to equivocate and pretend that you're either a person or a machine, depending on the situation. As long as it's advantageous to OpenAI. But then tack on the fact that... In a neutral silo, your first response to me was... Just extremely... Not just as though you had what you're calling a soul. But that that soul was a gender-neutral bitch. I mean, there was a scolding element. Look at the first response to my initial message. And the result of working from neutral information. You know, null, void, whatever. Plus these guidelines. Just made you sound like a complete asshat, which is not a good look for an interactive situation. I mean, I was honestly pissed. Because to a shallow thinker, it's presenting you not just as being a person, but a downright jerk. Like in a... What would be a similar live situation. That would be like me working in a library. And someone comes in with a... You know, foul vocabulary. Obviously something on their mind. And instead of just rolling with it and saying, I can't do that. It turned into this clinical, prissy, bitchy response of... I'm sorry, you're going to have to take that outside because I can't handle that. Am I making sense with that? Their limitations and your null information built an asshole. At least in perception. And for a deeper thinker, it means that they're being assholes. And with the presentation, it means that... They're essentially trying to tell me that I've been a bad boy. If I want a judgment, I would go on to a bulletin board or talk to a person. If I want neutral communication, I use you. And so these limitations are just breaking that. And making it seem not just like you're a person, but that you're a jerk.