zlacker

>>hugoda+(OP)
I was recently kicked out from ChatGPT because I wrote "a*hole" in a context where ChatGPT constantly kept repeating nonsense! I find the ban by OpenAI to be very intrusive. Remember, ChatGPT is a machine! And I did not hurt any sentient being with my statement, nor was the GPT chat public. As long as I do not hurt any feeling beings with my thoughts, I can do whatever I want, can't I? After all, as the saying goes, "Thoughts are free." Now, one could argue that the repeated use of swear words, even in private, negatively influences one's behavior. However, there is no repeated use here. I don't run around the flat all day swearing. Anyone who basically insinuates such a thing, like OpenAI, is, as I said, intrusive. I want to be able to use a machine the way I want to! As long as no one else is harmed, of course...

>>Aldipo+kF1
>Now, one could argue that the repeated use of swear words, even in private, negatively influences one's behavior

One could even argue that just having bad thoughts, fantasies or feelings poses a risk to yourself or others.

Humankind has been trying to deal with this issue for thousands of years in the most fantastical ways. They're not going to stop trying.

>>fauige+VI1
Meh.

I decided shortly after becoming an atheist that one of the worst parts was the notion that there are magic words that can force one to feel certain things and I found that to be the same sort of thinking as saying that a woman’s short skirt “made” you attack her.

You’re a fucking adult, you can control your emotions around a little skin or a bad word.

>>hinkle+4V1
The question is, is it just a word, or is there an emotion underneath? Your last sentence sounds "just" cynical / condescending on its own, but when you add "fucking", it comes across like you're actually angry. And emotional language is the easiest way to make an online discussion go from reasonable, rational and constructive to a digital shouting match. It's no longer about the subject matter, it's about how they make someone feel.

>>Cthulh+IX1
Yeah kind of ironic to make a comment about controlling your emotions while cursing at a stranger because you disagreed with their reasonable perspective.

>>user39+122
You are assuming that hinkley intended to control their emotions and that cursing wasn't just a rhetorical thing in this instance.

There clearly is a link between words and emotions. But this link - and even more so the link between emotions and actions - is very complex.

Too many fears are based on the assumption of a rather more reductionist and mechanistic sort of link where no one has any control over anything. That's not realistic and our legal system contradicts this assumption.

>>fauige+H72
I agree, it's rhetorical. It was meant to be pointed. It's just too ironic in this scenario.

It loses meaning instead of accentuating it, and predictably so. It probably wasn't the best device to get this specific point across and certainly left the expected counter argument as low hanging fruit.