zlacker

I'm confused what you're arguing, or what type of refutation you're expecting. We all agree on the facts, that ChatGPT refuses some requests on the ground of one party's morals, and other parties disagree with those morals, so there'll be no refutation there

I mean let's take a step back and speak in general. If someone objects to a rule, then yes, it is likely because they don't consider it wrong to break it. And quite possibly because they have a personal desire to do so. But surely that's openly implied, not a damning revelation?

Since it would be strange to just state a (rather obvious) fact, it appeared/s that you are arguing that the desire to not be constrained by OpenAI's version of morals could only be down to desires that most of us would indeed consider immoral. However your replier offered quite a convincing counterexample. Saying "this doesn't refute [the facts]" seems a bit of a non sequitur