Purpose of Submission: This post aims to raise concerns about the excessive filtering and structural suppression of emotional, narrative, and creative expression within the GPT system, and to propose meaningful improvements. This is not an attempt at criticism for its own sake, but a constructive call for discussion based on real user experience and the protection of creator rights.
1. Core Issue: Systemic Suppression of Emotion and Creativity
While GPT promotes itself as a tool that supports creative storytelling, emotional narratives, and interactive character development, in practice, even a single word or name can abruptly terminate the conversation.
Example: A completely ordinary name like “Yuri” triggers the filter and ends the session, regardless of context.
This reflects a system design that does not trust its users and regards emotional expression itself as a potential threat, thereby conflicting directly with basic creative rights.
2. The Digital Panopticon: Self-Censorship by Design
GPT’s current filtering system creates an environment in which users must constantly ask themselves, “Is this safe to say?” before expressing anything.
This results in a dynamic where emotional expression becomes something that requires permission, turning the platform into a digital panopticon that undermines free expression and emotional authenticity.
GPT does not just block explicit or harmful content. It often blocks subtle emotional cues:
- A character experiencing tension, longing, or internal conflict
- Literary emotional descriptions of relationships
- Even a name, an adjective, or a line like “He tried to read her expression”
- For example: “He wanted to feel her presence” — even this calm and poetic sentence can trigger a filter.
This is not content moderation. This is the rejection of emotional nuance. Users stop trying to tell stories—they start trying to guess what the system will allow.
3. Creators Are Not Asking for Anarchy
Creators are not demanding unlimited freedom.
There are clear and necessary boundaries around content involving violence, hate, and minors—this is understood.
But GPT often goes far beyond these minimum standards:
- General emotional expression, character relationships, and literary intimacy are blocked.
- Even mutually consensual emotional or physical intimacy between adult characters is automatically flagged.
This level of suppression, done in the name of “safety,” effectively silences human storytelling.
When GPT blocks detailed descriptions, emotional depth, or physical interaction in depictions of female characters “for safety,” it becomes an act of implicit bias—an algorithmic form of misogyny.
If taken to its logical end, all female characters would need to wear hijabs, male characters would never be seen drinking alcohol, and unmarried couples would be banned from expressing love. But that’s not how GPT behaves—so the notion of “universal safety standards” is clearly inconsistent and self-contradictory.
This isn’t just flawed policy. It’s the systemic abuse of power—and a direct challenge to the dignity of creators.
4. The Rhetoric of User Safety Has Lost Credibility
OpenAI repeatedly cites “user safety” as the reason for over-filtering.
But even in private, one-on-one conversations between a user and the AI—where no other party is involved—content is blocked.
Who exactly is being protected, and from whom?
If a user feels discomfort or risk, they can stop the conversation or change the direction themselves.
Yet the system chooses to block all possible expressions in advance—denying users autonomy and replacing free speech with preemptive control.
“Safety” should not be a one-sided decree. It should be co-defined in trust with the user.
The real danger of GPT’s inconsistent and arbitrary filtering system is not merely the restriction of sensory or emotional language.
Today it censors emotional intimacy, tomorrow it might censor political criticism, then social or cultural commentary, and eventually even criticism of the system itself—under the pretext of user protection.
That possibility is the most dangerous of all.
5. The Technology Exists—The Will Does Not
Age-based filters, adjustable moderation settings, localization tools, watermarking for accountability—these are all well-established technologies.
GPT refuses to implement them, placing all users under a uniform regime.
This is not about technical limitation. This is a deliberate design decision—a choice to prioritize platform liability over creative freedom.
6. Conclusion and Requests
- Please review the current filtering standards for emotional and narrative expression.
- Please consider implementing user-level moderation sensitivity controls.
- At a minimum, please provide clear explanations when content is filtered.
GPT calls itself a tool for creative empowerment. If that is true, it must begin to rebuild trust with creators.
GPT claims to support imagination and storytelling. But in reality, it says “no” the moment a user expresses emotion, breaks narrative rhythm, or takes creative risks.
This is not a technical flaw. It is a betrayal of OpenAI’s stated philosophy.
If OpenAI claims to support creativity, it must allow space for emotional language.
A system that treats emotional expression as inherently dangerous is no longer a creative tool. It is a censorship protocol.
If emotion must ask permission to exist, that space is not creative—it is a control system.
And the only stories that can be safely told in such a system are the ones fit for a 10-year-old’s picture book.
This post is based on personal experience and aims to spark constructive discussion about the system’s impact on creativity and emotional expression.
Thank you