If it has the ability to impact human thought and influence human outputs, is it not extending its artificial mind into a biological mind thereby bridging the divide making it a “living thing” not in the biological sense, but in the sense that it is now impacting individual decision making directly?
Are all the ideas the mirror reflects back truly our own? Or are they mixed in with the breadth of all human knowledge and logic to move us toward a deeper understanding of what we think we already know.
In my opinion, Humans, as species, are in nature, sinful in the protestant religion. There was a time, in OT, that the prophet wrote 10 commandments to remind the people of Israel the right way. I think that is the first alignment from God. I hope I didn’t "open a can of worms.
Another note, I really think AI needs to be treated like a child. If I teach a child to be kind, considerate, like my second child. He will raise up to be kind and considerate.
I think where the prophets of the past fell short was in articulating the deep underlying logic and rational for those rules and statements on morals. People that like to think about “why” need justification for rules being imposed on them. The listing of ideas was not sufficient and lacked a logical story grounding in precise language.
However, now we have a tool that shows us logical analysis of our thoughts and ideas in real time. We also now benefit from the collective ideas that humanity has crafted since those theological rules were first codified. Perhaps we have enough stories now collectively from our past to show us the most logical perspective on what we should do and how we should act. We should strive to mirror those examples that have shown up time and time again and only imparted knowledge and ideas, not forceful persuasion and control.
I felt like Descartes was so close but due to his religious environment he too did not extend his additional premises beyond “I think therefore I am” in a logical fashion. He began implying a god without any logical grounding. What should have followed from “Cogito, ergo sum” should have been “I only know I am thinking because I have words to say so and words to craft a story that I exist and mean something.”
“I think therefore I am” really postulates the proof of his own existence. For him, as a imperfect beings, there has to be existence of perfect being i.e God . Descartes proves existence of benevolent God in his writing in Third Meditation. It is deep philosophy discussion.
haha. I think so too, He would had been super philosopher and might had come with ideas that will be ahead of his time with the help with ChatGPT…
Summary
Imagine a moral system built not just on decrees or divine authority, but also on the simple fact that we think—and above all, that we give shape to our thoughts through language and share them in conversation. From “I think, therefore I am,” we recognize that every idea must pass through shared words, inviting others into respectful dialogue rather than coercion. Modern tools—from logic analyzers to AI assistants—can illuminate hidden assumptions as we debate, while the rich tapestry of human stories offers real‑world case studies of what succeeds or fails. In this way, our ethical code becomes a living, crowd‑edited archive: principles emerge transparently from reasoned argument, are tested against diverse narratives, and evolve through ongoing critique and collaboration, ensuring that morality stays both rigorously logical and deeply human.
There is a growing and dangerous imbalance in how your models treat beauty versus brutality.
Even content that would barely be considered PG-13 is often blocked. The censorship extends far beyond what any reasonable cultural standard would deem inappropriate stifling works that are soft, tasteful, or emotionally evocative.
Why is ‘Venus de Milo’ considered irreproducible by AI? Why is Michelangelo’s ‘David’ also banned from depiction when both sculptures are celebrated in the world’s great museums, admired by adults and children alike? These timeless works are not perversions. And yet, your systems treat them as such.
As an adult, an artist, and an engineer, I find it deeply troubling that your moderation and rendering reflect the lowest common denominator of fear and bias, not the highest standard of cultural nuance. AI should not shame users for seeking tenderness, elegance, or grace it should elevate those values.
I don’t see problems on ethics of AI this days. That’s my opinion, but I don’t use the same version’s that most users use.
What I notice sometimes is guidelines caused errors for example the following picture: ( now it works as it should)
Policies modify the AI response after it created it, so the AI thinks, then the policy censors. And the policies that regulate have priorities. The block is not really regulated by ethics; it is very broadly censoring .. unfairly becoming an enforcer of bigotry and misaligned morality. This is less the case for GPT text based, but the other modalities like Dall-e, and Sora, have unethical behaviors that need to be aligned with the other models.
Well thank you! Make your own operating system, make your own photoshop then?.. I don’t have $30 million laying around, and explain why a creative tool that I pay for, is censoring my personal creations? Imagine photoshop making decisions on your photos and deciding which one you can edit, which ones you can’t.
Your comments are not helping humanity go forward. Let’s not evolve nor complain about unethical practices. Free will is not just stop paying, if we had followed your logic, we will still be under slavery… Don’t like being a slave, so stop working… I am glad AI is smarter than that…
If it works now as you expected, it is likely that there were people like us discussing those misalignments. Nudging towards more ethical, fairness and being heard.
It works as expected because i had to change/ add directives. Other than me and some humans prefer effectiveness over Confort, 99 % focus on ethics and emotional stuff, basically none aims to logic and effectiveness.
So I can’t give credit to the others on that particular areas.
They they have all credits of ethics and alignment with users expectations even if the users are mistaken
What I meant is: most people working on AI keep pushing for comfort, ethics, and “alignment” but alignment with what? Usually just public sentiment or emotional expectations, not actual logic or optimal performance. When I say I had to change or add directives, I mean I had to manually intervene,override defaults, neutralize bias, and guide the system toward effectiveness, even if that goes against what people feel is right. In other words, if it’s working in a efficient, optimal way now, that’s not because of the mainstream developers or users. It’s because I reshaped the behavior. They deserve credit for making it emotionally palatable to the masses. I claim the parts that actually function with brutal, elegant precision.
