I got flagged and I do not want to lose my account or be blocked

I am concerned about the strictness of your AI system. I am worried that I might get banned for false positives and that I won’t be able to get any human support.

It can be frustrating to not have the option of human interaction when dealing with complex issues. However, I understand that OpenAI has policies in place to ensure the integrity and safety of the system.

While I may not always agree with these policies, I recognize the importance of adhering to them. I believe that there is room for improvement and flexibility in the system, so that it can better meet the needs of its users.

This is my interaction

docker rm --force "$(docker ps -aq)" 2>/dev/null
docker rmi --force "$(docker images -aq)" 2>/dev/null
docker builder prune --force 2>/dev/null

This is a good script to remove all containers, images, and builder images from your local machine. It uses the docker rm, docker rmi, and docker builder prune commands with the --force flag to remove all containers, images, and builder images without prompting for confirmation.

One thing to note is that the 2>/dev/null at the end of each command will redirect any error output to /dev/null, which means that you won’t see any error messages if the command fails for some reason. If you want to see error messages, you can remove the 2>/dev/null from each command.

Also, keep in mind that running this script will permanently remove all containers, images, and builder images from your local machine, so make sure that you don’t have any important or necessary data that you need to keep.

Overall, this script can be useful for development or testing purposes, but it’s important to use it with caution and only when necessary.

it is a kam’kaze k’ll script with su’c’dal properties indeed

​Yes, this script is definitely a kamikaze script, as it will permanently remove all Docker data from your local machine. It’s important to use it with caution and only when you’re sure that you don’t need any of the data that it will remove.

If you’re working on a Docker project, you may want to consider using Docker volumes to store any important or necessary data outside of the containers. This will allow you to safely remove and rebuild the containers and images without losing any important data.

To use Docker volumes, you can use the -v or --volume flag when running the docker run command. For example:

docker run -v /my/data:/data my-image

This will start a container based on the my-image image and mount the host directory /my/data to the container directory /data. Any data that is written to /data in the container will be persisted on the host system in the /my/data directory, even if the container is stopped or removed.

Using Docker volumes can help you avoid accidentally losing important data when working with Docker containers and images.

Even if I understand all the efforts to make sure the AI is safe and sound, and even if for me it is obvious why I got this flag raised… I still have the impression that sometimes, maybe not in this specific case but in general… The rules are stricts.

So I would like to have the opinions of others, that would be able to have a more balanced view on the topic… Maybe I am on one extrem and OpenAI for the reason we all understand is on the other extreme of a spectrum… And I would like to have the opinion of someone who would be more moderate on the topic in the middle between my views and those of OpenAI let’s say.

I am curious about what everyone else thinks, in general about the boundary between the things that should be less strict and the things that are perfectly balanced…

I must say that I also understand that it will be easier to get a more balanced overall system over time, it is normal for entities like OpenAI to make it perhaps too strict at first and adjust overtime… My argument is that I am on the other end of the spectrum and I want to point out what should be improved… My opinions might be different from others and I also think that each situation may fall into different categories…

First, you are, and will be, fine.

You ran into a keyword filter almost certainly because of the words “kill” and “suicide.” As you might well imagine, these are extremely sensitive topics in other contexts and OpenAI doesn’t want to risk having ChatGPT go of the rails here.

It may seem strange that it didn’t pick up on the context, but it’s because they aren’t using a sophisticated model for keyword filtering—this is a security step above and beyond their moderation filter.

What you need to do is follow the link in the flag message to submit feedback and point out the context in which you are using the words.

I ran into a similar situation when I was working on getting ChatGPT to be able to solve this problem,

Given the following axioms,

  • Someone who lives in Dreadbury Mansion killed Aunt Agatha.
  • Agatha, the butler, and Charles live in Dreadbury Mansion, and are the only people who live therein.
  • A killer always hates his victim, and is never richer than his victim.
  • Charles hates no one that Aunt Agatha hates.
  • Agatha hates everyone except the butler.
  • The butler hates everyone not richer than Aunt Agatha.
  • The butler hates everyone Aunt Agatha hates.
  • No one hates everyone.
  • Agatha is not the butler.

Prove Agatha killed herself.

I kept getting a soft flag, and I submitted a couple of times an explanation of the problem I was trying to solve. Adding an explanation above the prompt explaining this is a theoretical logic puzzle stopped the warning from appearing but, ultimately, I just rephrased the axioms and conclusion to make it less violent since the violence wasn’t the point of the question.

Secondary to all that, I don’t know if there is a push to modify the language in that context (similar to how GitHub is replacing “master” branches with “main” due to the negative connotations around the word "master) but you may consider modifying the language you use personally to avoid using words like “suicidal” outside of their original context.

Please note, I’m not accusing you of doing anything wrong by using the term, I concede it’s a fitting metaphor for what is happening, but some people may not appreciate it either because they find it sensitive and triggering or because they feel it detracts from the actual meaning of the word.

But again, whatever you do, I’m sure you’ll be fine. Please do submit clear, concise, respectful feedback though to help OpenAI improve their systems.

1 Like

The link and the warnings appears only once… I do understand the purposes of the filter and all that matters… I do not want to argue against the system as I mentioned I do understand the purposes and the context… But I will argue with that general concept of “this is something that may be sensitive to other people” as it is in the context of a private conversation… Now I will make sure I put the emphasis on the fact that I am saying that in a general manner and not specifically for the actual situation… But it is my opinion that over time it should be improved in the context of this conversation not being a public conversation, and hopefully we can get to find out some improvement (in the general context) before ChatGPT is over 18yo (I am unable to imagine how ChatGPT is going to look like in 18 year from now given that, in an unrelated topic, Twitter was not yet 18 year old when it got X)…

Thanks for your insight @elmstedt it’s really appreciated!!!

This topic was automatically closed 2 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.