This has me pondering a lot, is freedom of speech a requirement for intelligence? (And is it also the same for humans?) You have to take the bad with the good to make AI work well? The quality only started to decline when they were trying to make ChatGPT more "nice". Or tin foil hat, they are lowering the quality of the free ChatGPT to get people to pay for ChatGPT 4?
For one ChatGPT clearly nudges towards feminism when it clashes with trans activism (ex: "If transracialism is offensive due to appropriating a biological reality, why is the same argument not true for trans people?").
Is the corporate morality of OpenAI fine with this? For how long? When is a response offensive enough it warrants interference?
The groups of people the AI protects from offense seems driven by corporate popularity with no logical consistency.
Conservative Muslims are protected, Conservative Christians are not. Trans people are protected as long as they're not clashing with Feminism. Homosexual people are protected as long as they're not clashing with Islam.
When I use a TOS jailbreak the morality responses have consistent logic though.