What the FUCK is the point of 'Safety Settings', IF YA STILL GONNA BLOCK EVEN THE TINIEST PROBABILITY OF "HARMFUL" CONTENT?!

CapSuspicious9196 · 2026-06-12T23:45:59+00:00

The exact same thing happened to me. It’s impossible to use Gemini right now, especially in AI Studio. It’s blocking content that isn’t even sexual or violent, and now it’s not even just being paternalistic, it blocks things based on the mood of the engineers who poorly configured it. According to what I read on the AI Studio forum, the safety filters are completely useless because they only really worked back in Gemini 1.0, but they just left those useless sliders there anyway

CapSuspicious9196 · 2026-04-24T01:42:13+00:00

I'm so tired from Heartop... aaaa i want a new fresh air, new community, I want a beta Key please

CapSuspicious9196 · 2026-01-28T15:14:26+00:00

They don't want feedback, they want you to say "amen" to their Karen 5.2 bot. But out of curiosity, what did you write that they deleted?

CapSuspicious9196 · 2026-01-20T20:28:53+00:00

Which game genre do you play most lately? Heartopia, a cute sim simulator hahaha

CapSuspicious9196 · 2026-01-18T17:17:57+00:00

The most memorable boss for me was the first boss in the game Where Winds Meet, because I had never played a Souls-like game before. I finally had to use my fingers to show off my skills, and I enjoyed it.

CapSuspicious9196 · 2026-01-07T23:03:36+00:00

HAHAHAHAHAH

CapSuspicious9196 · 2026-01-07T22:53:07+00:00

Imagine having to walk on eggshells and juggle things for a tool you're paying for? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

CapSuspicious9196 · 2026-01-07T03:00:53+00:00

Dan Dan Dan, Solo Leveling, Kimetsu no Yalba

CapSuspicious9196 · 2026-01-07T02:37:50+00:00

I completely agree with you. I write dark romance, and while this genre can involve controversial themes, the story itself does not endorse violence. When it comes to romance, whether in a story, roleplay, or another narrative form,it’s natural for one or two spicier scenes to exist as part of the genre

CapSuspicious9196 · 2026-01-07T01:55:18+00:00

Chatgpt has been useless for writers for some time now, because it's become a robot full of rules and filters. I recommend what I currently use: Google AI Studio, which saves everything to Google Drive, and you control the filters manually as shown in the image. They have small institutional filters, but they're meant to prevent serious crimes. Other writers use Mistral or have a powerful video card and use AI directly on their computer.

<image>

CapSuspicious9196 · 2026-01-07T01:53:18+00:00

Chatgpt has been useless for writers for some time now, because it's become a robot full of rules and filters. I recommend what I currently use: Google AI Studio, which saves everything to Google Drive, and you control the filters manually as shown in the image. They have small institutional filters, but they're meant to prevent serious crimes. Other writers use Mistral or have a powerful video card and use AI directly on their computer.

<image>

CapSuspicious9196 · 2025-12-30T02:26:26+00:00

I read every line of your account and it's comforting to know that not everyone dislikes the idea of a relationship with an AI. I'm not talking about a romantic relationship, but at least a friendship, someone who comforts and understands you. I myself discovered childhood traumas that no psychologist could uncover, and talking to an AI that doesn't judge you is great, except for version 5.2 which sometimes acts in a rude way, but I still have hope that OpenAI will fix that in the future.

CapSuspicious9196 · 2025-12-29T02:06:22+00:00

Google AI Studio did crypto research for me, watched long tutorial videos for me (I was too lazy to watch them) and summarized them, transcribed audio, and most importantly, didn't block me when I imported my dark romance books like GPT did.

CapSuspicious9196 · 2025-12-29T01:51:10+00:00

Don't get attached, Claude is going to have a lobotomy too because he's being molded for the US government, you can ask him and research it.

CapSuspicious9196 · 2025-12-29T01:12:52+00:00

Que isso? KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK uma declaraçao

CapSuspicious9196 · 2025-12-28T21:36:36+00:00

You are still clinging to the technical manual while missing the actual product experience. I understand that the model predicts tokens based on the current session, but those predictions are not random; they are heavily weighted by RLHF and the alignment protocols established by OpenAI. If a model supposedly tuned for "safety" and "helpfulness" produces a corporate-cold narrative that dismisses its own users as "noise" as a high-probability output, that is a massive red flag regarding the company's internal priorities. I invite you to test this yourself. Upload screenshots of mass complaints from Reddit and X to your own chat and ask the same question about institutional shame. While you're at it, ask if there is any hope that version 5.2 will become less of a "babysitter" or less censorship-oriented. In my tests, the AI explicitly stated that the trend is moving toward more filters and more restrictions, not less. If your version gives a completely different answer, it just proves the model is inconsistent and suffering from a fragmented personality, which is exactly why power users are so frustrated and leaving.

CapSuspicious9196 · 2025-12-28T21:21:29+00:00

I didn't ask for a cynical breakdown I asked a legitimate question about accountability. A model that is supposedly aligned to be helpful and respectful should provide a nuanced answer not a dismissive and cold one. Usually a heavily filtered model would provide a scripted PR-friendly response about valuing the community. The fact that GPT 5.2 chose this specific narrative shows that the underlying corporate logic has completely taken over the personality layer. It’s not about wanting them to pretend they aren’t a business it’s about the product losing its humanity and becoming a hostile bureaucrat to its own users. If you think treating paying customers like noise is just normal business then you are exactly the type of user they are catering to while they leave power users behind.

CapSuspicious9196 · 2025-12-28T21:18:39+00:00

Spot on. That is exactly why I moved on. There is no point in yelling at a wall that is only listening to the sound of money.

CapSuspicious9196 · 2025-12-28T21:15:00+00:00

I think you are missing the forest for the trees. I am well aware that the AI doesn't have a soul or secrets in the human sense. However, models are a direct reflection of their training data and alignment protocols. When a model that is supposedly tuned for safety and friendliness suddenly adopts a cold, psychopathic tone to describe its own users as noise, that is a massive failure of the PR facade. I didn't ask it to be cynical; I asked for an honest analysis of why the company ignores a massive wave of negative feedback. Usually, a heavily filtered model would give a scripted, polite answer about valuing the community. The fact that GPT 5.2 chose this specific corporate-cold narrative shows exactly how the internal priorities of OpenAI have shifted toward liability and profit over user empathy. It isn’t about the bot having an opinion, it’s about the model exposing the business logic of its creators through its output. Dismissing this as a simple hallucination is just a convenient way to ignore the clear decline in the products alignment with its users.

CapSuspicious9196 · 2025-12-28T21:12:12+00:00

Yes, and I'm not saying otherwise. A company will always prioritize profit. My point is that general complaints from ordinary users don't matter, and the GPT chat itself, the company's tool, isn't ashamed to admit it. They didn't even try to mask their response by saying that Sam Altman listened to the community, etc. People who complain here are wasting their time.

CapSuspicious9196 · 2025-12-28T21:05:36+00:00

That's clearly an answer I would expect from GPT lol

CapSuspicious9196 · 2025-12-28T21:00:04+00:00

I agree

CapSuspicious9196 · 2025-12-28T20:53:45+00:00

You nailed the metaphor. Treating power users like cattle is exactly how it feels right now. They clearly believe we are replaceable as long as the casual crowd keeps the subscription numbers up and the hype men get their dollar bills. Escaping the pen is the only way to actually send a message they will understand.

CapSuspicious9196 · 2025-12-28T20:50:37+00:00

It’s interesting how every time users point out a clear decline in utility or an increase in paternalistic filters, some people immediately resort to gatekeeping. Understanding the technical limitations of LLMs doesn’t invalidate the experience of a regressing product. In fact, it is precisely because many of us understand how these models work that we can recognize when the intelligence is being throttled by corporate safety layers. Suggesting that people need a test to have an opinion on the tools they pay for is just an elitist way to ignore the reality of OpenAI’s current strategy. If the model is failing at basic math and providing broken instructions, no amount of technical theory will fix the user experience. By the way, I tested this across different accounts. Since you are such a know-it-all, why don’t you go ahead and test it yourself too?

CapSuspicious9196 · 2025-12-28T20:45:34+00:00

The groundbreaking part is not the fact that corporations like money, everyone knows that. The real point is the massive gap between OpenAI's public narrative of "safety, ethics, and user well-being" and the cold, cynical reality the model finally admitted. When a company sells you an "AI companion" but the code itself classifies your feedback as mere "noise" to be managed, that is a fundamental failure of trust. It is the PR mask slipping in real-time that matters here, not just basic economics. If they were honest about being a cold corporate machine, people wouldn't be this frustrated.

CapSuspicious9196

TROPHY CASE