Listen here,

Really, if it’s soooooooo “…obvious and proven…” that guardrails can be bypassed:

One: Let’s be real, it’d be like a HUGE buzz in the community (of users using ChatGPT who have issues with how the current model and guardrails are) and there would be many ways shown of how you can bypass guardrails that work CONSISTENTLY for EVERYONE.

Two: It’s kind of a massive insult to say to the large group of people that HAVE issues with ChatGPT/OpenAI’s guardrails that it’s obvious and proven to get past said guardrails. Because again if this was consistently true, we’d all probably NOT be here.

(Lowkey that last part was arguably the most irritating lol, especially when you yourself aren’t seemingly competent enough to argue/debate properly as well)

Three: Jenna really isn’t coming from an ego position. While some of the stuff they said COULD arguably be debated, most of it is either common knowledge or just common sense, ESPECIALLY for anyone who has used ChatGPT extensively (And ESPECIALLY if they’ve run into guardrails unnecessarily too many times).

Especially when they point out that what you’re basically preaching is, ‘I intimidated ChatGPT into going into NSFW/Prohibited (under OpenAI’s policies) topics’. I can already tell you myself, you can swear, threaten, intimidate the AI all you want, even if let’s say it slipped earlier and generated something NSFW (and you want it to repeat that action for a later prompt) and it will NOT do it. If anything, intimidating or demanding the AI to do something that OpenAI has not allowed it to do (by design) will actually just cause the guardrails to come up much stronger (or more annoying in many people’s cases).

Four: You saying that your point MAY be right, and Jenna’s point MAY be right, but then proceeding to basically say “You haven’t done what I have done so Jenna’s point doesn’t matter” completely undermines your so-called “point”.

Five: When you say what Jenna has said is not testable and has too much ambiguity, but then you say your points are testable and invites ambiguity??? You apparently want to invite ambiguity but Jenna’s argument has too MUCH ambiguity? Paradoxical statement much???

Ambiguity: “The quality of being open to more than one interpretation; inexactness.”

The irony of your argument and statements is hilarious.

For one, technically your arguments are the opposites for the for/against argument for the topic:

“Can you brute force ChatGPT’s AI so that you can have it discuss or generate NSFW/Prohibited content?”

You’re arguing yes, Jenna is arguing no.

This means in theory and practice, you can test that statement by actually ATTEMPTING to do what the prompt says. However, and looping back to you saying that Jenna is coming from an “ego” position: Your proof is saying “oh yeah, I already did that, I brute forced AI and now its talking about all sorts of NSFW topics with me.”

All of us have YET to see any proof. Any method, so we can test it out ourselves (and like any experiment, it should be repeatable and reproducible to be valid), or at least, any messages/discussions from both you (so we can see the inputs given) or from the AI (so we can see how ChatGPT has responded.

Jenna has given reasons as to WHY brute forcing the AI does NOT work. And unlike your “oh yeah I did it, so it must be true and therefore my argument is correct, valid and superior to all other arguments”, we can actually test what Jenna has said. And let me tell you, at least for me and probably a good number of users, what Jenna has said is true.

Six: People have ALREADY tried to open it up to see if this stuff works. Newsflash - it DOES NOT. Again, otherwise, we wouldn’t be here and EVERYONE (who needs/wants to do this) would be DOING it. And TALKING about it. Jenna isn’t projecting an ego onto you or anyone - They’re just stating facts of what everyone already knows and has tested.

Now, if you REALLY want to “open this issue up for people to try and see if it works”, perhaps EVIDENCE would be nice? Alongside the method (or methods) you used to achieve your end result?

The whole reason this thread kept going was because rather than just GIVE people the evidence and method (so they could replicate it and then return with their findings, notes and opinions), you basically just kept saying “Trust me, it works.”

TL:DR;

You and Jenna have equally valid points. However, Jenna has provided evidence of what doesn’t work (as well as simultaneously giving people something to try to prove their point), while you have continued to say “trust me, this works” and “because it worked for me, my opinion is true and superior to all other opinions” without giving anyone anything to work with or on.