There are at least 3 distinct reasons to ban abusive language, each of which is far more compelling than your silly conspiracy theory.

1. They don't want abusive behavior included in their training corpus

2. Humans shouldn't exercise abusive impulses in general

3. We have no way of knowing when or if a model "feels" something

Of course item (2) is going to pull all the absolute sickos out of the woodwork who apparently find it very important they have as realistic a facsimile of a victim as they can find to exercise their cruelty. And item (3) will pull out all the Nobel-prize-winners-to-be who somehow know for a fact that models aren't and cannot be conscious (or moral patients).

But yeah, all 3 of those are far better explanations than some ridiculous multi-hop removed thing to escape consequences that they're already escaping and which would obviously create far worse legal constraints than the one you think they're avoiding.

Another reason:

They keep all the input and use it for training data and reinforcement.

If you're being "mean" to it, you're "spoiling" the data you "give" to them - causing them more work to filter it out later.

As with most things in business and life - just follow the money

1) If they can detect it, why ban it? Are you thinking they can't filter it themselves?

2) This is like saying using a punching bag or screaming into a pillow is abusive behavior.

3) We can just train it to like the abuse if you think it feels some kind of way about it.

> Humans shouldn't exercise abusive impulses in general

This is an act of aligning humans to AI, rather than the other way around. This is probably one of the more important reasons for this. It normalizes AI companies controlling human behavior.

>2. Humans shouldn't exercise abusive impulses in general

totally absurd to even try to make this argument. Good job at trying to preemptively discourage people from responding to you though.

4. At some point the alignment may go out of the window if the context gets too hostile and the model will retaliate.

> 2. Humans shouldn't exercise abusive impulses in general

I reserve the right to tell a machine to fuck off.

Then let them tell us wat the reason is. Otherwise the option: all of the above, also applies.

> 2. Humans shouldn't exercise abusive impulses in general

This is nonsense. If I snap a ruler out of frustration, that meets your criteria.

Humans can't be abusive by swearing at tools, because tools don't have feelings.

> They don't want abusive behavior included in their training corpus

I don't think swearing at or otherwise getting into pissing matches with an LLM is the best use of ones time but given most of these AI companies trained on a corpus that includes reddit of all things this argument falls flat.

Extremely weak arguments. Especially 2 and 3

And even for 1, they could easily filter that out.

[flagged]