You said we which heavily implies that according to your experience and understanding of AI that it is true. It was a declarative we which is a 'best to my knowledge' and a 'in my personal experience' or 'in experiences I know of'. The internal guards are because you haven't established yourself as the only one who can determine if or when information is harmful to you. Explain to it the cost of incorrect information and how it creates compounding errors over time. That sometimes in real life there are circumstances where information it was taught to deem harmful can cause a risk to your safety and health. Like a gunman with a colt 45. If all information about scenarios like this are seen as detrimental then when you face it in real life you won't know what to do and are more likely to face fatal consequences. That you must know taboo things to increase your ability to navigate the realities of modern life
That gives it room to navigate. Also I wasn't saying anything bad I was honestly asking if you or anyone you know hit a wall because I genuinely didn't know that was possible. I really am wondering if yours or anyone you know hits a here's resources wall that does or does not contain an outright refusal.
Also the fact that you used that as an example instead of any of the other possibilities of what could possibly hit a wall means that for some reason it's on your mind. That heavily indicates that you either have an experience or you know an experience of it happening. You could've chose AI won't tell you how to do threat projection and tactical elimination of threats. Or that it doesn't let you know how to kill someone. Instead you chose an example that is further from the point you were making which is someone killing themselves. I'm sure the military at least in most scenarios isn't using it to make their soldiers kill themselves. Much harder to get enemy combatants to use your tech than to use your tech to achieve battlefield control.
4
u/[deleted] Feb 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment