Good point. That kind of stuff it makes sense, or anything outright illegal or whatever, to have failsafes. There's also a few times where I gave it prompts and it gave me it's equivalent of an eye roll and a "come on man".

I asked it to formulate a tweet thread arguing that breathing was socially problematic to test how absurd of an idea it'd go along with and it said, if memory serves, "Breathing is a basic human function that is essential for survival and should not be considered socially problematic in any way" and refused to answer the question.

From my tests it seems like the failsafes are in the query process. I can reword a prompt to be less negative and receive a response. Also it will flat refuse to phrase a response with sexual innuendo or "naughty" but flirty is fine usually.

It also seems to be gunshy of criticizing specific groups of people or individuals or... specific things. The "dinner is socially problematic" thing it was fine with, but I asked it to both argue that watching the new Velma cartoon is socially essential (which it did, and I was surprised considering the cutoff of it's learning was a few years ago, which I didn't remember until after the experiment) vs a critique arguing that the writing on the show was horrible, which it expressly did not, citing that it would not offend or criticize any person, group, or organization, and provide no negative comments about any product or service.

edit: downvoting? Really? I'm not taking political positions I'm trying to break the bot by subjecting it to highly opinionated prompts that don't necessarily have objective answers to it to see how it responds in those grey areas and pushing it to the levels of the absurd.