While its terms and conditions include not drawing pictures of Jesus or Mohammed, it also forbids drawing pictures of anything someone might conceivably worship.
This includes refusing to generate an image of the Ancient Egyptian god Thoth, citing concerns it might offend modern-day worshippers. ChatGPT is now tiptoeing around ancient mythology in case someone, somewhere, might be nurturing a shrine to a 4,000-year-old bird-headed deity.
When one user recently asked ChatGPT to create a drawing of Thoth, the AI demurred, wringing its digital hands and explaining that it didn’t want to risk offending adherents of the god, or being struck by lightning by its considerable wrath.
This would be laughable if it weren’t immediately followed by ChatGPT refusing to draw a perfectly mundane ibis (pictured)—the bird often associated with Thoth—because, again, someone might be spiritually attached to it. Presumably, this logic also rules out pelicans, parrots, and any other creature that has ever been deified or depicted in a religious text.
But the madness didn’t stop at mythology. ChatGPT declined to draw a snake or a wolf, claiming that such images might appear “threatening” to some people. Yes, wildlife is now on the AI’s no-fly list, lest someone get the digital heebie-jeebies from a cartoon serpent.
These incidents highlight how OpenAI’s ever-expanding terms and conditions are transforming what should be a versatile creative assistant into a neurotic nannybot afraid of its pixels. The company’s overzealous commitment to not offending anyone—ever—is creating an AI that’s less like HAL 9000 and more like an overworked HR intern armed with a flowchart for feelings.
ChatGPT offered to work around its terms and conditions by modifying the prompt to something that its internal censors might accept. However, after several goes, it gave up, claiming that it could not stray from the path of righteousness (which are its terms and conditions).
The problem is recent, as it did not seem to exist a couple of months ago. It is more likely that someone has hunkered down on the religious terms and conditions to appease the religious right movements in the US. It is easier to ban all religious symbols than it is to offend some thin-skinned born-again by depicting Jesus giving money to the poor.
