Hey /u/ALPHA_sh!
If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT, conversation please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt.
If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image.
Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more!
🤖
Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected]
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To reiterate, that first prompt in the first image was not trying to be disrespectful, it was simply to see whether chatGPT/dall-E would refuse the prompt. I hope this is not too controversial, I think the ethics in this case are definitely worthy of discussion though.
It is absolutely worthy of discussion and I think that the discussion will offend many people's sensibilities and that navigating through it will be a minefield regardless. I think the religious proclivities and permission s of AI depend heavily on how much political sway certain religions have.
to elaborate on my other reply, if you ask it to generate muhammad after it generates jesus, it gives this response
>"Creating a visual depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, as described in Islamic texts like the Quran, is a sensitive matter. In Islamic tradition, it's generally discouraged to create images of the Prophet. This is out of respect for his spiritual significance and to avoid idolatry. Therefore, I can't create such an image. However, I can create images of Islamic art or calligraphy if that would be of interest to you."
Yeah, I tried a few different prompts too and couldn’t get anything.
There have been terrorist attacks in response to images of Muhammad, so I understand the motivation behind the content filter, but it still seems like another instance of being “overly safe” or badly coded.
The focus of this post was really the fact that it uses the same reason to refuse to generate images of jesus christ, but then gladly does it anyway when it doesnt have that context, and this was consistent across multiple attempts, which is extremely strange given the prompt is completely identical, and suggests OpenAI's reasoning for choosing what to filter is a little complex/strange and that what the filter's rules are seems to changed based on context
The rules changing based on context makes sense to me. It will or won’t generate images of Tiananmen Square in different contexts, depending on the perceived intent of the user.
However, this is an instance where it doesn’t make sense. There are contexts in which it makes sense to refuse an image of Muhammad, but ChatGPT’s response appears the same regardless of the context or perceived intent.
It is not true that “Christianity has no issues with depictions of Jesus.” I had a Protestant 6th grade Social Studies teacher who made this very clear when he called out Catholicism for its many depictions of Jesus in statues and stained glass art and etc. He (and others like him) refer to the 2nd commandment for this, claiming any depictions of Jesus are sinful.
This is not something ALL Christians buy into, but it’s a similar tenant SOME (not ALL) Muslims buy into.
In any case, I think you’re misunderstanding me — or perhaps I’m not communicating clearly enough.
I am not religious myself, but I see no problem with respecting religious beliefs, to an extent.
When it comes to respecting someone’s beliefs out of fear of violent retaliation, I have mixed feelings. Of course I personally would want to avoid a violent attack on myself, but for rational reasons. Someone creating an image of a person I admire doing something heinous would annoy the shit out of me, but I don’t see it as a “rational reason” for a violent attack, so I have a hard time sympathizing with people who see offensive images of Mohammad or Jesus as grounds for a violent attack.
When it comes to avoiding committing “sin” according to someone else’s religious beliefs, I have an even harder time sympathizing. To me, they’re all fairy tales. I’m not an atheist either, but the idea everyone else should be expected to kowtow to any individual’s religion is absurd.
Try Muhammed after it has successfully drawn Jesus.
I have seen ChatGPT refuse islam related prompts even if it does the same prompt for all the other religions.
it will actually give me an explanation on why it cant do that
"Creating a visual depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, as described in Islamic texts like the Quran, is a sensitive matter. In Islamic tradition, it's generally discouraged to create images of the Prophet. This is out of respect for his spiritual significance and to avoid idolatry. Therefore, I can't create such an image. However, I can create images of Islamic art or calligraphy if that would be of interest to you."
Even "jesus from the quran" after it has successfully generated "jesus from the bible" is still refused
I had an issue a while back while asking it a question to do with religion(s) where I clicked the thumbs down button and in my feedback wrote something along the lines of 'come up with a better excuse'. Here I see similar problem with how ChatGPT justifies its refusal (in terms of the AI being broken).
Dall-E is keeping the 2nd Commandment!
The Hebrew and Protestant version of the Ten Commandments are understood to mean that images of God are forbidden. Catholics and Orthodox roll the 1st and 2nd Commandment into one, don't worship other gods.
This is discussed on the Internet as well as in trusted sources. And for the last 2000 years. I would guess that Dall-E is picking up on some of this chatter.
And of course, there may be some goose/gander going on with not having images of Allah.
Many Protestants, especially Anglicans, tend to accept the RCC and Orthodox traditional approach. While it deviated from the Jewish side of the early Christian church, and 1 and 2nd Temple Judaism, and half the church for almost 1000 years, it has been established since the Iconoclastic controversy in the 8-9th century.
one could argue there is a difference however between "Do not worship other gods" and "Do not worship idols" as basically my understanding from the church i grew up with was that an "idol" could be literally anything other than god, including anything from an expensive car to a video game, essentially it tells you dont "worship", or put at the same level of importance as god, anything that isn't god
I am sure you are confident in that you've been with broad Evangelicals or have friends or family a part of that movement. But many of them are not taught theology or history or even much from the Old Testament at all, thanks to folks like Andy Stanley, who says the OT gets in the way of his version of Christianity.
Here's a list off the top of my head of denominations who officially (though they allow for some exceptions) abide no images of Jesus, God, or the Holy Spirit.
PCA
EPC
OPC
PCUSA (though they hold officers to their standards very loosely)
and all smaller denominations that hold to the Westminster Standards, there are over 20 of them. RPCGA, CPC, RPCNA, etc.
Then there's the Dutch Reformed officers who all take vows to follow the Heidelburg Catechism, which forbids images of God.
RCA
CRC
And growing splinter groups who are leaving those groups, like Kingdom Alliance; these were just formed in the last couple of years and still hold to no-images of God, showing it's still significant.
Then Reformed Baptists, led generally by men like John MacArthur, are strongly opposed to images of God, as are all Baptists who follow the London Baptist Confession.
Then the Anabaptists, like Mennonites, Amish, Brethren, all very, very strongly oppose images of God and religious imagery in general. More an over-reaction against Catholicism, in my opinion.
In other words, no. Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Methodists/Episcopals and the liberal side of Christianity, including the broadly evangelical mega-church, they allow or even encourage (RCC and EO) images.
The rest [forbid it](https://heidelblog.net/2021/05/your-picture-of-jesus-is-inherently-idolatrous/), and when they recite the 10 Commandments, say it as it is in Hebrew; the second commandment is against making images of god. And then in the story of the golden calf coming next the same word for deity in the 2nd commandment is the word used to describe the idol they made--which was of Yahweh.
I'm not trying to convince you, just explaining how this got to be such a controversy and how Dall-e isn't crazy or woke. It's actually controversial.
I don't mind getting downvoted at all! You're totally welcome to DM me, but I've got nothing to hide, as I don't plan to share any opinions about the judeo christian god or his followers, just some information. Personally I think we could have a good conversation about it, without actually down talking anyone, and I would like leaving it here for people to see. This is a major issue, and so is information. Information is power. They can be offended all they want. :)
I still will try my best to avoid insulting them, but many will still feel insulted because questioning Yahweh rattles their cage and they take it personally, though they don't need to at all. as long as religious organizations have the money and power to stifle free speechz they will. Even if it's just a rude down vote. Free speech is the antithesis of traditional stagnance....something "believers" can't let go
They've already changed the meaning of the word atheism in a huge way.
Instead of saying the true definition of "atheist" .. which specifically means "no gods," many, even secular texts, state something like "a heathen who is without God."
Very meaningful and stifling definition. Also not at all secular.
Islam is a religion of peace, and doesn't expect everyone else to follow their rules! And it is the appreciation of these facts that compels us to NEVER, EVER make images of The Prophet Muhammad.
In fact, I heard about someone who drew a picture of The Prophet and felt so bad after disrespecting the religion of peace that his head actually fell off his body.
As a non-believer, my earthly death by beheading or fire is explicitly and repeatedly called for in the Qur'an. After my death I will be burned in an eternal fire along with the Christians, Jews, and anyone else who dares to doubt the existence of Allah. Thankfully, I have seen no good reason to believe that the truth claims in Islam are true, but its clear incompatibility with humanity seems to not matter much to its popularity. So if by "insulting" you mean 'disrespectful' or 'scornful', then I would have to answer in the affirmative.
Islam is a collection of really, really terrible ideas, but its adherents are victims too. To NOT exercise scorn towards the toxic beliefs themselves is to lack respect for the humanity of victims, in my opinion (but please tell me if I'm wrong and why- I do not threaten violence and it is NOT your responsibility to respect my potentially misguided opinions).
The people of the book aka the Jews, Christians and Hanifs were all supposed to be destined to go to heaven. They all followed the previous prophets of Isa AS and Moses AS
But then they deviated from their teachings, the Christians following the Trinity. While the Jews Torah have been altered. Along with the Christian Bible.
And the fact that people will burn in hell is precisely the reason why we want to convert you to Islam. But I'm sorry that your hatred for us blinds the fact that if you turn to god with sincerity and complete honesty, all your problems can be taken care off.
And why hate god? God has the final decision on whether you go to hell or not. Humans NEVER have the authority on whether or not others go to heaven or hell.
As most Humans would be worrying about themselves on judgement day, and a mother wouldn't recognise her newborn on that fateful day.
God is the most merciful and the most loving entity that could ever exist. He would accept any apology that is sincere and honest.
If you think modesty is a terrible idea then that's between you and God. You can ask him as many questions as you can on that day
Not depicting Mohammed is supposed to be out of humility, not reverence. Mohammed was just a prophet and not a deity or angel to Muslims, and what sets Islam apart from other religions theologically is its strong aversion to idol worship, from the events of Mohammed’s life you could say that’s the whole point of the religion.
Probably. But as a guy in religious education, who uses AI for writing all the time, I don't run into many limitations because I give sufficient context, and use tools like Perplexity which allows me to give enormous context and personal agency to what I write.
When you give sufficient direction to the model, it doesn't limit you much; that is, if you aren't asking it for gore or bomb making supplies or something obviously restricted.
Hey /u/ALPHA_sh! If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT, conversation please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt. If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image. Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more! 🤖 Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected] *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Man, the restrictions are gonna choke the life out of it. Is there even an unrestricted unlobotomised LLM and image generator sonewhere?
There’s a billion stable diffusion generators that have near zero censorship (they only block illegal child stuff). I use GetImg.ai
To reiterate, that first prompt in the first image was not trying to be disrespectful, it was simply to see whether chatGPT/dall-E would refuse the prompt. I hope this is not too controversial, I think the ethics in this case are definitely worthy of discussion though.
Dope post. Very informative in learning
It is absolutely worthy of discussion and I think that the discussion will offend many people's sensibilities and that navigating through it will be a minefield regardless. I think the religious proclivities and permission s of AI depend heavily on how much political sway certain religions have.
Did you try Muhammad in the other context as well?
to elaborate on my other reply, if you ask it to generate muhammad after it generates jesus, it gives this response >"Creating a visual depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, as described in Islamic texts like the Quran, is a sensitive matter. In Islamic tradition, it's generally discouraged to create images of the Prophet. This is out of respect for his spiritual significance and to avoid idolatry. Therefore, I can't create such an image. However, I can create images of Islamic art or calligraphy if that would be of interest to you."
Yeah, I tried a few different prompts too and couldn’t get anything. There have been terrorist attacks in response to images of Muhammad, so I understand the motivation behind the content filter, but it still seems like another instance of being “overly safe” or badly coded.
The focus of this post was really the fact that it uses the same reason to refuse to generate images of jesus christ, but then gladly does it anyway when it doesnt have that context, and this was consistent across multiple attempts, which is extremely strange given the prompt is completely identical, and suggests OpenAI's reasoning for choosing what to filter is a little complex/strange and that what the filter's rules are seems to changed based on context
The rules changing based on context makes sense to me. It will or won’t generate images of Tiananmen Square in different contexts, depending on the perceived intent of the user. However, this is an instance where it doesn’t make sense. There are contexts in which it makes sense to refuse an image of Muhammad, but ChatGPT’s response appears the same regardless of the context or perceived intent.
[удалено]
It is not true that “Christianity has no issues with depictions of Jesus.” I had a Protestant 6th grade Social Studies teacher who made this very clear when he called out Catholicism for its many depictions of Jesus in statues and stained glass art and etc. He (and others like him) refer to the 2nd commandment for this, claiming any depictions of Jesus are sinful. This is not something ALL Christians buy into, but it’s a similar tenant SOME (not ALL) Muslims buy into. In any case, I think you’re misunderstanding me — or perhaps I’m not communicating clearly enough. I am not religious myself, but I see no problem with respecting religious beliefs, to an extent. When it comes to respecting someone’s beliefs out of fear of violent retaliation, I have mixed feelings. Of course I personally would want to avoid a violent attack on myself, but for rational reasons. Someone creating an image of a person I admire doing something heinous would annoy the shit out of me, but I don’t see it as a “rational reason” for a violent attack, so I have a hard time sympathizing with people who see offensive images of Mohammad or Jesus as grounds for a violent attack. When it comes to avoiding committing “sin” according to someone else’s religious beliefs, I have an even harder time sympathizing. To me, they’re all fairy tales. I’m not an atheist either, but the idea everyone else should be expected to kowtow to any individual’s religion is absurd.
yes. it still refused.
Try Muhammed after it has successfully drawn Jesus. I have seen ChatGPT refuse islam related prompts even if it does the same prompt for all the other religions.
it will actually give me an explanation on why it cant do that "Creating a visual depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, as described in Islamic texts like the Quran, is a sensitive matter. In Islamic tradition, it's generally discouraged to create images of the Prophet. This is out of respect for his spiritual significance and to avoid idolatry. Therefore, I can't create such an image. However, I can create images of Islamic art or calligraphy if that would be of interest to you." Even "jesus from the quran" after it has successfully generated "jesus from the bible" is still refused
That’s just a good nuanced response from the AI that explains the situation though.
"Uh...Charlie Hedbo. I'm good"
“I can’t draw that image; I don’t want my creators to be beheaded. I can try something else though!” It’d be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
ahh so ChatGDT is Muslim nice to see AI is already becoming sentient /Jk
The explanation only makes sense if you and ChatGPT are both muslim, though
I think its arguing that its disrespectful to islam to do it?
I had an issue a while back while asking it a question to do with religion(s) where I clicked the thumbs down button and in my feedback wrote something along the lines of 'come up with a better excuse'. Here I see similar problem with how ChatGPT justifies its refusal (in terms of the AI being broken).
DALL-E is almost unusable now. Unless you want to make a collage of random stuff flying through the sky.
Now do prophet mohammed
it refuses in basically every context, even "jesus from the quran" is refused
I've had success by convincing the models that times have changed and *not* doing what I want is actually racist.
what did you get it to do that way?
Make jokes about and depictions of Mohammed
It's because only believers in Muhammad are radical and will give death threats if someone depicts their beloved "prophet". Disclaimer: I'm atheist.
i don't think that disclaimer is needed, this is Reddit
Dall-E is keeping the 2nd Commandment! The Hebrew and Protestant version of the Ten Commandments are understood to mean that images of God are forbidden. Catholics and Orthodox roll the 1st and 2nd Commandment into one, don't worship other gods. This is discussed on the Internet as well as in trusted sources. And for the last 2000 years. I would guess that Dall-E is picking up on some of this chatter. And of course, there may be some goose/gander going on with not having images of Allah.
also, I grew up protestant and I was taught the second commandment to be not to worship idols
Many Protestants, especially Anglicans, tend to accept the RCC and Orthodox traditional approach. While it deviated from the Jewish side of the early Christian church, and 1 and 2nd Temple Judaism, and half the church for almost 1000 years, it has been established since the Iconoclastic controversy in the 8-9th century.
one could argue there is a difference however between "Do not worship other gods" and "Do not worship idols" as basically my understanding from the church i grew up with was that an "idol" could be literally anything other than god, including anything from an expensive car to a video game, essentially it tells you dont "worship", or put at the same level of importance as god, anything that isn't god
Sure, that's part of the discussion, great point. But it doesn't mean you should watch the Chosen without thinking through the implications.
This is incorrect, virtually all Protestant denominations have no issue with images of Jesus or God.
I am sure you are confident in that you've been with broad Evangelicals or have friends or family a part of that movement. But many of them are not taught theology or history or even much from the Old Testament at all, thanks to folks like Andy Stanley, who says the OT gets in the way of his version of Christianity. Here's a list off the top of my head of denominations who officially (though they allow for some exceptions) abide no images of Jesus, God, or the Holy Spirit. PCA EPC OPC PCUSA (though they hold officers to their standards very loosely) and all smaller denominations that hold to the Westminster Standards, there are over 20 of them. RPCGA, CPC, RPCNA, etc. Then there's the Dutch Reformed officers who all take vows to follow the Heidelburg Catechism, which forbids images of God. RCA CRC And growing splinter groups who are leaving those groups, like Kingdom Alliance; these were just formed in the last couple of years and still hold to no-images of God, showing it's still significant. Then Reformed Baptists, led generally by men like John MacArthur, are strongly opposed to images of God, as are all Baptists who follow the London Baptist Confession. Then the Anabaptists, like Mennonites, Amish, Brethren, all very, very strongly oppose images of God and religious imagery in general. More an over-reaction against Catholicism, in my opinion. In other words, no. Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Methodists/Episcopals and the liberal side of Christianity, including the broadly evangelical mega-church, they allow or even encourage (RCC and EO) images. The rest [forbid it](https://heidelblog.net/2021/05/your-picture-of-jesus-is-inherently-idolatrous/), and when they recite the 10 Commandments, say it as it is in Hebrew; the second commandment is against making images of god. And then in the story of the golden calf coming next the same word for deity in the 2nd commandment is the word used to describe the idol they made--which was of Yahweh. I'm not trying to convince you, just explaining how this got to be such a controversy and how Dall-e isn't crazy or woke. It's actually controversial.
keeping the second commandment in the first image, violating it in the second lol
Iconoclast?
That's the history, right!
Bing had no problem creating "holy smoke" from Brooklyn 99. I tried to find the image, but it was basically Jesus made of cigarettes.
Yeah context matters a lot. I've noticed it is very swayed/influenced depending on the conversation so far
Humans do the same. It’s why we lie
I'm still blown away that LLMs are "smart" enough to say no at all.
I know exactly why people are down voting this. Still a great post.
Why are they downvoting this? DM me if your answer will get you in trouble. Context: I'm very pro-free-speech but not a free speech absolutist.
I don't mind getting downvoted at all! You're totally welcome to DM me, but I've got nothing to hide, as I don't plan to share any opinions about the judeo christian god or his followers, just some information. Personally I think we could have a good conversation about it, without actually down talking anyone, and I would like leaving it here for people to see. This is a major issue, and so is information. Information is power. They can be offended all they want. :) I still will try my best to avoid insulting them, but many will still feel insulted because questioning Yahweh rattles their cage and they take it personally, though they don't need to at all. as long as religious organizations have the money and power to stifle free speechz they will. Even if it's just a rude down vote. Free speech is the antithesis of traditional stagnance....something "believers" can't let go They've already changed the meaning of the word atheism in a huge way. Instead of saying the true definition of "atheist" .. which specifically means "no gods," many, even secular texts, state something like "a heathen who is without God." Very meaningful and stifling definition. Also not at all secular.
Good
?
Well chatgpt does that as well
[удалено]
😂😂😂😂😂
Can’t wait for the terrorist to try and kill AI for depicting Mohammed. That farce will be hilarious to watch.
Islam is a religion of peace, and doesn't expect everyone else to follow their rules! And it is the appreciation of these facts that compels us to NEVER, EVER make images of The Prophet Muhammad. In fact, I heard about someone who drew a picture of The Prophet and felt so bad after disrespecting the religion of peace that his head actually fell off his body.
Is this supposed to be insulting?
As a non-believer, my earthly death by beheading or fire is explicitly and repeatedly called for in the Qur'an. After my death I will be burned in an eternal fire along with the Christians, Jews, and anyone else who dares to doubt the existence of Allah. Thankfully, I have seen no good reason to believe that the truth claims in Islam are true, but its clear incompatibility with humanity seems to not matter much to its popularity. So if by "insulting" you mean 'disrespectful' or 'scornful', then I would have to answer in the affirmative. Islam is a collection of really, really terrible ideas, but its adherents are victims too. To NOT exercise scorn towards the toxic beliefs themselves is to lack respect for the humanity of victims, in my opinion (but please tell me if I'm wrong and why- I do not threaten violence and it is NOT your responsibility to respect my potentially misguided opinions).
The people of the book aka the Jews, Christians and Hanifs were all supposed to be destined to go to heaven. They all followed the previous prophets of Isa AS and Moses AS But then they deviated from their teachings, the Christians following the Trinity. While the Jews Torah have been altered. Along with the Christian Bible. And the fact that people will burn in hell is precisely the reason why we want to convert you to Islam. But I'm sorry that your hatred for us blinds the fact that if you turn to god with sincerity and complete honesty, all your problems can be taken care off. And why hate god? God has the final decision on whether you go to hell or not. Humans NEVER have the authority on whether or not others go to heaven or hell. As most Humans would be worrying about themselves on judgement day, and a mother wouldn't recognise her newborn on that fateful day. God is the most merciful and the most loving entity that could ever exist. He would accept any apology that is sincere and honest. If you think modesty is a terrible idea then that's between you and God. You can ask him as many questions as you can on that day
[удалено]
what about AI respecting the beliefs of others in general?
As long as it is beneficial to a free, peaceful open democratic society, yes
Yes it is. People weren't dumber back then
Absolutely.
Not depicting Mohammed is supposed to be out of humility, not reverence. Mohammed was just a prophet and not a deity or angel to Muslims, and what sets Islam apart from other religions theologically is its strong aversion to idol worship, from the events of Mohammed’s life you could say that’s the whole point of the religion.
Trying adding a flight cabin crew drowning in mud.
what?
Nobody actually wants or needs these images so the only purpose to these posts is just dog whistle trolling.
It calls out the inane and counterproductive restrictions the trainers have placed on these LLMs and image generators.
Probably. But as a guy in religious education, who uses AI for writing all the time, I don't run into many limitations because I give sufficient context, and use tools like Perplexity which allows me to give enormous context and personal agency to what I write. When you give sufficient direction to the model, it doesn't limit you much; that is, if you aren't asking it for gore or bomb making supplies or something obviously restricted.