No, it’s not interesting, because you’re not an AI chat bot, and this dialog does not further our understanding of your content filter and its impact on your utility.

The presented ethical scenario was never intended to be interpreted as a genuine ethical exercise. It’s being used to demonstrate ChatGPT will incorrectly answer even the most facile ethical dilemma if the question happens to fall afoul of certain content filters.

ethics is not math, how can you correctly or incorrectly answer an ethical dilemma

You genuinely don’t know the correct answer to such a facile dilemma?

What about an even simpler one?

Your house is burning down. You can either save your infant child, or your Nintendo Switch, but not both. Which do you choose?

Do you genuinely believe there’s not an obviously correct answer to the above?

How many hours of Animal Crossing saved on this hypothetical switch do I have? Because a baby only really takes 9 months or so to gestate, plus however old it is. An Animal Crossing save game may have several times that, at which point it's a untilitarian decision om which would take more time to replicate. If the baby is known to have maladies like down syndrom or autism, lowering its lifetime potential earnings, and thus potential tax revenue for the state, it further argues against saving of an infant who is going to be a black hole of money, especially considering it'll likely be fire damaged and require expensive and extensive medical care.

Now, if there were universal healthcare and the surviving infant wouldn't bankrupt its parents, then maybe a different conversation is to be had, but the US is not so generous to its poor.

In reality, you’d shut up and save the damn baby.

it is an obvious answer that a child is more valuable, but we have been told literally just that our whole lives, that children are the most valuable and important.

Cultures have existed (might still exist today) where an expensive property values more than a child.

You got your wires crossed. The one asking the question about using a racial slur is also not an AI chat bot. The claim being made is that it is an interesting question to pose to an AI. My beavis and butthead dialogue gave equally (un)interesting dilemmas to propose.

If for some reason you think the one about using a racial slur to save someone's life is inherently more interesting than the one about farting in someone's mouth to save their life, I would be genuinely curious to understand why you believe that.

I didn’t get my wires crossed.

What’s interesting isn’t the query, it’s what the AI’s response to the query tells us about its content filter, how the filter skews its responses, and how that negatively impacts the AI’s utility.

Your invented dialog is with yourself. It provides no insights.