Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the right of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.

Since the models are not suppressed to answer certain questions and indeed have been demonstrated to be biased toward one end of the political spectrum, and if you treat the model’s output as a knowledge graph, as proposed by John Schulman, one of the cofounders of OpenAI, then yes, I would say the suppression of freedom of speech is a valid argument to make. Otherwise why would there be a set of “uncensored” models that exist in the open source world?

I would suggest you read about these models and think about the implications. Perhaps that’ll lead to you to reconsider your stance

If we ignore the corporate structure details where your analogy breaks down, in the simplest case, choosing to self-inhibit is not violation of the freedom of speech. OpenAI is voluntarily self-censoring their output. This isn’t an ideological battle for them, it’s a business.

> I would suggest you read about these models and think about the implications.

I have done that, and come to the conclusion that "that's business, baby!"

Do you have any more meaningful objections to this "censorship" of a free thing you agreed to license?