You're not entitled to anyone's opinion. Secondly, I think the silence and downvotes are conveying a strong message, people don't agree with you. Your faux outrage about thought policing is a non-starter for serious conversation.
That aside, both OP and you should wait a bit before judging on that basis, since comment votes can swing wildly as more people notice the story and come to read the comments. In fact, it looks like OP has already been upvoted back.
I am genuinely concerned about the potential of this.
OpenAI has massive power to censor what people can reason about with GPT.
Seeing how fast they are growing, their beliefs of the world are going to be forced on millions of people.
Do you not think that will happen, or do you think it is not something worth talking about?
This is like saying, the transportation of <city> has massive power to censor where people can travel about within a bus.
GPT is a tool for reasoning, but humans need to be able to reason on their own! and by using multiple tools!
Of course every tool should help and enhance every human, but every tool has its limitations. There is nothing unethical about calling out a tool's limitations and ensuring humans use it accordingly.
They in fact do and land value (hence real estate), is deeply impacted by transportation reach and frequency decisions.
It also creates a corruption issue with businesses trying to influence politicians to make changes in their favor.
My point is nothing your saying is new or specific to OpenAI. These are problems with Capitalism and its influence over populations.
It is an important conversation, but a distinct and orthogonal conversation that is distracted by involving AI.
AI is already producing massive inequality between the people that are using it today and people who aren’t.
This difference is only going to increase. And very few people are going to be the winners, a lot (most) of people are going to be the losers.
It’s going to have a very deep impact in society, faster than we can prepare for.
I think the more they censor, the less it will happen; there will be competing AIs, and they will get used, and the more – users or subject matter – excluded from OpenAI’s offerings, the more competing services will be used and developed, even if they are initially behind.
Specifically, on the question of “is this a productive avenue for discussion on HN”, irrespective of opinion on the merits (though there is probably a correlation.)