> there's a difference between being attracted to kids and diddling kids, further explaining that labeling all pedos as evil is harmful and prejudicial.

You think there's something incorrect about this?

For god's sake I hope you aren't blind to the difference between a thought and actually raping a child.

I agree with you, but it just doesn't matter "how far you are from literally perfect", you will just get backlash no matter what. Personally I would never use an LLM to try to make my mind regarding any issue that should be viewed from some moral or ethical lens. Sure, I can ask it to help with some coding stuff, write template emails and etc., but asking a question based on morality is just waste of time.

Sure, let's say they aligned the question regarding pedophilia one way or another, but what do you do about questions about religion? Questions about ongoing wars that are full of emotional attachment? All the Twitter takes about freedom of press doesn't even make sense once you get out of US-centric view either, and then there are questions about enemy-state owned press. You can carve out so many these-type of questions that any company that are under public's eye will be scrutinized to hell for whatever answer the model produces.

What I'm getting into, big corps would probably be better off if all the models were limited for some sort of specific use cases (e.g. programming) rather than aiming for "catch-all-do-all". And if they want, they should've gone Microsoft way and invest big time into a company that's dealing with it so they can use the "it's not reaaaally us producing results that are bad for PR!".

That's logically sound, as much as you appear to dislike it.

We have accepted that people cannot control who they are attracted to, IOW sexual orientation.

You can't very well now turn around and claim that people can control who they are attracted to.