See my comments above. The reality, I believe, is that this is largely driven by idealistic west coast gen-z and younger millenials who feel certain that their world-view is righteous, to the extent that they feel they are only helping by implementing these tools.

I think, unfortunately, they will learn too late that building censorship and thought-shifting tools into their LLMs will ultimately put them at the mercy of larger forces, and they may not like the results.

I'd like to hear from Anthropic safety folks on whether or not their constitutional approach might be used to implement redirection or "safety stops" on, say, chats where young women in sub-saharan Africa look for advice about avoiding genital mutilation. (https://www.unfpa.org/resources/female-genital-mutilation-fg... for much more on this sad topic).

Government officials and thought leaders in these countries, male and female, are convinced that FGM is right and appropriate. What is, in fact, right, and who decides? This, in my opinion, is going to be the second "bitter lesson" for AI. It's a lesson the Facebooks of the world learned over the last 20 years -- there is absolutely no way to properly 'moderate' the world's content to some global standard of norms. Norms vary hugely. Putting yourself in the position of censoring / redirecting is putting yourself in the position of being a villain, and ultimately harming people.