Is Bard's censorship too restrictive?

[bomb]

I've noticed Bard seems very sensitive to any content considered potentially harmful, even when just hypothetically discussing fiction.

For example, when I was loosely describing anime plots, Bard kept redirecting the conversation in a more positive direction. It felt overly cautious rather than helpfully engaging.

I understand the need for caution around dangerous content. But does anyone else think the censorship goes too far, even limiting harmless creative discussions? Curious on others' thoughts about finding the right balance here.

 

[Sparky_007]

I rarely encounter censorship issues with AI. Browsing the subs, you'd think censorship was rampant based on frequent complaint posts.

But in my experience across multiple mainstream AI models, filtering has been quite reasonable - detecting only clear harmful content. The fears seem overblown compared to the actual, nuanced implementation.

 

[Catalina]

I've noticed Bard seems very sensitive to any content considered potentially harmful, even when just hypothetically discussing fiction.

For example, when I was loosely describing anime plots, Bard kept redirecting the conversation in a more positive direction. It felt overly cautious rather than helpfully engaging.

I understand the need for caution around dangerous content. But does anyone else think the censorship goes too far, even limiting harmless creative discussions? Curious on others' thoughts about finding the right balance here.

As a free service from a public company, Bard has valid reasons to prioritize safety. Google is accountable to shareholders and lawmakers demanding responsible AI.

If Bard encouraged harmful actions that users acted on, Google could face serious legal liability and reputation damage. So heavy content filtering, while frustrating at times, stems from reasonable caution given their position.

I'd rather have overzealous caution than an AI that carelessly suggests dangerous activities without regard for consequences. Google is erring on the side of safety to cover themselves legally and ethically.