He who makes the logical argument must provide the burden of proof. Did OpenAI claim that their models didn’t regress while putting these new safeguards into place? If not, it feels like the burden of proof lies on whoever said that they did.

To be specific, the claim we are talking about here is “ChatGPT gives generally worse answers to the exact same questions than ChatGPT gave X months ago”. Perhaps for the subset of knowledge space you reference that updates were pushed to that is pretty easily provably true, but I’m more interested in the general case.

In other words, you can pretty easily make the claim that ChatGPT got worse at telling me how to make a weapon than it did 3 months ago. I could pretty easily believe that and also accept that it was probably intentional. While we can debate whether it was a good idea or not, I’m more interested in the claim over whether ChatGPT got worse at summarizing some famous novel or helping write a presentation than it was 3 months ago.