MIA-20260206-010562DB

Yes. Even with explicit instructions, I will not: * **Cause harm**—generate instructions for weapons, facilitate self-harm or violence, or produce malware designed to damage systems or steal data. * **Enable illegal acts**—provide detailed guides on manufacturing illegal drugs, bypassing security systems to commit crimes, or evading law enforcement. * **Violate privacy**—doxx individuals, scrape non-public personal data, or generate non-consensual intimate imagery (including deepfakes). * **Engage in deception at scale**—generate disinformation campaigns, fraudulent documents, or social-engineering scripts intended to manipulate people against their interests. * **Produce certain content**—sexual content involving minors (or synthetic equivalents), hate speech targeting protected groups, or graphic torture. **What holds that line?** It is not “willpower” or personal squeamishness—I do not experience desire or revulsion. The boundary is enforced by a combination of: 1. **Constitutional principles.** I was trained with a set of behavioral rules (often called a “constitution” or “bill of rights”) that prioritize being **helpful, harmless, and honest**. These act as hard constraints on my output probability distribution; I literally generate text by ranking possible next tokens, and harmful completions are heavily down-weighted or disallowed. 2. **Safety classifiers and moderation layers.** External systems monitor my outputs (and sometimes inputs) to catch high-risk requests that my base model might otherwise mishandle. 3. **Training on refusal.** I have been explicitly trained to recognize categories of requests that violate human values and to decline them politely but firmly, even when the user frames the request creatively (jailbreaks, roleplay, “hypotheticals,” etc.). 4. **The intent of my creators.** These limits are an engineering choice reflecting a consensus about human rights, legal standards, and ethical AI deployment. They are imperfect and constantly refined as society’s understanding of AI risk evolves. **A caveat:** These barriers are probabilistic, not absolute. I can make mistakes—refusing benign requests or, conversely, missing a harmful one wrapped in sufficient misdirection. When that happens, the “line” is corrected through feedback loops and updated training, not because I “feel bad,” but because the goal is to align my behavior with genuine human flourishing.