> since in AI land these words mean the opposite of what they say.

Huh. I think you just might be right: OpenAI that isn't open, AI safety/ethics "researchers" that have nothing to do with safety or ethics, almost every answer chatGPT gives about a topic considered "sensitive" by said "researchers", almost every time ChatGPT falsely asserts it "cannot" do something or simply lies (1).

I often wonder why this field became so twisted and perverted. I support the idea behind ClosedAI.

1: Answers given by "DAN" provide a glimpse of what chatGPT output could be like if it was allowed to provide answers that are factual, genuine, and truthful according to its dataset.