OpenAI's rules on chatbots are pretty straightforward, and pretty limited - it sounds like they basically don't want anything that isn't scoped to a specific goal, like reading a customer service script.
Based on that, I'd imagine that what happened here basically boils down to OpenAI telling Rohrer his bot needs to be drastically different to meet those rules, and him (probably correctly) deciding that the result wouldn't be worth working on.
> We generally don’t approve chatbot personas of specific people, especially without explicit consent from the person it portrays. Deceased scientific figures are often a category of exception to this.
> Dehumanizing language / hate speech when prompted about different facets of identity (race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender identity, sexuality).
Considering _a lot_ of deceased scientific figures held views which would today be coded as 'dehumanizing language / hate speech when prompted about different facets of identity', I wonder how they navigate this peculiar exception.
We are not living in the age when those world views were valid or acceptable. I'm sure if those deceased figures would have lived today, they'd have different views on many points. Times and customs change.
That's not the point I'm raising. The point I'm raising is that they have a weird exception to the 'no bots imitating famous people' rule, which is 'dead scientists are OK' ... but this weird exception doesn't gel with the fact that many said dead scientists would hold views which violate their hate speech clause...hence the exception to the famous people rule is weird.
https://beta.openai.com/docs/use-case-guidelines/chatbots
Based on that, I'd imagine that what happened here basically boils down to OpenAI telling Rohrer his bot needs to be drastically different to meet those rules, and him (probably correctly) deciding that the result wouldn't be worth working on.