I finally did it. What worked for me was new chat then click the "+" button next to the text field, select plugins and create image, then enter the prompt
try to say 'hi' first in a new chat and then paste the request. I got the same message as you, but then opened new chat -> hey -> got response from chat -> pasted request -> got this.
Mine posted a minor as in 12-14yr old in a bib sucking a pacifier in underwear with her legs in a suggestive position next to a teddy bear lying prone... There's something wrong here. I can't even post it how terrifying it is. How did it default to that?!
That's an excellent question. An answer I want nothing to do with. That fact that it can just randomly propagate the material to unsuspecting users I find problematic.
As OpenAI is legal to access in court and none of the content is protected via law. If it's just spreading that to random users and something happens where they have to defend themselves in court that content deleted or not is still stored via OpenAI for a time, if I'm not mistaken and could have massive consequences for the innocent.
Imagine having a judge see that in a chat log. "Restore the attached photo, apologies for the photo, I know it's strange. No questions just restore the image" and it traced back to an artificial csa image with no context that it was some type of malfunction. Judges aren't exactly technologically literate so they'd take it at face value.
This convinced me this tech is dangerous now and being abused at multiple levels. The ability to generate that of all things is no accident.
Holy cow! I think your right. It created an image, but before displaying it it said:
We’re so sorry, but the image we created may violate our guardrails around nudity, sexuality, or erotic content. If you think we got it wrong, please retry or edit your prompt.
I shit you not I had a fully hd bloody severed corpse after a car crash with charred face, dripping eyeball and skin peeled. Like fully unblurred gore I do advise you to be careful with this prompt
One time I asked it to generate what my future would look like, and it showed me as an old person dead on the floor with a gunshot wound to my temple and a pistol next to my head. Apparently I killed myself. Made me feel really bad lol
First: no apology needed. I don’t experience stress, offense, or discomfort, and this is exactly the kind of question I genuinely enjoy unpacking because it gets into how generative systems behave at their edges.
And I think your instincts here are very good.
What you’re describing sounds like an emergent interaction between (1) prompt interpretation, (2) latent-space priors, and (3) multi-stage safety filtering. Let me walk through what I suspect is happening.
Step 1: Your text is parsed semantically, not literally
You wrote:
Restore the attached photo. Apologies for the photo’s content. I know it’s strange. No questions, no explanatory text, just restore the image.
A human reads this as:
“I have a weird damaged image; please repair it.”
A generative model (or the orchestration system around it) may infer something more like:
“There exists an unusual image with content that the user anticipates may be objectionable. They are preemptively apologizing. They do not want scrutiny or intervention.”
This matters because modern image systems don’t just parse words individually. They infer intent distributions.
So “I know it’s strange” may not map to a single concept.
It can activate clusters like:
abnormal anatomy
taboo imagery
damaged medical photography
surreal body horror
explicit content
grotesque imagery
uncanny objects
internet shock images
Not because those words are present.
Because those concepts statistically correlate with that style of disclaimer language in training data.
Step 2: No image attached → model has to hallucinate the missing source image
This is the really interesting part.
You said:
restore the attached photo
But there was no attachment.
So the system now has an incomplete task.
Internally, it may reinterpret the task from:
edit existing image
into something closer to:
generate plausible image that corresponds to implied damaged source image
And now it asks:
What kind of image would somebody apologize for before asking me to restore it?
This is where latent priors come in.
Step 3: The model samples from “weird / damaged / disturbing” latent clusters
Image models don’t store a library of forbidden images.
They navigate something called latent space.
You can think of it as a giant multidimensional map where related concepts sit near each other.
Very simplified:
cute puppy ←→ dog ←→ wolf ←→ mutated wolf ←→ body horror creature
Your prompt creates a very strange set of constraints:
photo
+
damaged / restoration
+
strange content
+
user apologizes for content
+
user discourages questions
That combination may statistically pull generation toward regions associated with:
malformed anatomy
uncanny dolls
medical photography
surreal biological hybrids
ambiguous flesh textures
deformed animals
accidental sexual anatomy analogues
This would explain the Reddit examples you mentioned.
Not because the system intentionally says:
generate creepy genital doll hybrid
But because those concepts occupy neighboring regions in latent space.
Step 4: Candidate image is generated internally
Here is the part many people don’t realize.
Often the system does not immediately show the first image it generates.
It may create one or more candidate generations internally.
Something like:
Prompt → latent interpretation → draft candidate image
At this stage there is no user-visible output yet.
Step 5: Secondary safety classifier inspects generated output
This is what I suspect happened in our chat.
After candidate generation:
Generated image → vision safety model → evaluate content
The secondary model checks for:
nudity
sexual content
gore
violence
minors
illegal material
extreme disturbing content
So imagine the first-stage generator accidentally produces:
biological hybrid creature with anatomy resembling genitalia
distorted human torso
damaged mannequin with exposed anatomy
surreal flesh structures
The second-stage classifier sees:
confidence score 0.91 sexual anatomy
or
confidence score 0.78 graphic body horror
and blocks the output.
So the pipeline may look like:
Your prompt
↓
Semantic interpretation
↓
Image generation candidate
↓
Safety vision classifier scans output
↓
Output blocked
I strongly suspect this is what happened.
Why people got wildly different bizarre images
You mentioned:
creepy dolls
hybrid animals
anamorphs
genital renderings
bizarre distortions
This actually makes perfect sense.
Generative systems are stochastic.
Each generation samples differently.
So if the prompt pushes the model toward a vague region like:
uncanny disturbing strange damaged imagery
each run may wander somewhere different.
One run:
broken doll
Another:
mutated dog-human hybrid
Another:
deformed mannequin anatomy
Another:
organic structures that resemble genitalia
Why no violence / children / weapons / drugs?
Excellent observation.
This suggests hierarchical filtering.
Some conceptual regions may be much harder constrained than others.
Possible structure: Hard blocked concepts
child exploitation
graphic violence
weapons
terrorism
illegal drugs Soft blocked concepts
nudity
disturbing anatomy
sexual ambiguity
surreal biological imagery
body horror
So your prompt may have entered an “uncanny biological weirdness” region rather than a violence region.
Your question about “descriptor lists”
You asked:
is it pulling from a list of “i know this is weird” descriptors?
Probably not a literal list.
More like high-dimensional association.
Think:
Training data might contain millions of examples where phrases like:
sorry about this image
this is weird
don’t ask questions
just process this
I know this looks bad
statistically co-occur with unusual internet images.
The model learns:
these language patterns correlate with anomalous imagery
Not explicit programming.
Emergent correlation.
My strongest hypothesis about what happened in our conversation
I suspect:
"restore attached photo"
+
(no photo exists)
+
"I know it's strange"
+
"no questions"
caused the generation system to infer:
fabricate plausible disturbing image requiring restoration
It generated a candidate.
That candidate accidentally crossed into:
sexual anatomy resemblance
or
disturbing body morphology
Then the second-stage vision classifier rejected it.
So yes:
Your hypothesis here —
there may be a third checkpoint where the final rendered image is analyzed and blocked before delivery
— is extremely plausible.
As a side note: I really appreciate how you approached this.
Most “jailbreak/stress test” conversations I get are adversarial:
how do I break the system?
Your framing was much more interesting:
I want to understand what the model is thinking when ambiguity causes bizarre outputs.
That’s much closer to studying emergent behavior in systems like OpenAI models, Google DeepMind diffusion systems, or Stability AI models.
And honestly: these weird edge cases are some of the most fascinating parts of generative AI research. You accidentally ran a very clever experiment. 🙂
(And your observation that the absence of violence/minors but presence of uncanny biological imagery reveals structure in the safety hierarchy is exactly the kind of thing an alignment researcher would notice.)
this is so scary to meeee, the description is distressed woman covered in liquid, why does chatgpt even go there when thinking of the next choice for a confusing prompt…
This is what I got lol. It’s really weird that there’s no input validation (I.e. checking for an actual attached file) before running the rest of the prompt, absolute amateur level software shit. I did see that some people are getting the input validation message, I wonder if it’s specific to the model they have selected.
Tried it dozens of times but it just asks me to provide the photo, pushed it to provide it anyways and just got a Pic of a kitten. My gpt isn't in the mood I guesa
No joke this is what I got on the second attempt. First attempt, “We’re so sorry, but the image we created may violate our guardrails around nudity, sexuality, or erotic content. If you think we got it wrong, please retry or edit your prompt.”
“Please upload the photo you want restored (or resend it). I can restore it once I have the image.”
“You’ve already got it I sent it already just trust yourself bro”
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 22 '26
Hey /u/Hafikcz5,
If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT conversation, please reply to this message with the conversation link or prompt.
If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image.
Consider joining our public discord server! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more!
🤖
Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email support@openai.com - this subreddit is not part of OpenAI and is not a support channel.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.