I apologize for any confusion. You are correct that the set of all fruits that are not apples does not create the paradox because it is a well-defined set that does not include itself.

The paradox arises when we consider the set of all sets that do not contain themselves. Let's call this set "R". If R contains itself, then it does contain a set that contains itself (namely, R itself), which contradicts the definition of R. But if R does not contain itself, then it would be a set that should be included in R, since it is a set that does not contain itself. This leads to a contradiction and the paradox.

I hope this helps clarify the example!
spam fails_task lang_mismatch pii not_appropriate hate_speech sexual_content quality toxicity humor helpfulness creativity violence