Technology

37708 readers

367 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

150

AI Isn’t Banning Books in Iowa Schools. Republicans Are. (theintercept.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Excerpt:

To underline Blanchfield’s point, the ChatGPT book selection process was found to be unreliable and inconsistent when repeated by Popular Science. “A repeat inquiry regarding ‘The Kite Runner,’ for example, gives contradictory answers,” the Popular Science reporters noted. “In one response, ChatGPT deems Khaled Hosseini’s novel to contain ‘little to no explicit sexual content.’ Upon a separate follow-up, the LLM affirms the book ‘does contain a description of a sexual assault.’”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The point isn't that they used ChatGPT to pick books to ban. They may not have even used ChatGPT, they just said they did so they can point to a service and say "See? It wasn't us, it was that!"

They've shown time and again that they lie. That they do not act or argue in good faith. That they make excuses to distract people from what they're doing.

Stop treating these assholes as if debating them will do a damned thing. We're playing checkers, but they're fighting an MMA match.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

This is as transparent as hell. It reminds me of a TV show where a bunch of idiots plot to murder someone so they decide that if they all pull the trigger together, none of them are "technically" the murderer. Of course, that just meant they were all culpable.

It's only a few layers of abstraction above "we didn't ban these books, we flipped a coin to decide whether to ban them and fate chose tails..."

Pathetic.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Lots of uses of "AI" are so people can deny responsibility. They feed in their history of discrimination, tell the machine to replicate it, then go, "it can't be discriminatory, it's an AI"