- cross-posted to:
- iowa@midwest.social
- cross-posted to:
- iowa@midwest.social
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.’”
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.
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.
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”