Overstating the power of algorithmic systems only serves to benefit the tech companies behind them.

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.’”

  • Adramis [he/him]@beehaw.org
    9·
    1 year ago

    There was literally an article either yesterday or the day before with the headline “AI being used to ban books in Iowa” or something to that effect.

    • Steeve@lemmy.ca
      5·
      1 year ago

      Republicans are using AI to ban books is very different than saying AI is banning books. Nobody is saying “AI is banning books”

      • dax@beehaw.orgEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        I mean, this is near enough as makes no difference, I think?

        Either way I won’t have to look at his trash-ass takes anymore, but I’m just saying it does exist and when you run across a take like that, it tends to taint everything near it.