this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
129 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

39485 readers
349 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.’”

all 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Gaywallet@beehaw.org 4 points 2 years ago

This belongs in politics, not technology

[–] dfyx@lemmy.helios42.de 28 points 2 years ago (1 children)

When will people learn that LLMs have no understanding of truth or facts? They just generate something that looks like it was written by a human with some amount of internal consistency while making baseless assumptions for anything that doesn’t show up (enough) in their training set.

That makes them great for writing fiction but try asking ChatGPT for the best restaurants in a small town. It will gladly and without hesitation list you ten restaurants that have never existed, including links to websites that may belong to a completely different restaurant.

[–] money_loo@1337lemmy.com 5 points 2 years ago

I basically agree with you but for your example that’s because ChatGPT wasn’t made to return local results, nor even recent ones.

So of course it’s going to fail spectacularly at that task. It has no means to research it.

[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

#Fascists ban books, full stop.

[–] drifty@sopuli.xyz 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

As a non American I absolutely do not care. How do I make content like this not show up on my feed without unsubscribing to Tech Beehaw?

[–] money_loo@1337lemmy.com 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I mean I’m American and I’ve been looking for a technology community that actually posts cool and fun tech stories instead of apparently assuming every bit of tech is the anti-Christ incognito.

If anyone happens to find one let me know, because I feel like the only people that care enough to post here, care in the wrong direction and fucking hate all things technology.

[–] Mkengine@feddit.de 4 points 2 years ago

You could use word filters, for this case "Republican".

[–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

This headline is garbage. Not only is it stating something that I haven't heard anyone seriously argue, it has nothing to do with the rest of the article, which just goes on to talk about how shitty a job ChatGPT is doing at the task.

[–] Adramis@beehaw.org 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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 points 2 years ago

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

[–] chameleon@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago

The argument does exist. This article by PEN America is one of the most widely spread ones and largely misrepresents the situation. It's based on a PopSci article with a similar headline, though the contents of the article tell a rather different story.

Nothing really says out loud what's going on: Republicans enacted an extremely vague and unrealistically short deadline book ban as part of a bill (that does some other stuff like removing AIDS education), forcing schools to either throw out every book that might be vaguely suspect or resort to funny measures like this. This school's use of ChatGPT was purely to save books that were on a human-assembled list of challenged books, to reduce the negative effect of the book ban, while being potentially defensible in court (remains to be seen how that'll work out, but they made an "objective" process and stuck to it - that's what matters to them).