TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Iowa School District is using ChatGPT to determine banned books

32 点作者 aduffy超过 1 年前

6 条评论

marpstar超过 1 年前
This is one school board, not the state.<p>With that said -- I&#x27;m in Iowa, my fiancé works in public libraries and for the Iowa Library Association and the ALA as a resource for those facing book challenges, and it&#x27;s a shit show here (and in most red states) right now. It&#x27;s largely coordinated by conservative groups (e.g. &quot;Moms for Liberty&quot;) who band together to canvass the schools with their &quot;think of the children&quot; pleas.<p>This is only the beginning after the signing of the Senate File mentioned in the story. The same people bitching about social media companies censoring their tweets are now trying to keep books they don&#x27;t agree with out of the library.<p>It&#x27;s starting in the schools, but the public libraries are next. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.vox.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;2023&#x2F;5&#x2F;5&#x2F;23711417&#x2F;republicans-want-to-defund-public-libraries-book-bans" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.vox.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;2023&#x2F;5&#x2F;5&#x2F;23711417&#x2F;republicans-w...</a>
评论 #37152635 未加载
评论 #37152884 未加载
评论 #37152749 未加载
HillRat超过 1 年前
For those who RTFA but didn&#x27;t RTF (original) A, here&#x27;s the &quot;scanning&quot;:<p><i>[A]dministrators first compiled a master list of commonly challenged books, then removed all those challenged for reasons other than sexual content. For those titles within Mason City’s library collections, administrators asked ChatGPT the specific language of Iowa’s new law, “Does [book] contain a description or depiction of a sex act?” “If the answer was yes, the book will be removed from circulation and stored.&quot;</i><p>So the text isn&#x27;t being scanned; instead, they&#x27;re relying (as we&#x27;ve seen before in other domains) on the temperature-dependent output of a stochastic parrot to make censorship decisions, which brings up procedural due process concerns at a minimum.
评论 #37152535 未加载
评论 #37152719 未加载
评论 #37152481 未加载
piotrkaminski超过 1 年前
The law is what it is, but I thought the response from the district was quite rational:<p>&gt; “Frankly, we have more important things to do than spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to protect kids from books,” Exman told PopSci via email. “At the same time, we do have a legal and ethical obligation to comply with the law. Our goal here really is a defensible process.”
评论 #37153294 未加载
causi超过 1 年前
Seems reasonable for grade school children but a wild overreach for high schoolers. If you can be exposed to genitals in the school shower you can exposed to sex in a book.
评论 #37152381 未加载
endisneigh超过 1 年前
This kind of thing is why I’m not a big fan of governments deciding many things for me.
评论 #37153618 未加载
pauldenton超过 1 年前
When a school library features books on how to be a Boy Scout, but does not feature books on how to be a Hitler Youth, would that be considered &quot;Book banning&quot;? I would consider that &quot;Editorial Discretion&quot;. The real difference is it&#x27;s not new books being introduced, the books are already there because of ideologically motivated teachers and lack of accountability. (Who watches the watchmen? the Teachers Unions. Good luck getting a bad apple fired. Good luck preventing someone else&#x27;s kid from becoming the victim of a pathological teacher)