(Via nostr:npub1zdp33shl69xr0uq3x8n5gsjykq9upycwh6nqm02c3f6x0frrn0dq42vqv8 ) So Republican lawmakers in Iowa appear to be (effectively) rolling dice to decide which books to ban from schools now.

> "Frankly, we have more important things to do than spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to protect kids from books," (emphasis mine)

> "We are confident this process will ensure the spirit of the law is enacted here in Mason City,"

> "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,"

You can't make this shit up.

They could also complain that the neural network has bias set by their political opponents, and then train a neural network on a data set constructed by "the right kind of people" who want to ban books of any kind and ask it whether it contains objectionable material.

I have seen humans do more elaborate things than that to try and justify various acts of oppression. All you need to do is come up with a seemingly "objective" process of justifying your every psychotic whim, and you can trick most people into thinking your psychotic behavior is perfectly logical and reasonable.