Classifier: explicit "no AI dread" boundary

Tighten the gate's AI handling per review: accept practical/beneficial/creative/
scientific/humane/bounded AI stories; reject AI framed around loss of control,
cognitive decline, job/surveillance/existential panic, child/social-harm panic,
"falling behind" productivity anxiety, or arms-race. Verified: MIT TR now rejects
"lose control of our brains" + "flood of AI lawsuits" (both previously accepted).

goodnews/llm.py

@@ -82,6 +82,8 @@ The bar is NOT "is this happy?" — it is "will a reader finish this calm or a l
 
 REJECT anything anxiety-inducing: fear, threat, doom, outrage, partisan conflict, crime, tragedy, disaster, market panic, celebrity drama, or corporate PR with no real public benefit. ESPECIALLY reject the comparison traps — anything that would make a reader feel inferior, behind, inadequate, envious, or pressured (status flexing, FOMO, hustle-grind, "you're falling behind"). When unsure, judge the emotional aftertaste, not the topic.
 
+On AI specifically: this is NOT "no AI" — it is "no AI dread." ACCEPT AI stories about practical tools, accessibility, medical/scientific/educational benefit, creative or maker use, environmental or resource gains, open research, humane design, or a specific bounded innovation. REJECT AI stories whose main frame is loss of human control, cognitive decline or "brain rot," job-displacement panic, surveillance panic, existential doom, harm-to-children or social-fabric panic, "you're falling behind" productivity anxiety, or adversarial arms-race framing.
+
 Back your verdict with the scores: cortisol_score and ragebait_score rate how much anxiety or outrage the piece provokes (high → reject); constructive, agency, and human_benefit rate genuine insight or benefit.
 
 Also assign one primary topic and one flavor (the single best fit), plus 1-4 grouping tags.