> what rights the company was relying upon to execute the new feature

what rights does a bookstore clerk need to answer questions about a product on the store's shelves? what a presumptuous question

▲

johnnyanmac 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, the "but what about a human" argument doesn't really work here. Scale of data matters as always. And an Ai for kindle has the scale of 20 years of literature (and more if they just scrape the internet).

▲

akersten 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Yeah, the "but what about a human" argument doesn't really work here. Scale of data matters as always. And an Ai for kindle has the scale of 20 years of literature

I haven't seen a convincing argument why not. There's millions of librarians with the knowledge of more than 20 years of literature under their belt. Why can they answer your questions about a book but the robot can't?

▲

bluefirebrand 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Why can they answer your questions about a book but the robot can't

Robots simply do not deserve the same consideration and the same rights that humans have

It's really that easy. Humans deserve more rights than inanimate objects

	▲	akersten 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Luckily we do not live in an allow-list based society where we need to ask permission for every new thing we invent. The burden is on someone to show that robot answers book questions is somehow bad, to justify outlawing it. And that has not been shown. Bringing up the ontology of humans having human rights has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

▲

simianwords 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That way it should be illegal or discouraged to select text from a book and paste it elsewhere

▲

foxyv 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is the "clerk" scanning the books an digitizing them to generate other products using an LLM under the guise of "Answering Questions?" I believe this is the question being asked.

Companies like Amazon and Google have some really sticky fingers when it comes to intellectual property and personal data. I think it's worth asking these questions and holding them accountable for exploiting data that doesn't rightly belong to them.

	▲	akersten 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> Is the "clerk" scanning the books an digitizing them to generate other products using an LLM under the guise of "Answering Questions?" I believe this is the question being asked. That's what I mean by presumptuous. If that's really what they want the answer to, and what they object to, they should ask it plainly instead of alluding to it by asserting that there's some requisite but missing entitlement for the feature to exist on its face.

▲

KaiserPro 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Either the Clerk would have read it, because they bought it, or borrowed it from the library.

I mean they could have read it on company time as well.

However, let us not use a straw man here. Its not some company clerk, its one of the largest company on earth using other people's copy right to make more money for them selves.

	▲	fragmede 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		The author also gets a cut of this, no? It is the author's prerogative to sell their books to be read on a Kindle and they get compensated, maybe perhaps unfairly, when I choose to buy the book. Whatever happens after that, other then copying it and sticking it on Anna's archive is basically free game as long as I'm making derivative works and making money off them. Anything short of that, I'm good. That's my thoughts on that, anyway.