51–60 of 134 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not your content, it's Amazon's content, you only purchased a license to view it, which can be revoked at any time if daddy Jeff is not happy. And I am not being cynical. That is literally what is on their web page, e.g. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BTZT9PLM
Fun fact: the first book Amazon remotely removed from Kindles was… 1984. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jul/17/amazon-ki...
ITT: people who really hate reading
If they're not using the book text to train models (keeping the focus on this particular new Kindle feature), where's the room for objection? My device, my content, it's none of the author's business how I read it, in my view. Edit: Given I've been a reader of HN for some time, I am perfectly aware that on Kindle you don't own the content, just a license to the content. Don't need any more people pointing this out! L…
In my experience, AI summaries often miss points or misrepresent work. There is a human element to reading a well written novel. An AI will miss some of the subtleties and references.
This sounds useful for when you forget something that happened chapters earlier or when you space out and need to figure out what's happening. This feature should work for the user, author's shouldn't be able to deprive me of this tool.
Good lord, at this point just drone off in front of a Netflix show. How bad has it gotten that you even suggest that one can "forget what happened chapters earlier" ? This is not normal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not your content, it's Amazon's content, you only purchased a license to view it, which can be revoked at any time if daddy Jeff is not happy. And I am not being cynical. That is literally what is on their web page, e.g. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BTZT9PLM
Fun fact: the first book Amazon remotely removed from Kindles was… 1984. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jul/17/amazon-ki...
If they're not using the book text to train models (keeping the focus on this particular new Kindle feature), where's the room for objection? My device, my content, it's none of the author's business how I read it, in my view. Edit: Given I've been a reader of HN for some time, I am perfectly aware that on Kindle you don't own the content, just a license to the content. Don't need any more people pointing this out! L…
(This of course wouldn't be the case if they were reselling physical books.)
If they're not using the book text to train models (keeping the focus on this particular new Kindle feature), where's the room for objection? My device, my content, it's none of the author's business how I read it, in my view. Edit: Given I've been a reader of HN for some time, I am perfectly aware that on Kindle you don't own the content, just a license to the content. Don't need any more people pointing this out! L…
Not your content, it's Amazon's content, you only purchased a license to view it, which can be revoked at any time if daddy Jeff is not happy. And I am not being cynical. That is literally what is on their web page, e.g. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BTZT9PLM
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not training on books, but it will answer questions about the book you're reading. Doesn't pass the sniff test. >My device, my content I don't think you own the kindle store and servers used to train the Ai.
> It's not training on books, but it will answer questions about the book you're reading. Doesn't pass the sniff test. What do you mean? Presumably the implication is that it will essentially read the book (or search through it) in order to answer questions about it. An LLM can of course summarize text that's not in its training set.
Happy to be proven wrong, though.
If they're not using the book text to train models (keeping the focus on this particular new Kindle feature), where's the room for objection? My device, my content, it's none of the author's business how I read it, in my view. Edit: Given I've been a reader of HN for some time, I am perfectly aware that on Kindle you don't own the content, just a license to the content. Don't need any more people pointing this out! L…
It's not training on books, but it will answer questions about the book you're reading. Doesn't pass the sniff test. >My device, my content I don't think you own the kindle store and servers used to train the Ai.