Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Calibre adds AI "discussion" feature

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–35 of 35 posts

Re: Calibre adds AI "discussion" feature

#31

Post by gmuslera »

Arodex wrote: post #14
gmuslera wrote: post #11

I think it adds value. Having a conversation with/around a book/document with an AI is a good use case, and having that feature as a not forced option in a book management solution a good match. It is not something that works regardless if we configure or activate it or not. It may broaden the AI use for people that find that useful? Yes. Would that end being dependency on a particular provider? Maybe on how we use i…

[flagged]

I'm interacting with a language model, using language and normal phrases. That is basically a conversation from my point of view, as is mostly indistinguishable from saying the same and getting similar answers that I could get from a real person that had read that book. No matter what is in the other side, because we are talking about the exchanged text and not the participants or what possibly they could had in their minds or chips.

Re: Calibre adds AI "discussion" feature

#32

Post by halJordan »

janice1999 wrote: post #30
VertanaNinjai wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re against anthropomorphism of LLMs then how can it “encourage” you if you’re not having a conversation? How could it “convince” you of anything or cast something in a bad light without conversing? Your point about censorship, however, I fully agree with.

> If you’re against anthropomorphism of LLMs then how can it “encourage” you if you’re not having a conversation? Humans are more than biased word predictors.

That has nothing to do with the guy who said stop anthropomorphizing llms and then proceeded to anthropomorphize an llm.

Re: Calibre adds AI "discussion" feature

#33

Post by DetectDefect »

gardenerik wrote: post #2

I struggle to understand the pushback against AI features. As long as the feature isn't intrusive, it seems like a minor addition, and may even be useful to some people. LLMs are here to stay, there is no denying that at this point.

> I struggle to understand the pushback against AI features.

To develop and sustain these "AI features", human intelligence - manifested as countless hours of work published online and elsewhere - was exigently preempted and used without permission to further increase the asymmetry of knowledge/power between those with political power and those without (mostly vulnerable, marginalized cohorts).

Re: Calibre adds AI "discussion" feature

#34

Post by e-khadem »

Arodex wrote: post #14
gmuslera wrote: post #11

I think it adds value. Having a conversation with/around a book/document with an AI is a good use case, and having that feature as a not forced option in a book management solution a good match. It is not something that works regardless if we configure or activate it or not. It may broaden the AI use for people that find that useful? Yes. Would that end being dependency on a particular provider? Maybe on how we use i…

[flagged]

Safety is a valid concern in general. But avoidance not the right way to approach it. Democratizing the access to such tools (and developing a somewhat open ecosystem around it) for researchers and the general public is the better way IMO. This way people with more knowledge (not necessarily technical. For example philosophers) can experiment and explore this space more and guide the development going forward.

Also, the base assumption of every prospering society is a population that cares about and values their freedom and rights. If the society drifts towards becoming averse to learning about these virtues ... well, there will be consequences (and yes, we are going this way. For example look at the current state of politics, wealth distribution, and labor rights in the US. People would have been a lot more resentful to this in the 1960s or 70s.)

The same is true about AI systems. If the general public (or at least a good percentage of the researchers) study it well enough, they will force this alignment with true human values. Contrary to this, censorship or less equitable / harder access and later evaluation is really detrimental to this process (more sophisticated and hazardous models will be developed without any feedback from the intellectuals / the society. Then those misaligned models can cause a lot of harm in the hands of a rogue actor).

Re: Calibre adds AI "discussion" feature

#35

Post by emodendroket »

Arodex wrote: post #14
gmuslera wrote: post #11

I think it adds value. Having a conversation with/around a book/document with an AI is a good use case, and having that feature as a not forced option in a book management solution a good match. It is not something that works regardless if we configure or activate it or not. It may broaden the AI use for people that find that useful? Yes. Would that end being dependency on a particular provider? Maybe on how we use i…

[flagged]

> Will it report me if I try to discuss "The anarchist's cookbook" with it?

I don’t know. Weren’t you already running that risk with “download metadata”?

Post reply on HN