3 ms·
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 literat
by johnnyanmac 11mo ago
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 11mo ago> 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 11mo ago> 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 11mo agoLuckily 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 11mo agoThat way it should be illegal or discouraged to select text from a book and paste it elsewhere