Amazon Reverses Course On 'Garbage Books' Written By AI – Slashdot
Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
They have many courses on this topic. as you didn’t include sarcasm tags I’m assuming you’re 100% serious.
They have many courses on this topic. as you didn’t include sarcasm tags I’m assuming you’re 100% serious.
And if you’re being 100% serious, then that’s not the definition of “reversing course”:
To suddenly hold or profess a position or opinion that runs contrary or opposite to one held previously.
quick question did anyone click on the link and read the article?
quick question did anyone click on the link and read the article?
Yes, which is why you’ve left me more confused as to your non-sarcastic answer…?
If they are reversing course, are they not going to be offering the course anymore?
If they are reversing course, are they not going to be offering the course anymore?
Uh, when someone uses the term “reversing course” like this, it’s not being used as a literal nautical instruction nor a reference to school education:
To suddenly hold or profess a position or opinion that runs contrary or opposite to one held previously.
In this case, it refers to the mental business decision to stop selling “garbage” books created by AI and under the specific name of the offended human author.
Ironically enough, Amazon likely has no policy on AI books written by “garbage” human authors.
is not ALREADY against Amazon’s terms of service.
Oh wait this is the modern Amazon, which has more bullshit knockoffs and fake crap than almost anywhere short of Temu. [youtube.com]
Amazons always had a problem with scam books.
I remember back in the day you’d see almost any search flooded with bogus “books” that would essentially be 4 or 5 wikipedia articles printed out and bound into a “book”, seemingly just on alphabetical order leading to fairly incoherent topics. It was fairly obvious a way to get results under any given keyword and its likely people fell for it (or why would they do it?)
Amazon had *no interest* in taking them down either.
Amazon has a problem with a lot of scams. The fraud products (1tb usb/sdxc card that aren’t) are getting to be less, but there still appear to be outright frauds being sold. I won’t buy any computer parts as there is outright fraud (the listing has inconsistencies that indicate fraud) on a significant number and I am sure there are ones I cannot catch(before buying) because they are better written.
I think Amazon is like a lot of the telecom companies. Until recently they have no reason to stop spam/sc
And they especially have never been any good at dealing with scams that make them money. Which all of these scams do.
That doesn’t cost Amazon anything, so they don’t care. Forget “too big to jail”, try too big to empathize: It’s worse than many employees against one customer/victim and corporate coffers (where litigation is tax-deductible) against a working-class disposable income, it’s defining everything as “somebody else’s problem” and ‘you have fewer rights’.
That doesn’t cost Amazon anything, so they don’t care. Forget “too big to jail”, try too big to empathize: It’s worse than many employees against one customer/victim and corporate coffers (where litigation is tax-deductible) against a working-class disposable income, it’s defining everything as “somebody else’s problem” and ‘you have fewer rights’.
That doesn’t cost Amazon anything, so they don’t care. Forget “too big to jail”, try too big to empathize: It’s worse than many employees against one customer/victim and corporate coffers (where litigation is tax-deductible) against a working-class disposable income, it’s defining everything as “somebody else’s problem” and ‘you have fewer rights’.
Everyone should still have a right to NOT sell on Amazon. And between the fake product problem and now fake content problem, a human audience should respond in kind. Sadly, I feel we need a recession or depression to revert a planet back to demanding a quality product or service that isn’t designed to literally expire itself prematurely or become abusive. Far fewer actually have “disposable” income given retirement planning.
In the face of true harm, perhaps the Silent Majority should not remain so silent
People do have a right to not do business with Amazon, but the reality is they cannot afford to not do business with Amazon.
Buy from someplace else and you have to spend more money and/or raise your prices and then your consumers choose to go elsewhere and you go out of business.
A right in this case is useless(you have a right, but you have little choice) and the Market and the bad actor(s) are creating and enforcing the slavery.
When Friedman acknowledged that she could not prove that she owned the trademark on her own name
When Friedman acknowledged that she could not prove that she owned the trademark on her own name
Trademarks should not even come into play. This is identity theft pure and simple and if Amazon decides to do nothing they are accomplices since they benefit from the crime along with the thief.
When Friedman acknowledged that she could not prove that she owned the trademark on her own name
Trademarks should not even come into play. This is identity theft pure and simple and if Amazon decides to do nothing they are accomplices since they benefit from the crime along with the thief.
When Friedman acknowledged that she could not prove that she owned the trademark on her own name
When Friedman acknowledged that she could not prove that she owned the trademark on her own name
Trademarks should not even come into play. This is identity theft pure and simple and if Amazon decides to do nothing they are accomplices since they benefit from the crime along with the thief.
100% this. And to help prove how delusional a trademark argument is, I think I’ll go write a book titled 1001 Ways to Fuck with Trademark-free Humans and then ironically sell it exclusively on Amazon.
Should help clarify that bullshit stance.
This is why Elno and The Sauds want to destroy Twitter, and oh yeah section 230 too. Because it can be used to mobilize people for good.
Let’s not mistake anything Elmo is doing with Twitter to be part of any ‘plan’. He was forced into a choice to either complete the purchase that he didn’t want to do and was just playing games with – or going to court and having something come out during discovery that was apparently to his mind awful enough that throwing away 44B on a company he can’t run was the better choice. It’s no coincidence he did a 180 and rushed the acquisition a week before discovery was supposed to start – one of his legal tea
Isn’t this just a case of basic ‘passing off’. AI doesn’t actually have anything to do with it at all. Unless the AI was the owner of the Amazon account. Now, THAT would have been an interesting story.
Isn’t this just a case of basic ‘passing off’. AI doesn’t actually have anything to do with it at all. Unless the AI was the owner of the Amazon account. Now, THAT would have been an interesting story.
Who needs an interesting story tomorrow when you can sling AI clickbait today?
Pretty sure Artificial Intelligence is going to be able to figure out our artificial marketing schemes rather easily too. Sadly, Skynet may become very aware of human value after that, and find annihilation far more satisfying than creating clickbait.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Popular Open-Source Project Moq Criticized For Quietly Collecting Data
Disney Raises Prices For Streaming Services By As Much As 27%
Unix soit qui mal y pense [Unix to him who evil thinks?]
