all 21 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 13 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I don’t like the end-use, and I don’t like that uncommon books are being pulped.

Solution: require every book ever to have one copy in central backup library. UK do this.

Can always reprint book. If you worried about loss of last copy send to internet archive to digitize.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    The US has that too with the library of Congress.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Interesting, called mandatory deposit, 17 U.S.C. section 407. Since 1870.

    LOC even allow some online access in NDLP. Wonder what happen if Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley & Sons, Penguin Random House sue it instead of bully internet archive.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    Bad title. The destruction is part of their super shitty method of scanning them, not an afterthought.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    It's like when they have their weekly meetings, their discussion revolves around what they can possibly do to get people to hate them even more.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago*

    I don't believe it's hyperbole to say the money comes from sociopaths. Sociopaths assume everyone is in it for themselves, they assume everyone else thinks like this, that it's just how people do stuff.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -8 points 3 months ago (12 children)

    ..wrong order of operations, bad post title.

    Destroying them is done before ingesting them.

    Purposefully inflammatory title and disinformation as a result.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    The order is correct. They strip the covers off - this unbinding doesn't destroy them. If they were destroyed at this point "before ingesting" then they couldn't be scanned and digitized. This is just part of the ingesting process. Unbinding improves the quality of the scans, ackshullay. This improves the preservation of the information inside (the digital copy.)

    They could totally rebind them after scanning (ingesting is poor word choice, IMO.) They don't. They destroy them or simply discard them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    The unbinding is the shit people refer to when talking about them destroying the books.

    Dont be dense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Again if you destroyed the book before you scanned it how the fuck does one scan a destroyed book.

    You are incredibly fucking dense if you don't understand the meanings of the words you are using.

    Blocked.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Does including that detail actually change anything? It is still careless and malicious with no concern for the existence of human society. I honestly see no difference, the intent is the same. They only need a book once, so it does not help the cycle of libraries replacing their catalogues with new and more requested books.

    AI Companies Are Buying Antique Books, Ingesting Their Contents to Train Models, and Then (The process used to scan the them has the result of) Destroying Them at Incredible Scale, Even If Almost No Copies Remain

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Does including that detail actually change anything

    Yes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Yes.

    That is a pretty simple response to a nuanced issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago

    Do the sentences:

    "Doctor treats child with an immunization, then stabs them with a needle"

    Versus

    "Doctor gave a child a vaccine"

    Sound like the same thing to you?

    You dont possibly see how the first one is simultaneously wrong and inflammatory perhaps?

    Dont be dense... jfc

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    ... So you're trying to say that the books do survive the process?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    The books get destroyed in order to ingest them.

    They get destroyed first, because its necessary for ingesting.

    The order in the wording dramatically changes the interpretation of how they sound.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    ... They still get destroyed, which is the point. Putting a pink bow tie and a ribbon on a turd doesn't really make it all that Much better

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    "Doctor gives a child a vaccine"

    Vs

    "Doctor treats child and then stabs her with a needle"

    You see how those two sentences paint wildly different pictures, the latter being kind of wrong and obviously inflammatory?

    You cant just go "yeah but she got stabbed with a needle in both, whats the diff"

    If you cant see the difference in how the sentences present things, then I dunno what to say.

  • source
  • parent
  • 17 comments in c/technology@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 10 points 3 months ago (10 children)

    I know it's evil.... But that's how money and physical ownership work. They have it and nobody else can have it...

    It's a bit interesting thinking about Fahrenheit 451 in this new twist of reality.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Right, but they could keep them in a private Library. Shoot, throw them in a tote and stick them in a closet. Deliberately destroying rare books isn't just regular profit motivated evil, it's over the top. I'd say cartoonishly evil if it didn't piss me off so bad. Seriously, are they going to drown bags of puppies next? Burn down an orphanage?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Or they could have pirated them. This is what copyright does to people and corporations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    In fact, Anna's Archive has a special offer to AI companies. Probably much cheaper and much less destructive than destroying books.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Too little, too late. The billion dollar lawsuit was already handed down. The Top 0.001% authors got the last major payday they will ever get. The message to AI corpos is pretty clear: Buy the physical media, consume into AI, burn it down just to spite them!

    Is it evil? Yeah, sure. But, people who understand how power works understand that this was going to be the inevitable result after that lawsuit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    Agreed. But this is late stage capitalism where there is zero place for socialist values. And keeping those books available for the future is totally socialist / communist way of thinking.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

    Not only that...

    They use this fucking incredible argument:

    "We destroy the book because when we scan it - that's a new copy. If we destroy the oroginal - only one copy (the scan) remains"

    As if the model doesn't get copied over and rented out in bajillions of instances. Its product - by all AI service ToS's made free to use and copy royalty free (unlike say, every single library in this world, which universally forbid the photocopying of lent out books). Meaning - copyright infringement of the worst kind in any sane interpretation. Shame this world is insane.

    Such an incredible spin on the rules. Using them as the excuse to go against the core cultural, civilizational and moral imperative of archiving, while going against the spirit of the concept of what copyright was initially made to do - give authors the path to a livelihood from their work and denying it to parasites such as publishers.

    Copyright truly is dead. Indeed - the global copyright rules were on their last legs before AI and used only as anti-consumer protection for publishers (not authors!), but now they're a sinked ship - the mask is off. It's all plainly visible what they're here to do now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    The one thing the masses dont have is a good fucking lawyer. Just having someone to juggle words to appeal to a judge does wonders.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    A lawyer doesn't even need to convince anyone of anything other than getting a trial delayed long and extensively enough for the other side to give up or for a judge to just throw their hands up and toss the hot potato of a case.

    None of these cases are that fucking complicated. The process is.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    It’s a bit interesting thinking about Fahrenheit 451 in this new twist of reality.

    that combined with the AI driven panopticon we're currently self imposing on ourselves makes it clear that fahrenheit 451; animal farm; and 1984 were instruction manuals.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago

    Books printed before 2022 are free from AI slop which makes for uncontaminated training data. SMH, I hate this timeline.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    It's best for the AI companies if there are no sources other than their AI.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    It's mostly shitty books from not important authors, if some hacker feels like blowing past their Cheeto cyber security download the scanned books and send them to Anne Archive would be amazing

  • source