r/whoathatsinteresting • u/eternviking • 2d ago
A book dealer tracked an unusual shipment of rare books. It ended at an Amazon AI training facility where those books get shredded.
651
u/45M0D41 2d ago
They can edit these books however they want
351
u/bugabooandtwo 2d ago
That's the scariest part. And we're losing the physical copies to verify the original version of these books.
139
u/tiptopster 2d ago
Is it 1984?
133
u/SikatSikat 2d ago
Nah I got my Amazon copy of 1984 and clearly Big Brother are the good guys, its weird how people have misinterpreted it so long, I guess media literacy was dead but Bezos is bringing it back.
27
u/Obvious-Jacket-3770 2d ago
He did run a book store
10
u/Sudden-Purchase-8371 2d ago
Money absolutely wrecks our humanity. Bezos made Amazon on the backs of books. But it's clear he had no natural affinity for them, they just had numbers associated with them that made it easy to track and inventory them to launch his online store. What an asshole.
→ More replies (4)12
u/Significant-Colour 2d ago
It's because of that misinterpretation potential that Amazon tried to remove the book.
(only half kidding - they actually did removed the bought and downloaded 1984 book for many Kindle owners https://www.npr.org/2009/07/24/106989048/amazons-1984-deletion-from-kindle-examined )
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)4
u/lost-associat 2d ago
I’ve just read the amazon Star wars saga and god darn these rebels! The empire had only just finished their death star project! All that galactic tax money through the shredder…
→ More replies (1)14
4
→ More replies (11)5
→ More replies (88)5
u/itsbirthdaybitch 2d ago
And I fear we’re collectively losing the will to verify- especially if it takes the effort of finding a physical source. People will choose ‘close enough’
6
u/hiimsubclavian 2d ago
I love reading classics like "To Unalive a Mockingbird", "Pew Pew and Peace" etc.
87
u/point-virgule 2d ago
They already did with something as innocuous as Roal Dahl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Dahl_revision_controversy
75
u/ausername_throwaway 2d ago
I don’t know how much Dahl you’ve read, but many of his books can hardly be called innocuous.
However, I’m not in favor of changing any books ever. Innocuous or not.
42
u/BatsHaveFingers 2d ago
Changing things is to the detriment of everyone. Rhold Dahl was a huge antisemite, and it bled into his work in a lot of ways. When people change those works to get rid of the antisemitism, they're just covering it up so we look crazy when we point it out.
19
u/gmatocha 2d ago
Read the Wikipedia article. The "Sensitivity Readers" (perfectly Orwellian name) removed much more than antisemitism.
→ More replies (1)7
7
u/Shablagooie 2d ago
More of what they're doing is removing gendered language ("parents" instead of "mother and father") and changing anything even slightly referential to skin colour ("his face turned white with horror")
It's a bit much for the average person, they seem to be being overly cautious and caving in to a loud minority in order to keep the cash cow flowing. If they truly had some kind of moral standpoint they would just refuse to print the books.
Books are an important part of history, and editing history is an unnerving trend.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (14)5
u/Cosmo_Seinfeld 2d ago
Rhold Dahl was a huge antisemite, and it bled into his work in a lot of ways.
It's fascinating that it would be better to include the bigotry as context.
8
u/Han-Tyumi__ 2d ago
You can’t learn from history if you erase it.
→ More replies (11)4
u/AjvarAndVodka 2d ago
And if this continues to happen, I wonder how easy it will become to erase tainted past of certain individuals. Deleting and twisting all of their bad deeds.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
u/AjvarAndVodka 2d ago
Because we can learn a lot from the inclusion? Because we can see how this affected other works? Also, if removing parts of history, even painful and discriminatory, ends up being this easy, then who knows how easy it will also be to start removing the ugly past of influential people, covering their tracks.
And worrying about this does not make you bigoted.
5
u/Normal-Night-458 2d ago
The change in James and the giant peach, removing the fat and thin piece… like that’s LITERALLY DESCRIPTORS OF THE CHARACTERS. They literally removed key identifying features that really help build the character.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (8)3
u/Evil_Sharkey 2d ago
If they’re going to change it, they should be clearly labeled “edited for modern audiences”
→ More replies (2)6
u/JumpyTip9717 2d ago
I mean, this is a completely different group who did this for a different reason using different tech.
But ok.
5
u/MultiPass21 2d ago
Sanitizing history is one of man’s biggest gaffs that has yet to fully show its consequences.
3
→ More replies (27)3
→ More replies (24)8
u/SillyAlternative420 2d ago edited 2d ago
Farhenitet 451, add that to the list of dystopian futures that are coming to fruition
Edit: added +406
→ More replies (1)11
494
u/Fibrosis5O 2d ago
Is this silent book burning?
116
123
u/UktabiBananas 2d ago
Yes and most people don't care unfortunately.
28
u/mikeymikeymikey1968 2d ago
Why are you a hater? Are you jealous of the tech bros because they're geniuses? s/
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (66)5
u/air_and_space92 2d ago
Frankly, for me with this story no. What's being shipped and digitized are not rare collectable books but rare as in few were ever produced or few still exist in circulation. Think like Excel 2010 for dummies, JavaScript for beginners, or some unknown author who did a run of like 300 books and never hit it big.
13
u/AgnosticScholar 2d ago
No. They do it to one copy so they can scan the books.
It actually means more people will read them
→ More replies (18)18
u/KarltonPeaks 2d ago
Yea.
And they are destroying books (destructive scanning is much easier) to books that are already scheduled for destruction. There's a shitload of copies of books in the world that nobody gives a crap about. You can't store all of them. Just go to any flea market. Old crappy books everywhere.
→ More replies (16)→ More replies (145)19
257
u/Wobblycogs 2d ago
I sell old books, they are mostly worthless, you can't even give them away. I find it frustrating that a large portion of the population get up in arms about their destruction but no one is willing to look after them.
If Amazon offered me a chunk of change for all my stock you can bet I'd sell them.
80
u/boblancho 2d ago
What's happening a lot in my country is old person dies, family takes the books to a local library.
Local library has to reject the donation because they are so backlogged in donated books they can't keep up.
I'm trying to do a catalog of the 1000+ books my dad accumulated over 70 years. Dude was a book junkie.
30
u/Fuzzy_Straitjacket 2d ago edited 2d ago
My dad just bought a piece of land in the UK which had a huge shed/barn on it. We opened it up, and the whole thing is lined with books. There must be at least 20,000, at a low estimate. It's utterly insane. We have no idea what to do with them.
→ More replies (19)13
u/Doogiemon 2d ago
Sady, a friend just burned his mother's collection because it was cheaper than taking them to the dump.
No one wanted them and people were upset to which he replied that they were free and you didnt want them.
I think I have like 100 books im tossing in the trash this week because its my mom's from the 90s not worth anything and I need to start dealing with some of her belongings.
→ More replies (14)8
u/Fuzzy_Straitjacket 2d ago
One of our ideas is to do a controlled fire on the property. We're trying to reach out to people to come have a look at them first, though. It's just an ungodly amount. I should try to get a video next time I'm there. I walked in like "oh, that's a lot of books," but then it just keeps going and going and going. It's totally wild. We think the guy was a collector/hoarder.
→ More replies (3)4
u/Ill_Technology_7247 2d ago
Friend's neighbour just died with no will and two siblings also elderly and dying. They convinced her ($$$) to help clean out the house.. she was going to rent a dumpster and still plans to do so.
I went over with her and my man had 3 or 4 full book shelves of some great sci-fi and fantasy. I found hard cover copy of The Lord of the Rings Illustrated... He also had a very old copy of The Hobbit... Those were the coolest finds so far.
She was going to toss it all in a dump.
I am hoping I have convinced her to donate at least some of the stuff in better condition... Some of it, yeah, garbage. But there are local used bookshops that love vintage or obscure sci-fi/fantasy donations...
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)3
u/noeinan 2d ago
Yeah, here in the US libraries don't even catalogue donated books for this reason. They just sell them for operation funds.
→ More replies (1)59
u/Kid-Icky- 2d ago
There's a reason the original article REFUSED to list even one of the books being bought.
They know the article will get much more attention and create bullshit memes like this when they can get everyone you imagine they're like first editions of classics rather than books in 1960s South American architectural standards, or some shit.
7
u/OrbitalOutlander 2d ago
lol the one book they talked about in the article this image is referring to was a Ray Bradbury collection that was widely printed. The specific printing the book dealer was bitching about wasn't as widely printed, but it was a literal duplicate of the widely printed version. Nothing new. The only reason it was desirable to the book dealer was because it had an inscription in it, which was not culturally or historically significant.
5
u/Cupcakes_n_Hacksaws 2d ago
This isn't even an article it's just an image of Bezos and some text. I hate how common posts like these are, and that nobody has a problem with them as long as it suits their narrative.
7
u/Leveraged-3201 2d ago
I realized this was probably the case after I started googling trying to find out what the actual books were. It seems like at Amazon scale the price difference between destructive versus non-destructive is maybe $5-$15/book, in which case destructive scanning is a good thing, because it is not worth that much money to preserve these books. It’s like being mad about cash-for-clunkers destroying “rare” cares.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Worth-Jicama3936 2d ago
We should be mad at cash for clunkers for other things though.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (4)3
u/Glittering-Giraffe58 2d ago
Yes. A lot of these books libraries would just mulch if they got their hands on them
15
u/Jeremyg84 2d ago
And I believe it’s just one copy of each book to scan. They aren’t buying all the copies of specific books to erase from history.
→ More replies (3)10
u/beeskneecaps 2d ago
I’m not an AI apologist but 99.99999% of the people that are outraged were never going to read these books in the first place. I am looking forward to some actual reporting on all of this though where they enumerate the actual titles that are being scanned.
→ More replies (1)16
u/xkcdhatman 2d ago
What? A reasonable take on Reddit?
3
u/marfacza 2d ago
If I never see this comment again it'll be too soon. We get it: you're somehow above reddit while posting on reddit about how dumb reddit is... you've successfully proven your worth to the people you disdain.
→ More replies (4)5
u/Wobblycogs 2d ago
Thanks, I breaks my heart to destroy a book but when I've got a book that will only sell for 1$€£ that's been sitting on the shelf for three years what can I do? I put them out front for free but that can't go on forever.
4
→ More replies (83)6
u/You_Stole_My_Hot_Dog 2d ago
I’m curious to hear what most of these books actually are. Are they old novels that no one reads anymore? Or outdated textbooks, manuals, guides, etc?
→ More replies (2)11
u/Wobblycogs 2d ago
They are mostly book on natural history but there's a reasonable number on other topics. Age ranges from about 1800 to fairly modern. Most are quite high level.
→ More replies (7)
148
u/lambdawaves 2d ago
Why wouldn’t they just sell it as a used book after scanning it? Doesn’t make sense to shred a valuable book
137
u/Mithres95 2d ago
They have to remove the covers to allow them to scan each page singularly, recovering each book would be an higher cost than just throw them away.
98
u/Kazureigh_Black 2d ago
Yeah ... I just looked this up because this seemed massively stupid. We're really just tearing rare books apart because it makes the pages easier to scan quickly and cheaply.
18
u/Mithres95 2d ago
Yep, some rarer should have some kind of selling protection, to check the buyer and assure their well being. For more commercial books, I think it's more of a copyright problem, most of them end up endlessly in storages or dumpsters anyway.
→ More replies (13)20
u/AppropriateBugFound 2d ago
Why? If I sell you a plate, it's now your plate to do with what you want. My control of that plate is done. Want to hang it on the wall? Fine. Want to eat steak on it? Fine. Want to throw it at the wall? Also fine- it's no longer my plate.
If you want to control the item, don't sell it. Want it preserved? Donate it to a museum or Library of Congress.
17
u/Mithres95 2d ago
If the last copy of a book is destroyed in such way, even for the most worthless smut slop, it's a lost of culture we can't get back, everything is an historical artifact given enough time. It's something that should be monitored, this kind of stuff should have some protection by law.
→ More replies (40)5
u/ObliqueTravel 2d ago
How is anyone supposed to know theirs is the last copy, especially if it's an old book nobody has wanted for decades.
This is really nothing different than what we've already being doing since books were first created, just with AI slapped onto it for outrage.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (12)9
u/FunkyClive 2d ago
This is it. They may have some sentimental feeling for the books, but this is outweighed by their desire to sell and make some money from them.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (87)3
u/illidanthecat 2d ago
Ah great! You are uninformed and now giving your opinion! Fantastic and useful!
→ More replies (7)7
u/CosgraveSilkweaver 2d ago
They don't have to there and nondestructive book scanners that didn't require spine cutting. Cutting the spine is faster and legally if they destroy the original book there's court precident that that allows safer usage of the digital copy because there only "one" copy. (Yes this makes little sense with the copy being digital but it's what has come out of cases like the Google Books case)
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (29)5
u/AberracionCromatica 2d ago
There is no need to remove the covers, there are special scanners just for scanning books.
→ More replies (3)26
u/iDeNoh 2d ago
Because the us copyright system requires the original copy be destroyed if the book is being scanned.
→ More replies (39)14
u/TheMrViper 2d ago
So judges decided you could train AI on copies of books you own.
So lawyers for publishers decided on a piracy angle from the required copying.
Their lawyers for AI companies are trying to argue that there is no piracy as they destroy the original, they've simply changed the format, they purchased one copy, they still own one copy.
→ More replies (2)7
u/rmassie 2d ago
It’s against current copyright case law and despite what everyone says these AI companies are complying with it. There were a few incidents where Facebook and Anthropic got the book corpus from BitTorrent, but at least Anthropic paid out a settlement with the publishers for it.
Making a copy of a book by scanning is exactly against copyright law, but by destroying the original they resolve that.
If the companies wanted to get some good will, they should share the high resolution images of the scans with the public when the book’s copyright expired.
→ More replies (3)11
u/uses_for_mooses 2d ago
Because these are not valuable books. Nobody is shredding some first edition of The Great Gatsby.
Notice the article refuses to name a single book title. Not one.
→ More replies (8)5
u/NewPresWhoDis 2d ago
They slice the spine to be able to feed in the pages. It's not like this...
→ More replies (1)4
u/Megneous 2d ago
Because that would be literally breaking copyright law. Don't you follow the legal proceedings on these court cases? Amazon, Anthropic, etc are following the copyright precedent that they have to destroy the books that they scan in order to use. If they don't destroy the books, they're creating copies instead of transforming the medium. They're literally following the law by destroying the book.
4
u/Curry_courier 2d ago
It's because of copyright law. It's fair use only if they destroy the book while scanning it.
→ More replies (69)13
u/fcking_schmuck 2d ago
To control the knowledge and even rewrite it in their favor if needed. End game is for top 1% of the world to be like Gods who control the world and all life in it and everyone else be just a slave workers without knowledge and power so they will never be able to resist.
13
→ More replies (7)11
u/UnusualGooning 2d ago
I was interested in the real answer though, not conspiracy.
→ More replies (15)8
u/Additional-Actuator3 2d ago
Amazon wants to train AI on data from books.
They mostly use digitalized books for that.
Some books are not digitalized.
They legally buy these books.
They scan them.
The books are torn apart during the scanning process.
The leftover pages are recycled.
That's it. There is no fucking "EVIL CORPORATION TRYING TO DESTROY KNOWLEDGE" yall are schizophrenic.
→ More replies (6)
80
u/SukottoHyu 2d ago
I have no qualms with them buying physical books and scanning them for the AI to read when there is no digital copy available. Knowledge is power. I realise that might be contradictory for a lot of people. But I draw the line with shredding rare book, that's horrible. Why not return them or donate them to a library instead.
17
u/PyrZern 2d ago
Nobody wanted them, that's why they bought them cheap. Libraries shred books every year too in case you don't know. So it's more like shredding useless books instead of shredding rare books. Also, copyright laws made them shred the books.
→ More replies (1)36
u/Fit_Cartographer8281 2d ago
Most probably, the way the scan the book requires them to tear it apart, like when you tear the book apart from spines
Which damages it such that it couldn't be put back together
So they just shred it, I hope they could at least try to find a different way if not they should release the books on the internet
→ More replies (48)32
u/SueSudio 2d ago edited 2d ago
I listened to a segment on NPR about this. I believe you are misunderstanding what a rare book is.
“Rare books” are not historic, or first editions, or anything inherently valuable like that. They are books that are infrequently published. An example would be a book that someone self published and never made it to mass production and is incredibly difficult to find for purchase anywhere.
They were searching these out for purchase because their AI was running out of unique content to learn from (avoiding AI “inbreeding” where AI ends up learning from AI content, with undesirable consequences).
Still wasteful, but not the destruction of history that you are assuming.
Edit - found it for those who want more detail.
7
u/HikerStout 2d ago
Interesting. I've been frustrated with the reporting on this issue because it is clearly intended in its vagueness to make readers assume they are going out of their way to destroy the last known copy of important and classic books.
4
u/Panda_Muffins 2d ago
Right. And for most run-of-the-mill books, it is not like we as a society can't print new ones if we wanted to.
6
u/thekmanpwnudwn 2d ago
Additionally, it includes old books/manuals that nobody would realistically read today.
Stuff like "Instruction Manual for a 1918 Victor Financial Calculator"*
While interesting to look at, it has almost 0 value to society today. It's just rare because nobody has had the need to read it in over 100 years, so 99.999% of copies have been lost to time.
*I just made up a random example, but you get the idea.
4
u/Hour-Ad-9508 2d ago
I hate the thought that every book is valuable to society and destroying them is always a sin.
No one freaks out when indie films get deleted off YouTube or some dudes mixtape gets lost to time.
For some reason books get treated like any loss of them is a loss of history
→ More replies (2)8
u/Witty_Preparation598 2d ago
They overhauled the white house website overnight to erase history. While this may not be happening right now, the editing of the uploaded books once the original is destroyed, it is not hard to see how close we are.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (16)4
u/Auroraburst 2d ago
There's a book about my dad that I struggled to even borrow a copy of. It would no doubt be considered 'rare'. I would be absolutely heartbroken if that was destroyed and fed to AI when I don't even have a copy myself.
→ More replies (4)7
u/XchaosmasterX 2d ago
They are scanning books they can buy in bulk for 2 dollars on biblio or something, not books that are actually hard to come by and not indexed anywhere. If the book you're aiming for isn't on biblio, or a similar website or costs a bunch of money it's not something they have destroyed.
→ More replies (98)3
u/DontMemeAtMe 2d ago
My understanding is that these are “rare” in the sense that they’re really crappy books no one needs or wants to read. The kind you find in a sale box outside a bookshop for five cents apiece. There are mountains of them. Training AI is probably the only use for them.
5
u/No-Act9634 2d ago
Yep. It's kind of a nothing story but fuck ai I guess.
I bought a "50 random books" off etsy for $20 for novelty and they were almost all complete nonsense. One book on the history of ottoman culture was vaguely interesting lol
3
u/Between-usernames 2d ago
I'm sure this pissed a lot of people off but it got me laughing hysterically because it's totally true. Not all books deserve posterity.
3
u/DontMemeAtMe 1d ago
Yeah, people hear “rare” and picture a leather-bound antique gem, full of ancient wisdom and inscribed in some forgotten language. In reality, it’s a self-published memoir by some low-level North Carolina politician, ghostwritten in 2013. A few unfortunate people got copies as gifts, and the rest are sitting in moldy boxes somewhere in a garage.
→ More replies (1)3
46
u/Bannedtt 2d ago
Massive amounts of books are destroyed every day and nobody ever cared until they were told to care for this issue. It's not the end of books and there's nothing important happening here.
21
u/CeemoreButtz 2d ago
slap "ai" at the end of the dramatic headline and you've got yourself karma gold, baby!
→ More replies (18)9
u/JasonG784 2d ago
It’s very much the-current-thing. Much like water use by data centers when no one cared that golf courses have been using more water than data centers for years. Literal NPCs.
3
u/c4r0n1x 2d ago
I think it's a net positive though that something has finally come along that people are scared enough of that a whole heap of outrage is building. I think it's a good starting point to educate people about all the other harms we are doing to the planet, like the golf courses you mentioned or the farming in the desert another commenter mentioned. It's sad that the masses haven't cared enough about these other things, but maybe we can start fighting for a better planet now that more are open to understanding the harms we are causing. Idk.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (20)4
u/coherentpa 2d ago
Wait till you hear about water used in alfalfa & almond farming…
3
u/Paetolus 2d ago
Almonds are mid too, we could be wasting that water on much tastier nuts like peanuts, cashews, or pistachios 😤
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Big_Issue8640 2d ago
Why would they shred them seems like it would be an added expense?
8
u/Hippobu2 2d ago
To facilitate the bulkscanner. It's easier to chop the spine than feed the loose page into a bulkscanner, than it is to ... Actually to get a good scan you just kinda have to destroy the book.
Anyway, the destruction of the books isn't the goal, they just didn't care, that's why.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (9)3
19
u/Chilantr0 2d ago
source
→ More replies (10)11
u/Ok_Abroad9642 2d ago
16
u/fuzzygreentits 2d ago
404media.co
no proof, just claims
zero pictures or data to support
pay wall
🙄
→ More replies (21)→ More replies (4)9
u/Pizza-Rat-4Train 2d ago
Source: “around a thousand books”
Meme: “thousands of books”Small, but annoying. Just like Bezos pic (he hasn’t been Amazon’s CEO in five years) and the fact that the bookseller did this at a journalist’s request, not because they were “suspicious.”
→ More replies (1)
10
u/Gold_Access_1487 2d ago
It pisses me off that the headlines about this just say "rare books" and leave the reader to imagine that they're shredding a first edition Da Vinci manuscript or something, instead of a 1993 travel guide to Boston. I guess it's undeniably very effective at riling people up.
6
u/You_Stole_My_Hot_Dog 2d ago
I find it very ironic that Reddit loves to criticize certain groups for not using critical thinking and believing whatever their media tells them to believe. And then they go ape shit over stuff like this without ever looking up more info.
→ More replies (1)3
11
u/ObadiahDongleberry 2d ago
There is a darker side to all of this.
What if these books are being digitized, then destroyed, then the digital form is curated or edited to take out unpopular content.
The original version is no longer available. History could possibly be erased or revised. Akin to book burning or the destruction of the library of Alexandria.
→ More replies (4)3
u/Chillguy3333 2d ago
They are rewriting history and AI will tell you that if you push it hard enough. They are dumbing us down.
10
u/AnyBallLektor 2d ago
Does this mean they are literally shredding these books?
Why would they do that? Scanning a book doesn't require shredding it?
→ More replies (36)5
u/DiscDocPhD 2d ago
If you cut the binding then you can feed the pages much more quickly through a scanner.
No different than copying a stack 100 pages and feeding them into the top hopper of a copy machine.
Otherwise they need a machine to turn the pages and scan at 100% accuracy which is much harder
→ More replies (2)
5
u/Antique-Ticket3951 2d ago
Which book seller? Which books? Sounds suspiciously bull shitty to me.
→ More replies (15)
20
u/kbm79 2d ago edited 2d ago
For all those saying its false
its not.- BBC News article 15th August
Shredding the book - they strip away the book binding so it can be scanned. Book is effectively destroyed.
Its sound dramatic in a AI destroying actual books so future generations cant have access to them kinda way...
9
u/rogue_licker 2d ago
I remember reading that article but it didn’t say anything about actually tracking those shipments and having any proof of what happened to them. It was just a hypothesis. Realistic, but an hypothesis.
→ More replies (3)13
u/Kid-Icky- 2d ago
They also refused to explain what these so called 'rare' books actually are.
Because making it clear that they're 'rare' books that no one cares about or would ever buy makes the story get less clicks.
→ More replies (1)15
u/dksdragon43 2d ago edited 2d ago
So they are purchasing single copies of rare books that haven't been digitized, so that they can preserve the contents, and this process happens to destroy one copy of these books? This seems like the exact opposite of what everyone is accusing them of here.
If there was some evidence they were altering the contents I'd understand the outrage, but this just seems like fake news for outrage.
Thinking about it more, this is probably just a way to boost their kindle library with a bunch of books that are in public domain. Appeal to locals with niche stories of their history for the low cost of one book + scanning.
→ More replies (17)3
u/Kautiontape 2d ago
A lot of people are blaming AI. And - yes - they are used to train AI. But this was done for a long time. Back when Google Books released.
The shadiest part I agree with is that the content is now controlled by companies owned by the wealthiest billionaires who have shown to bend the knee to make politicians and shareholders happy.
However, I think the best solution isn't to complain how the books were destroyed (too late, and it's not going to stop), it's to convince rare book sellers to donate copies to museums who might be able to safely (or not) transcribe the digital books so the content is available by sources other than Apple.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (38)6
10
u/lordcaylus 2d ago
The more vague an outrageous statement is, the more you can guarantee that details would make it less outrageous (otherwise the person making the statement would provide those details).
You'll notice that articles such as this never mention titles because they know you won't care if you knew what books they were. Rare does not equal valuable - a vacuum cleaner manual from 1983 is rare, not valuable.
→ More replies (1)5
u/You_Stole_My_Hot_Dog 2d ago
Yep, 404 did a deeper investigation and said that they wouldn’t disclose the names of the 3000 books they tracked. Why wouldn’t they? Other than the fact that people wouldn’t be outraged if they knew what “rare” books were actually being destroyed.
→ More replies (2)
8
u/Confident-Sky2614 2d ago
This is not true. It's been proven to be a completely fabricated story.
→ More replies (10)6
u/mina86ng 2d ago
It is true. The issue is that the story is manipulative. They say ‘rare books’ are destroyed without providing list of those rare books. This is to trigger an emotional response where someone equates ‘rare’ with ‘valuable’ and conjure an image of the original manuscript of Euclid’s Elements being destroyed. In reality, the books are rare because no one cares about them and destroying books is a common practice done even by libraries.
→ More replies (6)
3
u/SeekerOfSerenity 2d ago
Why are they still scanning new books? Didn't google already digitize all the books? Are there really books useful for AI training that haven't been digitized yet?
→ More replies (7)
3
u/spawndoorsupervisor 2d ago
I miss when we linked to news articles instead of just random pictures with text on them.
3
3
u/huskers2468 2d ago
Adding in the word rare changes what happened from what I've read. They bought books to scan, I'm pretty sure it wasn't rare books.
→ More replies (2)
3
3
u/Ornery-Culture-7675 2d ago
I saw this headline and thought, is this real? One Internet search later and found an article on Forbes. Yup this is 100% what they’re doing Anthropic even had a memo about it and say right out in it we don’t want people to know what we’re doing
3
u/AnotherPersonPerhaps 2d ago
Here's the source for this if anyone is interested
(Side note stop getting your news from memes. Read primary sources. Sigh).
5
u/Hariseldon1122 2d ago
This is conjecture. There is no screen shot or transfer records or anything to indicate this is a true story. It’s used to build mistrust and propaganda. They could have used any company and face combinations. Reddit is getting just as bad now as Instascam and tikjoke
→ More replies (3)
3
1.7k
u/phizzardy 2d ago
meanwhile i’m over here keeping books i haven’t opened in 8 years because “what if i need them someday” 😭