>AI companies bulk-buying rare books>run them through high-speed scanners that cut the spines off>then shred the physical copies>ISBNdb will quietly source you up to a million books and keep the buyer anonymous>pre-2022 books are the premium tier because they're guaranteed free of AI slop>federal judge rules it's fair use>"only one copy exists at a time so it's fine">Anthropic hired the former head of Google Books partnerships with the goal of obtaining "all the books in the world">booksellers report rare volumes with almost no surviving copies are going into the pipeline>books that survived wars, fires, and centuries of handling get destroyed so an LLM can write slightly better marketing emails>ISBNdb's own site basically admits "'AI company destroys two million books' is not a headline that generates sympathy">they still built the entire business around making it happen under NDAs>they coach clients to call it "digital preservation">scraping the internet or torrenting libraries is one thing>this is irreversible>you can rehost a website>you can reprint a bestseller>you cannot replace the last three copies of an 18th-century botanical text once someone feeds it into a shredder>and the judge said it's legal>so it's going to accelerate>"we shred rare books and offer NDAs so nobody finds out" is now a legitimate business model>what a fucking timeline
>>109384829Literally what "lost knowledge" do you think is being shredded in those 300+ year old books?You act like most books since the invention of the printing press weren't low information, poorly written, poorly sourced slop produced solely to make money.
>>109384829Let's be real, this is the most useful these books ever were. There's nothing important written in a rare old book, it's rare because nobody liked it enough to make it not rare
>>1093849258^)My degree is pre-ai. I'm a Most Valuable Human.
>>109384925I'll shred your family photos anon and feed them into my AI slop cat video generator in the process. You know those really old photos of your great-great grandparents from the early days of photography? The one's where fleeting moments where captured on sheets of metal plate and then handled with care for 200 years? Yeah those are going in there first. Don't worry anon, really! Since there is only one copy of them, no one must have wanted them to begin with.Absolute brainlet.
>>109384925Right, there's nothing of value in these books, that is why a huge corporation is buying them in huge numbers and scanning them
>>109384925you can't prove this though
>>109384925How is there always some mouthbreathing imbecile in these threads who feels like he should defend disgusting anithuman behavior?
I remember when I was a kid, my local library was like 50% musty old books that predated 1960 and I would look inside and almost none of them have been checked out since the 70s because they would stamp checkout and return dates on a sticker inside, then one day they were thrown out to make way for newer books.Most books are not valuable.
>>109384829Name one
>>109385250They areshills. low IQ animals who depend on "ai" to think.
>>109384829I noticed all the goodwills here sent their book inventories off to listing for ebay, since the pandemic and now the books all came back for bulk sale on discount because nobody was buying them. The good ones were already bought, what's left are romance novels, and children's books nobody wants
>>109384925made the luddites real mad with this one
>>109384857low iq animetroon postmany such cases
>>109384829on one hand i find it sad, on the other i was most likely not gonna read any of those books anyway.
>>109384829Faux-greentexts from Claude are too long, too redundant, too "perfect".
>>109385594You damned sure won't be able too now. But that's okay. Erasing printed history that can't be altered and feeding it into a heavily manipulative propoganda weapon that frequently lies manipulates and destroys the thinking capability of all those who use and are addicted too it is the correct choice. Who needs reality anyway?
>>109385124Hm, you're not getting my photos because im not going to sell them to you, idiot. If those books were wanted they wouldn't have been sold. If i sell them to you then i dont want them
now just corrupt and wipe that data and we have a memory holeperfectsomeone should ai engineer a virus that does just that
>>109384829>run them through high-speed scanners that cut the spines offoof, poor horseshoe crabs
>>109385124NPC rage, angry because you were told to be angry with nothing to substantiate it
>>109384925>Let's be real, this is the most useful these books ever were. There's nothing important written in a rare old book, it's rare because nobody liked it enough to make it not rareAd populum type shi that only normalfags believe. You'd get 1000 updoots on facebook from the horde.
>>109384857>>109384925If these books are slop and contain nothing useful, then why does Anthropic buy them?
>>109386818feckless
google started doing this 20 years ago when they started google booksisi started doing it in the 70s with journalssorry kid one more thing your generation didn't invent
>>109384829I voted for book burning, so I'm okay with this.
>>109385300History is important. What kind of vicious retard would even contend the value of old texts?
>>109388610You are talking with an souless indian
The objective is getting paper books outlawed in the future and you'll need an always online license to read (what isn't deemed problematic, obviously).
>>109385844reality is not found in books, you just have to put some shoes on and go touch some grass
>>109388519Neither of those destroyed the books after.
nobody on /g/ seems to care about this. i'm surprised i haven't seen a slapfight desu.
>>109384829Yes, well, it will all come crashing down. Maybe god will punish them. Although their existences are probably punishment enough already.>>109389506I care. I just can't do anything about it.
>Muh BooksNot like I or anyone in this thread was ever going to read those shitty old books anyway. For 99% of books it literally takes longer to read the book and get the information out of it than to just not read the book and figure out for yourself what the book was saying.
Are they at least making the books available in some form? Most of what they're scanning is probably public domain anyway.
>>109390148no, they destroy it and pretend the data didn't come from books and the le AI made it up or otherwise ensmartened itself, just like with all the other data they steal
>>109384857Mostly the meta stuff- what people believed back then, how people saw things, perhaps the first documented use of a word or phrase. The books are no longer useful for their original purpose.I remember getting spam emails with a few paragraphs copied from Google books, normally old dime novels from the turn of the century. I found it interesting since i could search the passage and find the book it was from, but this only happened for a short time and then never again. I guess it stopped working.Its clear that they are running out of clean training data and the only thing left is books so obscure that they haven't been digitized.
>>109387339The books are only worth exactly how much anthropic pays them - which is roughly $5 per book.
>>109387339because that's what AI does, how else did they train AI to do that?
>>109385300>AI response screenshotkill yourself right now
>>109384829The words in the book are the important part, which three companies are preserving. A wad of paper isn't important.
>>109384829honestly why couldn't they just commit crimes and shove these in a vault somewhereif someone causes a stink then light up the vaultthey'll shut the fuck up real fast with that threat
>>109384829>copies are scanned and fed to annas archive i dont see the problem
>>109390616As it happens, the OP is AI-generated (Claudeslopped) too.
>>109384857shred yourself.
>>109384829Copyright Jews won.
>>109385124I uhI don't want pictures of that guy's grandparents.
>>109389506I haven't seen any supporting evidence it's happening, plus what are you going to do about it, unshred the books?
>>109385879do you think they asked the authors of those books if it was ok to mulch them? Do you think when anthropic starts scanning foto's they will ask you?
>>109384857/threadluddites are retarded. Books are just here to store information and guess what your PC does. The medium doesn't matter.
>>109392145thanks to soulless sloppers like you everything is shit-tier nowadays
>>109392153True. I don't want shoes made by a factory powered by a steam engine, I want shoes hand crafted by a soulful artisan. Fact is, if you have any item of industrial production in your possession you are a hypocrite.
>>109392161what makes you think we have any option, retard?take a look at picrel and the furniture modest people used to own in the 19th century and they MOG any ikea or bauhaus DOGSHIT we have to purchase nowadaysand don't even dare look how the middle class's used to look likeyou absolutely retarded slopper
wtf is even happening in this thread?
>>109384829>>AI companies bulk-buying rare books>>run them through high-speed scanners that cut the spines off>>then shred the physical copiesI was coming up with sci-fi stories for a dystopian future and this was an element of it. I thought it was too overly wasteful and absurd so I scrapped the idea entirely. What the hell is wrong with AI companies. Are they run by literal robots or something?
>>109384857ywnbaw
>>109392199>we have to purchase nowadaysno-one's forcing you retard
>>109392291>What the hell is wrong with AI companies. Are they run by literal robots or something?they are run by greedy sociopaths, like every other company
>>109392318what's the price of tasteful furniture nowadays?your iq is sub-100, sub-saharan nigger
>>109392347take it back to r*ddit, komrad
>>109392386nah, neck yourself you corporate cocksucker
>>109392145>The medium doesn't matter.Yes it does. If your harddrive crashes thrn goodbye. If your books get ruined then goodbye. Ideally you should have a backup digitally and physically, if possible..What this company is doing is the opposite by destroying a back-up and hoarding the data for themselves. At least with a physical book you can share that and scan it many times over. You have to share the scans digitally now because you destroyed the physical copy.
>>109392394well youve convinced me, where do i sign up for your union? im looking forward to holding posterboard and chanting all day
>>109392409jews. not even once.
>>109384829hey OP please post evidence that anything you say is true. I don't simply believe a greentext pulled from anon's dirty asshole
>>109392247Counter-opinion Shilling
>>109392071....i do
>>109384829
>provide sourcehttps://www.404media.co/ai-companies-are-buying-tons-of-old-books-because-theyre-free-of-ai-slop/ (WARNING: 404MEDIA IS RAN BY NIGGERFAGGOTS)>>109392475>piczoo-wee mama!
>>109384829Don't forget that the judge that decided it was fair use conveniently retired BEFORE THE JUDGEMENT WAS EVEN PASSED Really cool that the people making these decisions that effect all further legal judgements against AI get to retire and not have to deal with the consequences haha
>>109384857The point is not the knowledge, it's the artifact. If the AI companies just took the text inside nobody would care except copyright sissies, this is what happened with the textbook torrents or whatever. But instead they specifically want to take 400 year old historical artifacts and shred them
>>109384829It's better when it's done this way (by bio women).
>>109384829>booksellers report rare volumes with almost no surviving copies are going into the pipelineThen don't sell the book? Or take a weekend to at least scan for to with your phone?
>>109392247Jeet having a melty
>>109384829>you can rehost a website>you can reprint a bestseller>you cannot replace the last three-you can reprint a book.And there's absolutely no way they are buying millions of rare books at 1000$ each you fucking moron.
>>109393319It's not like they can verify how a buyer wool use a book or refuse a buyer based on previous book destruction, that's the whole point of getting a judge saying it's valid
>>109394653Hyperscalers don't give a shit about price you moron. They spent 1 trillion dollars already. They already admited to buying a 400yo book, find one for under 1k. Yeah they are buying and shredding $1000 dollar books.
its like the idiots here think that you can't just make another copy of a book or something, how dumb, oh the ai companies shredded one of the last few copies? lets make another copy then
>>109385300But being old makes them have SOVLThey are a window into the past and should be preserved
>>109395025Why don't you make the copy first and feed the copy into the AI?
>You'll never read it!>It's useless information!Then why do they want it?>>109390170>Its clear that they are running out of clean training dataFor sure, with so much of the web being AI slop, BUT they must also think they have some information of value.>>109385524People used to have libraries at home. Now we don't because we can't afford huge boomer houses and life isnt stable enough to stay in the same place all life so we have to stay light to move around.>>109385844Yep. But they don't need a memoryhole because they are keeping them private.Which means all the companies will buy a copy each to shred.>>109390148Nope, that's the disgusting part. >>109390712 you wish
>>109384829I can't wait for this AI bubble to burst and all big tech involved in this disappear. Let AI be open source running locally only.
>>109384857Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica
>>109384829hmmm i dislike this, yet another red flag from the technofascist surveillance state
>>109393127Do you have permission to use that image?
>>109384829Why would anyone stop it? Aijeets love it because it's bolstering their new gods. Governments and corporations love it because if all historical record is destroyed, they can more easily rewrite history in their favor.>>109385250The most optimistic possibility is they're just trolling for attention. Sadly we're at least 10 years into an era where it's statistically more likely they're actually that stupid and malicious.
>>109384829no one was gonna read those books anyway
>>109392110the authors didnt own those copiesthese books predate software license
>>109395622Absolutely not, I just don't know how to shred a jpeg.
>>109384829>>you cannot replace the last three copies of an 18th-century botanical text once someone feeds it into a shredderbut it exist digital now and the content is more accessible for everybody.i have nothing from a rare book some collector locks away.best would be some downloadable pdf for old rare books.
Shredding books is something that dictators and enemies of democracy conduct. It aught to be a crime in every sense.
>>109396282They aren't sharing thier shred with you
>store it all illegally>big publishers find out>threaten to sue>OH NO everybody, we're being told to burn the entire planet's supply of ancient priceless and one-of-a-kind books! we must all repeal the DMCAIt's really that easy.
As much as I hate the Daily Mail, I would never call for its' archives to be shredded.
There is no good reason we can't have both digital and physical.
>and the judge said it's legalthat's right, after you buy something you can do whatever you want to it. the judge was correct.
>>109384857you should kys
>>109389290Anon, history is how we are able to put reality into context. How we learn understand and grow. Why are you using llms instead of actually living in reality or offloading your thinking too it?
>>109398663>history is how we are able to put reality into contextmost of history is a lie anyway.the only reality you should care about is what is in your immediate proximity, how you think it should be, and how it is / is not.i don't care that we supposedly have it better than some nigger 200 years ago, what i care about is that it could be a lot better than it is now.>How we learn understand and grow.that's something historians like to say, but their own history would argue against that line of reasoning, people don't stop making the same mistake even if they read about it.>Why are you using llms instead of actually living in reality or offloading your thinking too it?i don't, i never even said i did, why do you assume shit about me.maybe your "historical context" makes you have false assumptions about people.
>>109398776>most of history is a lie anyway.Because they burned books, killed the old and wisened, and eliminated oral histories through violence and double digit shitters like you are defending it.>that's something historians like to say,That's something normal people in reality say. How do you know how to do anything without the history of it to help teach and guide you. >>109398776>i don't, i never even said i did, why do you assume shit about me.>maybe your "historical context" makes you have false assumptions about people.You misunderstand. I am truly giving you the benefit of the doubt.I don't believe that you are that fucking stupid. You obviously are a paid shill who is AI crippled defending this insanity and don't believe anything you are saying. You have to be.
>>109384829I've seen this copypasta all over the site today, you should write better fiction. There are no books with such rarity that are worth anything to AI. Are you just advertising for this repository or something?
>>109387339Why are trillions of dollars being pumped into AI without tangible profit being shown?
>>109398854>double digit shitters like you are defending it.i'm not defending it, but my point is that even if they did not do all that, it'd still be a lie.that's a fundamental limitation of language, who writes history, who witnessed events etc.you cannot accurately record nor preserve history, and even if you somehow could, it'd not be accurately understood.>That's something normal people in reality sayeven worse, normies are bottom of the barrel retards.>How do you know how to do anything without the history of it to help teach and guide youmy own personal experience and instinct.imagine outsourcing your decision making to fictional (jewish) tales.>You obviously are a paid shill who is AI crippled defending this insanityat no point have i defended this insanity, i literaly said that i think it's sad they burn those books, because i still think they are worth something, you are literaly talking to an archivist.but my point was that i was not going to be reading them anyway, it doesn't actualy affect me, even if i'm opposed to their intent.you even projected a strawman onto me thinking i was cheering for these faggots burning books when i'm not.>You have to be.i think you are projecting your own insecurities onto others, i literaly didn't defend what they were doing at any point.
>>109398930anti semitism goes on /pol/
>>109398957>i'm not defending it, but my point is that even if they...Language is limited which is why it's eternally flexible and changes with time and who uses it.And of course you can't fully capture history. But you can write down what happened to the best of your ability and when reading things everyone who wants to understand always considers who when and how it was written.Throwing your hands up and saying it can't be done so destroying ancient books is perfectly fine is abject retardation. >even worse, normies are bottom of the barrel retards.You are a fucking idiot. Sorry I gave you the benefit of the doubt.>my own personal experience and instinct.Oh well shit, you learned how to use a computer through instinct. You just plopped out of your mother and were sat in front of a pc and you becaue a leet haxor.>imagine outsourcing your decision making to fictional (jewish) tales.Now you're just flailing and doing the thing you accused me of doing. >at no point have i defended this insanity, i literaly said that i think it's sad they burn those books, because i still think they are worth something, you are literaly talking to an archivist.You are an archivist...who is saying that it's okay to destroy old books....because history isn't real. >but my point was that i was not going to be reading them anyway, it doesn't actualy affect me, even if i'm opposed to their intent.Doesn't matter if you were ever going to read them. They are important.>you even projected a strawman onto me thinking i was cheering for these faggots burning books when i'm not.Where? Where did I do that? No, you are defending them, poorly, and might actually be cheering them on but can't say that directly because you know it makes you look like a retard. >i think you are projecting your own insecurities onto others, i literaly didn't defend what they were doing at any point.No anon. You've proven to me that you're not only disengenuous. But deeply fucking stupid.
>>109398916>There are no books with such rarity that are worth anything to AIThere are really rare and valuable books out there. I'm currently eyeing an old artbook collection that I've never seen sell for less than $600. A couple books I have are very limited, some maybe less than 100 copies printed. I've seen old, rare books being sold for $2000 in used book stores before.To your question: Do AI companies want or value any of those books? Beats me, but they wouldn't be buying up all these books if they were picky.
>>109399040>Throwing your hands up and saying it can't be done so destroying ancient books is perfectly fine is abject retardation.i never implied that.>u dumbno u.>you learned how to use a computer through instinctyes>You just plopped out of your mother and were sat in front of a pc and you becaue a leet haxor.that was at 9, but yes, you can just figure shit out you know.but now i feel like i'm talking to some normoid that needs external programming to do anything.the whole premise that you need someone to teach you something is wrong, if that was the case no one would have come up with the thing itself to begin with, and basic things can be independently discovered by anyone that's not an absolute retard.>Now you're just flailing and doing the thing you accused me of doing.how so?instinct wins 100% of the time against jewish tales.>You are an archivist...who is saying that it's okay to destroy old books....because history isn't real.again, i repeated multiple times that it is not, is it reading comprehension or are you projecting.history not being real and whether it's fine to burn these books or not are two different matters.>Doesn't matter if you were ever going to read them. They are important.i don't disagree, why are you still arguing.>Where? Where did I do that?see above.>No, you are defending themprojecting again.>and might actually be cheering them onprojecting more.you are so angry that you need to paint monsters onto strangers, read some jung books for the love of god.>No anon.you literaly do, see all your previous replies.>u dumb againno u again.
>>109399040>>109399195also read my first comment >>109385594i literaly started with "on one hand i find it sad", ie they shouldn't burn these books.on the other hand, this does not affect me.both statements are true.
>>109384829code to the real thread:>>109396965
>>109399040The guy might be the one from the pro piracy or free linux thread or whatever it is called. He doesn't give a shit about his arguments because he knows they are wrong. He knows it is in self interest. He just wants to troll so that he can pirate more.If you try to discuss right and wrong he will just ignore the good in life by pointing out the bad. Use a chatbot to switch his text about history with a product he personally owns. And we will see how quickly he switches his opinions or doesn't even acknowledge it. Of course he will not actually switch his unspoken opinions The spoken are lies from the start. He is a liberal like trump. You can only tell truth or lies. There is no grey inbetween. A half or selective truth is a lie.If you are to stay on this website, you need to learn to perceive trolls. Humans probably don't even use this site anymore
