249
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2026
249 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
87418 readers
3648 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The destruction of the book is done to mitigate some copyright concerns. There will be a fairly small number of large-scale projects like this, and each only needs one copy of a given book, so outside of maybe very rare books, the impact is going to be pretty negligible on availability
like someone buying one copy of that book.
Weird how when I buy a book, the "license" for the content is tied to the physical object, but when a company destroys the book and OCRs it, it's perfectly ok
Can you explain? The First Sale doctrine means its OK to sell books after you're done with them. I would think it would be the scanning itself that could be a copyright problem, not the disposition of the physical book after.
I thought the real reason, the main reason, was, as the article says, "Destroying books is cheaper."
I agree that the concern over the destruction of physical books, and what impact that will have on their availability, is probably exaggerated. Heck, the actual importance of old books to the AI companies may be exaggerated, that seems to be their hype style.
404 media reported this recently. Excerpt from the article :
Then they plagarize that data though, using it without attribution or payment, which is aganst copyright law. If a person did this they would be stopped. Because it's big money, the law doesn't apply.
Now you've entered the land of fairy tales and make believe. A person who memorizes a book and then burns it and then recites to others would in fact not be put in front of a firing squad like you want to.
Not saying corporations are people (they are though) but they are literally not doing anything else than that. Now they only have to teach the AI to learn double think, to learn from the book, but then forget the book, only to be able to remember what that book was about, while being unable to faithfully repeat it.
That's literally going to solve any and all problems with AI. It's not like we should demand meaningful regulations about the actual problems like authoritarian China does. You know, because, think of the book publishers. They are people too!