AI Companies Are Buying Antique Books, Ingesting Their Contents to Train Models, and Then Destroying Them at Incredible Scale, Even If Almost No Copies Remain (futurism.com)

submitted 5 days ago by staircase@programming.dev to c/Technology@programming.dev

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 23 comments

sorted by: hot top new old

[-] chode_tode@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

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.

[-] staircase@programming.dev 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days 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.

[-] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 17 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

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

[-] Mirshe@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago

Yup. All because non-destructive scanning is slightly slower and more expensive.

[-] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 points 4 days ago

The way I heard it, it was mostly to satisfy copyright requirements, albeit destructive scanning is easier, indeed

[-] far_university1990@reddthat.com 13 points 5 days ago

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.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

The US has that too with the library of Congress.

[-] far_university1990@reddthat.com 2 points 3 days 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.

[+] pixxelkick@lemmy.world -10 points 5 days ago

..wrong order of operations, bad post title.

Destroying them is done before ingesting them.

Purposefully inflammatory title and disinformation as a result.

[-] Krusty@quokk.au 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

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.

[-] pixxelkick@lemmy.world -4 points 5 days ago

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

Dont be dense.

[-] Krusty@quokk.au 1 points 4 days 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.

[-] pixxelkick@lemmy.world -2 points 4 days ago

Yeah thats the thing "destroyed" isnt even the right goddamn word tats what Im talking about in terms of it being inflammatory

They are disassembling the goddamn books, which is the correct word to use, but that doesnt produce effective clickbait headlines.

[-] SleeplessCityLights@programming.dev 7 points 5 days ago

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

[-] pixxelkick@lemmy.world -1 points 5 days ago

Does including that detail actually change anything

Yes.

[-] Frettchen@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

Don't be dense

[-] SleeplessCityLights@programming.dev 2 points 4 days ago

Yes.

That is a pretty simple response to a nuanced issue.

[-] pixxelkick@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days 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

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 5 points 5 days ago

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

[-] pixxelkick@lemmy.world -3 points 5 days ago

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.

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 days ago

... 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

[-] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

"Doctor gives a child a vaccine"

"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.

this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2026

66 points (94.6% liked)

Technology

1016 readers

1 users here now

Share interesting Technology news and links.

Rules:

No paywalled sites at all.
News articles has to be recent, not older than 2 weeks (14 days).
No external video links, only native(.mp4,...etc) links under 5 mins.
Post only direct links.

To encourage more original sources and keep this space commercial free as much as I could, the following websites are Blacklisted:

Al Jazeera;
NBC;
CNBC;
Substack;
Tom's Hardware;
ZDNet;
TechSpot;
Ars Technica;
Vox Media outlets(including Axios, due to new changes related to trackers on their website);
Engadget;
TechCrunch;
Gizmodo;
Futurism;
PCWorld;
ComputerWorld;
Mashable;
Hackaday;
WCCFTECH;
Neowin;
Jacobin;
Yahoo;
Freethink;
Big Think;
Newsweek.

More sites will be added to the blacklist as needed.

Encouraged:

Archive links in the body of the post.
Linking to the direct source, instead of linking to an article talking about the source.

Misc:

Relevant Lemmy Communities:

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

irelephant@programming.dev