Alright AI companies I can only hate you so much. Stop adding reasons to the list.

The fact that their logo is a dinosaur destroying a book…

What’s the bet the logo is A.I. generated as well?

100%. The dinosaur isn’t actually eating it, because AI always gets the prompt wrong

The book appears to have two spines…

Look at the left cover. No, not the middle one; this book has three.

Look up Google and Project Ocean. Google already did this 2 decades ago. They even went to great lengths to build machines that would very slowly and gently turn pages and non-destructively scan books.
They already have a digital library of 25 million books just sitting there, ready to be instantly and non-destructively copied infinitely.

No no, that’s too slow and slow is expensive. Time is money and we have to move faster and break more things in order to disrupt the market. /s

I mean yea that’s literally why they are destroying books.

But a court ruling said they had to destroy the books otherwise they would be liable for copyright infringement

You don’t hate them enough. The only response is to do onto them, as they do to us, as they do to these books

I really hope writers guilds will sue.

What’s their standing?

Edit: FYI in the United States we have a legal precedent called the first sale doctrine. Once you buy a book it is yours and you have the right to do what you want with it including selling it. And while they probably never anticipated a bunch of super wealthy narscisists buying a bunch of books so they could hoard the knowledge and then destroy them, we have no laws here that could prevent it.

I highly doubt they have the money for that, unfortunately. I believe our best bet is to press politicians into action.

The symbol for Amazon’s VGT3, the Las Vegas facility where it scans book for AI training data.

I thought it’s 404media’s obviously satirical preview picture to dab on aibros, but the truth is even more weird

Hardly surprising that slop bros have no taste. I’m not an artist and it’s not exactly difficult to point out the flaws with that logo. Someone could’ve stopped it, but they didn’t care enough.

Idk why they even need one, and the one so on the nose.

It’s sad and ugly. Dinosaurs are fuckin’ awesome, and these cunts are doing a shit job at appropriating them.

Are we talking about 14th century handcrafted masterpieces or 2000s university textbooks? Do they destroy cultural heritage items or dusty low value sold-by-weight books?

I need to know if I have to feel angry and agitated or indifferent.

I don’t think they are devouring the Garima Gospels, Cuneiform tablets and deleting hieroglyphs from granite but the worry is if we don’t stop them now it’s a slippery slope and the VHS tapes will be next.

Without details it feels, like a fear, uncertainty, doubt strategy just for the clicks, to me. I’m missing crucial information for an informed decision. The article is not suitable for much more than igniting anger.

LLM and AI companies rise a lot of valid criticism, besides its undeniable pros. I don’t like a witch hunt just because it is AI and someone tells me to be angry. I need more facts before I go fetch my pitchfork.

I.e. I dont get why they destroy the books. Google Books did fine without unbinding/ destroying books. It would help to know what kind of books are processed. And what their process is.

I don’t have information if the OCRed data is made available to the public. Which would be nice, since the article talks about data that is not yet digitally available.

The witch hunt vibes seems apt, the maleficarum got really grim in the wake of the printing press and we’ve got new meme makers now and the pitchforks are being sharpened.

The article kinda hits it home, it’s generic hysterical slop and a solid treatment of the matter will likely be available to the public for £300 from an academic press in a year or three if they promise not to share it. Then an llm will eat it and I will be able to get a summary, mixed in with lemmy comments, for my daily token ration from China: the circle of life.

Afaiu it’s somewhat easier to wreck the book and one would imagine there’s a few books cutting about that whilst not yet fully digital are also not on the endangered species list.

Sharing the knowledge for the greater good is a no go I think, especially in the USA. Me or you can do it on slsk but if a rich corp tries to do it they’ll get shafted fast & hard and the massive academic presses will not tolerate upskilling the poor.

This is what I believe they are doing:

…biggo.com/…/37a2899b-5f1a-4571-9bb5-1156c0ac4605

_**The owner of MW Books in Ireland also reports that since May, the shop has been receiving large orders with wildly varied content. “The orders are piecemeal, presumably machine-driven, and there’s very little thematic rhyme or reason to them: everything from 18th-century African agricultural implements to biographies of 1950s racing drivers,” he says. “Personally, I don’t think we have the right to dictate what customers do with books after they buy them, but the selection is certainly intriguing.”

Another anonymous UK used bookseller reveals that some seemingly random orders, possibly from different buyers, all end up being shipped to the same address. He provided a delivery postcode used by different buyers, which corresponds to a cluster of freight warehouses near London Heathrow Airport. The bookseller says that since January, he has received orders covering 6,000 books from similar buyers, amounting to thousands of pounds. These buyers are willing to pay “top prices” and haven’t asked for discounts even when purchasing large quantities at once. “That doesn’t happen very often. It’s disruptive to the used book trade.”**_

They are probably buying books that don’t have any digital copies since they are perfect for training AI. As for why they are using destructive scanning, I believe it is because either destructive is cheaper and faster or they don’t want the competition to have access to the training data. Since these are not easy to find books, Amazon sells books, any book they try to obtain is probably extremely hard to find anywhere.

Thank you. That article gave me some insights.

• AI firms fear AI generated content and train their models with books from before. The fact that AI waters down the source data quality, because AI generated data becomes part of the source data. It’s worrying, let’s see where it leads and how the AI effects can be mitigated.
• Lawsuits seem to be an issue for anthropic and a driver for the scanning program too. Because illegal copies are problematic.
• The books are destructively scanned and disposed afterwards.
• In rare cases a 18th century book might be lost. But the ordered books seem to include anything and nothing. The term rare book seems to refer to the fact that a small amount of copies have been printed and only a few copies are available for sale (and the larger part is stored in libraries).
• Booksellers are both worried and happy at the same time.

Yeah, model collapse is worrying, but I don’t see how they can do anything about it due to how LLMs work. There have been some articles written about this drawing an analogy to the grey goo problem in nanotechnology. The end result is that the free web becomes essentially useless and knowledge becomes balkanized and paywalled.

Interesting that the buyers are willing to pay “top prices” and yet unwilling to spend the money to scan these books non-destructively.

They are required by law to destroy the books to avoid copyright infringement.

But that wouldn’t matter in this case, because they have been copied.

Textbooks are not “rare”, nor are they something that universities and libraries would be price sensitive about. The books are being bought from booksellers who make a living buying and selling rare books. So, while I doubt that they are all going to “masterpieces”, they are going to be books valuable enough to support an industry of people and expensive enough that universities and libraries would be price sensitive about them.

The latter. These are books that have been sitting on the shelf in a warehouse for years. They’re not sold by weight, but they are stuff like random technical manuals for stuff very few people care about.

My only hope is that an eventual lawsuit forces the AI companies to release the digitized versions to an archive or library.

We’re almost certainly talking about literally everything a bot scraping catalogues decides it doesn’t have. I highly doubt it’ll be discriminating.

The previous reports is they only bought books with ISBNs, which iirc started in the 60s

We will never know because they didn’t give any information. No info about the book(books?) that were tracked or even how they tracked them.

The answer is yes in all cases. Well, almost all. They don’t want books printed after 2022, because those might have AI-generated text in them. Anything else is fair game.

I bet there are a whole lot of politicians books mixed up in there. That’s the new payoff method for the ruling class.

If this was done by trustworthy organizations as an effort to digitize and preserve all the books, I would appreciate it. Maybe an association of libraries should do that and, to get the cost back, sell the digital versions / ebooks to the AI companies for an additional price). Then, at least, we would not loose the contents of those rare books to the AI conpanies and prevent them from obtaining a monopoly on the data. And each book would only get destroyed once.

But libraries/bookshops are probably not allowed to sell digital versions, and AI companies are not allowed to use borrowed ebooks.

… not allowed

You think that would stop them?

Yeah. Libraries got in trouble during COVID for relaxing their ebook borrowing rules. AI companies don’t give a shit and are happy to settle lawsuits for a fraction of the money they take in from investors.

That exists already. Archive.org has a digitization service, but then archive.org would put a public copy up and the AIbros wouldn’t be the sole owners of that training data.

digitization.archive.org

There’s also methods to digitize books without destroying the book and for the purpose of AI training that should be more then sufficient. AIbros are just so arrogant to think that other people haven’t solved the problem already or that their time is too valuable to be slowed by proper methods.

www.diybookscanner.org

I remember looking into this, the number of books I have that I’d like to scan are not enough to justify building one of these unless they can be folded up and passed on.

Might be best to just get a plexiglass slab with some kind of anti glare covering and try to get flat pages

No, even this is a very bad idea. Ideally, no books are destroyed. A close relative of mine works as an archivist. They have tons of examples of how digitising and then destroying can create extra burdens. The data on hard drives or flash devices is too fragile.

While writing my other comment, I thought of a way that might be a little bit closer to a solution for the AI use of copyrighted material. In Germany, afaik we are allowed to make and keep a copy of copyrighted material obtained in any legal way (even borrowing, streaming, etc.) for strictly private and personal noncommercial use. As a compensation, when buying a device that can store or process data (e.g. USB-stick, phone, computer), a small part of the money goes to copyright collectives (“Verwertungsgesellschaften”). Copyright holders can be members of those and get compensation or their work via them (those collectives are also the entities that sell you a license to e.g. play music at public events).

I can imagine a similar system for AI: A part of any subscription, fee, etc. for AI could go to those copyright collectives as a compensation for the material used in training. Compared to obtaining a license once for training (like buying physical books), this has the advantage that the compensation would scale with the actual use of the AI and also the revenue of the AI companies.

I think those systems are far from perfect, but that’s probably a much better approximation to fairness than what we currently have

Would make sense if the AIs made any money. This is kind of the same system we currently have while AI burns millions daily. Dollars, tons of coal, gallons of water reserves, creatives’ livelyhoods… take your pick

At least some money is currently paid for AI and eventually the business has to become profitable. The environmental problem ist of course not approached by this. For the creatives this would give at least some compensation. Problems due to future (creative) work taken over by AI is also not covered by this; that’s “just” what happens when a new technology arises that obsoletes certain work. My suggestion is trying to copensate for creative work somewhat proportionally to its use.

The business has to become profitable… To continue existing. There is absolutely no guarantee of that.

There is, however, overwhelming evidence that unless a major breakthrough is discovered within the next year, the well will dry up. They simply cannot afford to live off of investor hype and vibes forever.

So, what is the book that they tracked? What other books were in the order alongside it?

You are aware that they’d be betraying their source if they published the information that could idenify the seller?

Perhaps.

What I actually want to know is the rarity of the books in question.

This article might give some clues about the types of books: www.irishexaminer.com/…/arid-41897035.html

Thanks. I can’t help but conclude that the public outcry is exaggerated – the books being bought are evidently selected at random. The chances of the companies buying some particularly rare (and more expensive) book this way seem slim, since they probably don’t want to waste too much money.

Money is no object to AI companies. That’s one of the things that alerted the booksellers, in fact—masses of books were being purchased without regard to price or subject matter.

This is nonsensical. Anything valuable is copied anyway. What they are destroying is thousands of small books about local histories and technical matters that are being disappeared entirety.

I don’t understand the concept of a “rare” book. Every book should be infinitely reproducible, the fact that they aren’t is a crime.

There are many ways a book can be rare. First editions, signed copies, and books with little demand. Can’t fire up the printers and make those again.

In the case of little demand, I have a book “Two thousand leagues under the seas” not the more common “Twenty thousand leagues under the sea”. It’s rare in that it’s very difficult to find more literal translation than the version we are accustomed with. I suspect search engines simply think I’ve made a typo. Either way, why print it if there is little demand or can’t find the book?

But the actual words in the book can be easily recorded and don’t actually require printing.

I agree with your point overall, but why is the book two thousand leagues under the sea more literal, when the original is called “Vingt Mille Lieues sous les mers”, is a league 10 times as much, as a Lieue? Genuinely curious (and hard to google)

Huh, good question. I remember a forward in the book about the difference translations, but I will admit that was back in middle school. I still have the book. Perhaps I’ll try to dig it up tomorrow.

I did however find a new translation online that sounds interesting. I remember all the scientific names suuuucked back then and even my copy said something along the lines of “abridged for sake of brevity” on one of his journal entries. Even my translation noped out of that.

The title doesn’t make sense, or is it an extremely shortened version and it’s a pun on the fact that it shortened the journey? Do you happen to know who the translator was?

A book’s value is not just held in its text. They’re also valuable as historical objects.

The text is what makes it valuable though? I guess there’s some value in, like, the actual literal physical copy too, but that has nothing to do with rarity. A bible can have historical value because of who owned it, but that’d be strange to describe as “rare” I think.

You don’t think a signed first edition of Moby Dick would be rare or valuable? O.o

A first edition has no value to me. The value comes from the words on the page, not the paper it’s printed on. I could see value in a book that was hand transcribed or something, but the fact that it was the first book out of a printing press is worthless.

I should say being signed is important, but that’s not really a rarity issue. That’s now a unique historical artifact because it was interacted with by a specific person. That’s basically the same as a bible having historical value because of who owned it.

They only print a few dozen copies and then Google destroys the only one left.

It’s not a difficult concept.

It’s not like we’re printing books from old school printers where they had to assemble the letters by hand on a printing plate for each page, or they need scribes to hand transcribe books with a quill. It’s all computer. There’s no reason for any book to be rare.

Can they please give me an example of a rare book?

it should be limited amount of books in circulation, not rare. rare means 1 or only handful of compies.

“Rare” means “difficult to acquire”. Under your definition, the only books that would qualify would be ones in museums.

I know that in disciplines such as math there are very often have books with less than 50 copies in circulation. The LLM companies buy maybe 2 of a given book which are subsequently destroyed with no backup data. You’re now at 48 in circulation, that is a significant reduction. Rinse and repeat a couple of million times and this starts to have a major influence on knowledge.

What’s perverse about it is that the data from the books is stored extremely badly within the models. So not only are you destroying sources, you are also necessarily falsifying them.

Are you skeptical that the books being destroyed are actually rare? Or are you skeptical of the existence of rare books?

Skeptical that the books being destroyed are rare.

Pretty sure information that is hard to come by on the internet includes rare books.

local AI companies are the reason Ukrainian book publishing industry experienced an uptick in sales lately. Bros stock up entire catalog at once and no one complains because its a hefty paycheck.

.> Local to… Ukraine? Why does this feel like a conspiracy theory? Ukraine, in the middle of a war, is focusing their efforts on an LLM, destroying books in the process?

Are you a plant?

They may very well be doing just that, but it’s really fucking weird to bring it up in a post about Amazon destroying rare books in the US.

They also want the rare books scanned so they can break any/all book ciphers, including those based on rare finds.

ISBNs or STFU.

“Rare” means absolutely nothing without context. This is trash reporting, you sent the books, you know what they are, by not publishing the titles/ISBN it proves you know you don’t have a valid case. I’m betting these were mostly/all used books.

The pearl clutching about this is absurd. So what if they buy 1 of every book to scan?

I also wanted to know what the rare books are and this is what I Found:

…biggo.com/…/37a2899b-5f1a-4571-9bb5-1156c0ac4605

I also heard that they are also scanning old outdated medical books.

So are not really aiming for rare, they are just gathering at random and getting their hands on any old book they can find. Some rare books might or might not be in the books they scan.

I also heard that they are also scanning old outdated medical books.

What the fuck

Why would you want to train on outdated information? What the hell are these people smoking?