posted in Technology
Amazon Caught Destroying Rare Books to Train AI
futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/amazon-destroying-rare-books-ai
Replying to @zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
Obviously this isn’t ideal, and fuck the massive amounts of destruction (environmental, economical, societal) of AI, but these stories amount to ‘book owner does what they want with books they own’.
I don’t disagree with any of these responses, and I’m not saying reporting on this to make people aware of it is bad or pointless.
So now what do we do about it?
The article is evidence that the books were sold under false pretense.
I read the article and don’t see what you’re seeing. Can you point out the “false pretenses”. It seems the order was placed via a site that intentionally allows anonymous purchases.
As a sidebar:
a bookseller suspected that an order they received for 1,000 books on Biblio, a marketplace where buyers can remain anonymous, was for an AI company. So to get to the bottom of the mystery, they agreed to place an Apple AirTag between the pages of one of the volumes.
Emphasis mine.
That seems sketchy to me. I’m not confident it’s illegal, but I’m guessing a website that intentionally allows anonymous purchases isn’t going to take kindly to a vendor putting a tracking device in an order.
Oh no. Won’t somebody think of the billionaire whose monopoly that got exposed by some independent journalists who couldn’t be bought or bribed. How tragic.
If Amazon is behaving ethically, they don’t need to hide what they’re doing.
Hindsight makes people come to very foolish conclusions.
Hint: what if it didn’t turn out to be Amazon?
404 media was already thorough in its previous research before actually tracking a book order. Despite your insinuation, there was no foolishness.
But if we follow your billionaire defense to its logical conclusion, they should not have bothered verifying their leads, and left the space billionaire alone.
there was no foolishness
The foolishness was yours. “The ends (in hindsight) justify the means” is not a particularly wise stance.
Like I said, what if it wasn’t Amazon that was ordering the books; would it then be okay?
I understand the dislike of billionaires, but don’t let it stop you from thinking.
The foolishness was yours
You don’t need to stoop to insults.
what if it wasn’t Amazon that was ordering the books
Then the responsible journalists wouldn’t publish the story. I don’t know why you have so much disdain for this independent group.
I’d hate to hear your takes when Ed Snowden “illegally” leaked files to journalists.
I’m thinking about how your concern (which is borderline concern trolling) leaves no way to hold billionaires and their unethical companies accountable.
Like you said:
“The ends (in hindsight) justify the means” is not a particularly wise stance.
Just imagine if we applied this to the AI weirdos.
Then the responsible journalists wouldn’t publish the story.
My concern isn’t the story, it’s the “hiding a tracking device in an order with an anonymous party”. That’s an invasion of privacy no matter who it’s done to. You’re presumably only okay with it because you dislike who it was done to, which is why I’m asking you to consider it without hindsight. What if it were done to someone other than Amazon? Do you still support that invasion of privacy? Why or why not?
Amazon isn’t a person, no corporation is. They should be subject to far more exposure.
They didn’t know it was Amazon when they hid a tracking device in someone’s order. They suspected, only.
What if it had been a small bookstore, or just some collector? Do you approve of those people being tracked?
Are you really not seeing this, or are you pretending to not get it?
What if journalists learned the names of innocent people in the Epstein files? Do the ends justify the means??? Oh no!
The answer to your question is “then the article wouldn’t exist”.
Your “concern” reads like concern trolling because the only way to satiate it is to shut down the free press, apparently to defend the space billionaire/pedophile billionaire class.
They sent a tracker in a book before the article was written. Before they knew it was Amazon. It only turned out to be Amazon, but when they sent it, it could have been anyone.
I feel like I have to ask: are you associated with the source? Your inability to understand my very simple and straightforward point is suspicious.
They sent a tracker in a book before the article was written.
Uh yeah. That’s why they knew it was Amazon. If it ended up somewhere else, the article would be different, and shills for space billionaires would have to come up with something else to concern troll about.
I feel like I have to ask: are you associated with the source?
No, but since this is your level of politeness and since you’ve ignored basic statements like “corporations are not people” and claims the Epstein class needs to be exposed, I need to ask: are they paying you to shill for them, or do you do it for free?
If it ended up somewhere else, the article would be different
Yes!! Finally!!
What if it ended up at a mom and pop store? Are they deserving of privacy?
What if it ended up at a mom and pop store?
Then the article would probably be very different or not written at all, which is what I said already.
You’re not responding to the Epstein class question I see. Really makes you think
Is this for real?
They sent a secret tracker before the article was written. The problem isn’t the article, it’s putting a secret tracker in the order. Would you like secret trackers in your orders, or would you consider that an invasion of privacy?
Seriously, I don’t know any other way to say it.
Really makes you think
I look forward to seeing evidence of that.
I look forward to seeing evidence of that.
Of the Epstein Class? It’s called the Epstein Files, although the Epstein Class defenders will tell you that it’s dangerous to release those files because “somebody innocent could get hurt." I asked you point blank twice (now three times) why you’re shilling for them, with the same degree of “good faith” you demonstrated toward me.
Except I was capable of answering and you weren’t, which makes one think.
I get it, you want journalists silenced and you need to wrap that in whataboutism to make it happen, but sometimes tools can be good or bad depending on how they’re used. “You don’t want to be bombed, so Dresden shouldn’t have been bombed either” is not the moral high ground you think it is.
I meant it would be nice to see evidence of thinking lol
I’m “shilling” (lol) for privacy. Journalists shouldn’t be mailing hidden trackers to anyone. That’s probably illegal. It definitely should be.
You’re aligning yourself with the Epstein Class while concern trolling about privacy. They are the ones violating people’s privacy every single day and enjoying protection the average person cannot afford. They are the ones hiding private jet flight records while tracking people’s driving habits.
Appeals to human decency only work when you manage to have any yourself, and I see little evidence of that.
I’m not appealing to any decency from you (hilarious). I’m just asking for some consistency. You presumably think violations of privacy are bad, but here you are cheering on one.
I’m certain you understand the point I’ve been making, you’re just unwilling to be intellectually honest about it.
Good luck.
“You presumably think it’s bad to shoot people with guns and yet you won’t condemn the US for D-Day. I’m just asking for some consistency.”
Privacy is not universally good, like many things. For example, Joe, it should not be afforded to the Epstein Class when they go to abuse children on Little Saint James. Right, Joe?
It’s bad to murder. Not all killings are murder.
Everyone deserves all the privacy the law affords them, and these journalists sent a tracker to an anonymous party.
In this very thread you’ve complained about a two tier system, so your solution is… a two tiered system? lol
I don’t know why I’m bothering to tutor you about this; you clearly have no desire to learn.
It’s bad to murder. Not all killings are murder.
And yet you’d argue that the stray bullet on Normandy intended for a Nazi could have ended up in an innocent Aryan child, claimed the Allies were untrustworthy, and that no such risk should be taken, as you are doing here.
In this very thread you’ve complained about a two tier system, so your solution is… a two tiered system?
Did you seriously warp the interests of the pedophile engaging in child abuse on Little St James as a “tier” that deserves to be protected? Your depravity knows no end.
Everyone deserves equal protection under the law. You disagree?
So I guess we’ll just skip past my question about why you’re trying to paint pedophile billionaires as oppressed minorities. Reminds me of how you repeatedly refused to answer whether those same pedophile billionaires were sponsoring you.
But you are warping your previous statement, which was:
Everyone deserves all the privacy the law affords them
Current laws disproportionately harm the average person, while they disproportionately benefit your apparent benefactors. Even “equal” laws, if they were created, are built to service the billionaires you support.
I don’t answer stupid questions. You should have picked up on this pattern by now. I just ignore them out of courtesy to you.
Judging by the very (unnecessarily) long comment thread, you aren’t anti corruption or in favor of a more just legal system, you’re just cranky that you’re not the one who decides who the law protects and who it restricts.
You are wrong, of course, but judging by your passionate defense of the Epstein Class, it seems you’re just cranky one of your benefactors got caught with their pants down.
Remember, Joe, you’re the one who decided to start asking stupid questions with loaded accusations. Why would I talk about reforming the law with a man who thinks child sex abusers need a private island? Demonstrate a shred of humanity first, because otherwise it would be pointless.
Strawman, ad hominem, strawman. lol
Does your shtick work on anyone?
Final time: Do you support equal protection under the law, or should laws be applied differently based on who you are?
It’s not a difficult question. If you could take a breath to calm yourself and then engage in good faith, I bet we’d find common ground. Oh, and one more personal attack and I’ll start reporting you. I wish you’d have taken the hint before this; my patience only stretches so far.
“Ad hominem” does not mean “wrong.”
If you could take a breath to calm yourself and then engage in good faith
You’ve been told before by several people that this kind of language is rude.
Oh, and one more personal attack and I’ll start reporting you
Threats aren’t a way to get what you want. Especially after you demonstrate poor behavior yourself.
Replying to @XLE@piefed.social
See? I knew you could do it!
Do you want to engage with this topic in good faith, or should we call it here?
See? I knew you could do it!
Cut your patronizing comments, Joe.
Are you going to demonstrate you have any moral objection to the Epstein Class? I only seriously talk to people with basic morals.
Again with that? Fine, have it your way.