4 ms·

The difference here I think is that the company (Anthropic, not OpenAI) was specifically selecting rare books for training (and subsequently destroying). I thin

The difference here I think is that the company (Anthropic, not OpenAI) was specifically selecting rare books for training (and subsequently destroying). I think the value proposition is a much different one in this case. In your example the books are still available in high enough amounts that replacing it is cheaper. If the book is rare enough to not have been digitized for training data yet (which is why Anthropic is interested in it), keeping that book around is much more important. If Anthropic subsequently released the digitized version of it we’d be having a different discussion, but for obvious reasons they’re not.

giancarlostoro 1mo ago
They did it due to some weird copyright argument about copying and destroying the original seeming like a transfer and not copyright violation, which is insane and apparently is mot always interpreted in said way. So they are literally taking a copyright gamble they might lose.
- Lerc 1mo ago
  It is fair use to train on books you buy. The anthropic case established that. The destruction of books is just cutting the spine so they have individual pages to scan.
  - giancarlostoro 1mo ago
    Destroying a book to argue fair use is not accepted as a fair use act is what I was saying, so they're needlessly destroying rare books.
    - Lerc 1mo ago
      They are not destroying any books to make any claim. They are doing it so the pages fit in the scanner. Without an example of an actual rare book that is shown to have been destroyed, all there is is the is the claim they have the capability to do that. The closest I have heard is the possibility of rare books purchased in bulk orders of cheap second hand books. This is a similar risk to melting down someone's wedding ring from a batch of scrap metal. It could theoretically happen, but the knowledge of the items presence is absent and it was not requested. What other allegations have there been? I'm prepared to look at actual examples of you have them.
Lerc 1mo ago
I have heard allegations that they might be destroying non replaceable books, but only as a hypothetical. Replacibility is the standard tbat matters in this which I mentioned in my post. I haven't heard of a specific instance of an occurance of destruction of an irreplaceable book, but I'm willing to look into cases if you have a link.
- palmotea 1mo ago
  > I have heard allegations that they might be destroying non replaceable books, but only as a hypothetical. > Replacibility is the standard tbat matters in this which I mentioned in my post. I haven't heard of a specific instance of an occurance of destruction of an irreplaceable book, but I'm willing to look into cases if you have a link. I think you can assume they're destroying rare or even irreplaceable books, unless they can show they've implemented careful processes to avoid doing that. But given they're all basically SV startups, it's very unlikely they're doing anything except the minimum effort to get what they want now.
  - rumori 1mo ago
    For me it’s just as unbelievable that the second hand book stores would sell rare or irreplaceable books at bulk prices. If they do they are really not good at what they are doing and I wouldn’t blame any startup big or small to destroy it, especially after preserving it digitally.
    - palmotea 1mo ago
      > If they do they are really not good at what they are doing and I wouldn’t blame any startup big or small to destroy it, especially after preserving it digitally. 1. That's fucking bizarre logic. "It's ok to do bad thing if someone didn't stop you." 2. These startups aren't "preserving" it digitally. The destroyed physical copies would have likely outlived whatever datasets they're creating.
    - moritzwarhier 1mo ago
      Rare != valuable. They are "betting" pennies in their books. Rarity equating monetary value is a common logical fallacy often found with stamps and other collectable cultural artifacts (details would disgress too much here, see Pokemon cards or whatever). And rarity vs quality ir utility is even harder. But value is 1) not determined by scarcity and 2) neither by "unique information content" (because that's by definition not measurable without a panopticon) and 3) nor by "creative value" per se 4) it is indeterminate whether some detail in a work might prove useful later, in general. Even for scientific papers. They just can bet on all fronts and for training material it's 100% rational to do it. Apart from that, to briefly disgress into the discussion of "cultural value": many cultural works we hold as very important today were sold for cheap, if at all, when the author died. Music scores are good examples. But back to the broader "value"/rarity angle: The historical value of some odd self-help or DIY instructions book from the 80s is hard to determine! It might happen to be able to provide a secondary source for something, or even act as primary source for some other fact of the time that is tangential to its subject. None of the qualities that make trivial literature interesting to, for example, researchers, must correlate with market value (at the time of writing or at the time of research?). Sure, there are truckloads of "unique" books from even 200 years ago that are neither culturally valuable nor sellable right now. But these things can change quickly. Imagine you want research details about old retail products. Or the usual street price of something in some city at a specific time. Or the inhabitant of a certain rentable space at a certain time. Or some specific detail about replacing the parts of a certain type of car that's no longer around (is this valuable then?). Humans create endless complexities, and monetary or evolutionary value is not coupled anymore to step-changes such as "how to light a fire using X,Y,Z". We're deep down the rabbit-holes of our own ephemeral shaping of our world. What word was commonly used to describe a sandwich in 1925 in Hungary. Or what problems did people commonly encounter when repairing car doors in the 1940s in England? Whatever. I can't make up a good example right now, but market value does not imply quality; and even quality (according to some cultural norm) is not universally measurable.
bko 1mo ago
I think the important part of books is the knowledge in them. Not the binding or anything else physical. With some exceptions of course and sure there are things to be learned about physical attributes that don't translate to the digital version, but 95% is in the content. > If Anthropic subsequently released the digitized version of it we’d be having a different discussion, but for obvious reasons they’re not. I don't think you can scan books and just release a pdf. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Even if you can, I'm sure it's a gray legal area.

giancarlostoro 1mo ago

They did it due to some weird copyright argument about copying and destroying the original seeming like a transfer and not copyright violation, which is insane and apparently is mot always interpreted in said way. So they are literally taking a copyright gamble they might lose.

Lerc 1mo ago
It is fair use to train on books you buy. The anthropic case established that. The destruction of books is just cutting the spine so they have individual pages to scan.
- giancarlostoro 1mo ago
  Destroying a book to argue fair use is not accepted as a fair use act is what I was saying, so they're needlessly destroying rare books.
  - Lerc 1mo ago
    They are not destroying any books to make any claim. They are doing it so the pages fit in the scanner. Without an example of an actual rare book that is shown to have been destroyed, all there is is the is the claim they have the capability to do that. The closest I have heard is the possibility of rare books purchased in bulk orders of cheap second hand books. This is a similar risk to melting down someone's wedding ring from a batch of scrap metal. It could theoretically happen, but the knowledge of the items presence is absent and it was not requested. What other allegations have there been? I'm prepared to look at actual examples of you have them.

Lerc 1mo ago

I have heard allegations that they might be destroying non replaceable books, but only as a hypothetical. Replacibility is the standard tbat matters in this which I mentioned in my post. I haven't heard of a specific instance of an occurance of destruction of an irreplaceable book, but I'm willing to look into cases if you have a link.

palmotea 1mo ago
> I have heard allegations that they might be destroying non replaceable books, but only as a hypothetical. > Replacibility is the standard tbat matters in this which I mentioned in my post. I haven't heard of a specific instance of an occurance of destruction of an irreplaceable book, but I'm willing to look into cases if you have a link. I think you can assume they're destroying rare or even irreplaceable books, unless they can show they've implemented careful processes to avoid doing that. But given they're all basically SV startups, it's very unlikely they're doing anything except the minimum effort to get what they want now.
- rumori 1mo ago
  For me it’s just as unbelievable that the second hand book stores would sell rare or irreplaceable books at bulk prices. If they do they are really not good at what they are doing and I wouldn’t blame any startup big or small to destroy it, especially after preserving it digitally.
  - palmotea 1mo ago
    > If they do they are really not good at what they are doing and I wouldn’t blame any startup big or small to destroy it, especially after preserving it digitally. 1. That's fucking bizarre logic. "It's ok to do bad thing if someone didn't stop you." 2. These startups aren't "preserving" it digitally. The destroyed physical copies would have likely outlived whatever datasets they're creating.
  - moritzwarhier 1mo ago
    Rare != valuable. They are "betting" pennies in their books. Rarity equating monetary value is a common logical fallacy often found with stamps and other collectable cultural artifacts (details would disgress too much here, see Pokemon cards or whatever). And rarity vs quality ir utility is even harder. But value is 1) not determined by scarcity and 2) neither by "unique information content" (because that's by definition not measurable without a panopticon) and 3) nor by "creative value" per se 4) it is indeterminate whether some detail in a work might prove useful later, in general. Even for scientific papers. They just can bet on all fronts and for training material it's 100% rational to do it. Apart from that, to briefly disgress into the discussion of "cultural value": many cultural works we hold as very important today were sold for cheap, if at all, when the author died. Music scores are good examples. But back to the broader "value"/rarity angle: The historical value of some odd self-help or DIY instructions book from the 80s is hard to determine! It might happen to be able to provide a secondary source for something, or even act as primary source for some other fact of the time that is tangential to its subject. None of the qualities that make trivial literature interesting to, for example, researchers, must correlate with market value (at the time of writing or at the time of research?). Sure, there are truckloads of "unique" books from even 200 years ago that are neither culturally valuable nor sellable right now. But these things can change quickly. Imagine you want research details about old retail products. Or the usual street price of something in some city at a specific time. Or the inhabitant of a certain rentable space at a certain time. Or some specific detail about replacing the parts of a certain type of car that's no longer around (is this valuable then?). Humans create endless complexities, and monetary or evolutionary value is not coupled anymore to step-changes such as "how to light a fire using X,Y,Z". We're deep down the rabbit-holes of our own ephemeral shaping of our world. What word was commonly used to describe a sandwich in 1925 in Hungary. Or what problems did people commonly encounter when repairing car doors in the 1940s in England? Whatever. I can't make up a good example right now, but market value does not imply quality; and even quality (according to some cultural norm) is not universally measurable.

bko 1mo ago

I think the important part of books is the knowledge in them. Not the binding or anything else physical. With some exceptions of course and sure there are things to be learned about physical attributes that don't translate to the digital version, but 95% is in the content. > If Anthropic subsequently released the digitized version of it we’d be having a different discussion, but for obvious reasons they’re not. I don't think you can scan books and just release a pdf. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Even if you can, I'm sure it's a gray legal area.