- cross-posted to:
- technology@midwest.social
- technology@lemmygrad.ml
- technology@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- technology@midwest.social
- technology@lemmygrad.ml
- technology@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
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.
Bad title. The destruction is part of their super shitty method of scanning them, not an afterthought.
Yup. All because non-destructive scanning is slightly slower and more expensive.
The way I heard it, it was mostly to satisfy copyright requirements, albeit destructive scanning is easier, indeed
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.
…wrong order of operations, bad post title.
Destroying them is done before ingesting them.
Purposefully inflammatory title and disinformation as a result.
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 RemainDoes including that detail actually change anything
Yes.
Don’t be dense
Yes.
That is a pretty simple response to a nuanced issue.
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
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.
The unbinding is the shit people refer to when talking about them destroying the books.
Dont be dense.
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.
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.
… So you’re trying to say that the books do survive the process?
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.
… 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
“Doctor gives a child a vaccine”
Vs
“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.
Splitting hairs. The title is fine.
