zlacker

>>bayind+(OP)
> In the process, the company cut millions of print books from their bindings, scanned them into digital files, and threw away the originals solely for the purpose of training AI

Oh boy. The more I learn about how genAI companies work, the more detestable they appear to be.

>>JohnFe+x3
You got suckered by the clickbait. Destructive scanning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_scanning#Destructive_scan...) isn't unusual for books that are common enough that an individual volume is of no particular value.

>>Throwa+P6
I didn't get suckered by anything. I'm aware of the practice. I find it objectionable. That they did this is just another thing on the growing list of objectionable things that genAI companies seem to enjoy doing.

To be honest, I probably wouldn't have even commented on it if it were the only bad thing these companies do.

>>JohnFe+na
If you believe that destroying books is bad, your issue is with copyright law, not the AI companies. The AI companies are just following copyright law -- they are allowed to move data from one format to another (thereby destroying the original), but not copy it.

>>Captai+rG
> If you believe that destroying books is bad, your issue is with copyright law, not the AI companies

No, my issue is with the companies that do this. The law doesn't enter into it. Just because a thing is legal doesn't mean it's OK.