>>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.
>>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
Not everything objectionable or unethical should or could necessarily be outlawed. "It's not illegal" is not really an argument or justification for anything.
>>baobun+fH
I don't think CaptainFever's point is that it's acceptable because it's legal, but rather that copyright law is what prevents them from, say, donating the originals instead of throwing them away.