3 ms·

These articles are designed to create maximal outrage, and they can mislead you into thinking the problem is far worse than it really is. Conflating the nature

by dekhn 3mo ago

These articles are designed to create maximal outrage, and they can mislead you into thinking the problem is far worse than it really is. Conflating the nature of the books (between "rare" and "common") is exactly the sort of things these articles do. Also, the companies are required to do this by the government/law, they are not doing this because they want to destroy old knowledge. They are making that knowledge more widely available in a digital form.

qsera 2mo ago
>They are making that knowledge more widely available in a digital form. Where can I access the digital form of the destroyed books? You should know since you made this statement, right?
- WithinReason 2mo ago
  Reread what he wrote
  - qsera 2mo ago
    Yea, and I don't think I missed something. To be clear, I don't want the "knowledge in the book", I want the content of the book itself so that I can form my own knowledge. So don't not want an LLMs regurgitation of the book... And what about fiction? I don't want an LLM's "interpretation", I want the real thing. Is that made available somewhere?
    - dekhn 2mo ago
      You are not being prevented from accessing another copy of the book to get that knowledge.
      - tpoacher 2mo ago
        > You are not being prevented from accessing another copy of the book to get that knowledge. Except in the (potentually rare) situation that a book is rare, which brings us back into full circle in the discussion. So, ragebait article or not, we have identified an issue if reasonable importance. E.g. if there was an official statement that non-destructive scanning were to be used in titles with less than X copies in circulation,I would feel more comfortable.
        dekhn 2mo ago
        The clear conclusion from all the articles I've read is that no truly rare books are being destroyed in this process. That is an intentional technique used by the article authors to manipulate readers into being outraged.

by dekhn 3mo ago

qsera 2mo ago

>They are making that knowledge more widely available in a digital form. Where can I access the digital form of the destroyed books? You should know since you made this statement, right?

WithinReason 2mo ago
Reread what he wrote
- qsera 2mo ago
  Yea, and I don't think I missed something. To be clear, I don't want the "knowledge in the book", I want the content of the book itself so that I can form my own knowledge. So don't not want an LLMs regurgitation of the book... And what about fiction? I don't want an LLM's "interpretation", I want the real thing. Is that made available somewhere?
  - dekhn 2mo ago
    You are not being prevented from accessing another copy of the book to get that knowledge.
    - tpoacher 2mo ago
      > You are not being prevented from accessing another copy of the book to get that knowledge. Except in the (potentually rare) situation that a book is rare, which brings us back into full circle in the discussion. So, ragebait article or not, we have identified an issue if reasonable importance. E.g. if there was an official statement that non-destructive scanning were to be used in titles with less than X copies in circulation,I would feel more comfortable.
      - dekhn 2mo ago
        The clear conclusion from all the articles I've read is that no truly rare books are being destroyed in this process. That is an intentional technique used by the article authors to manipulate readers into being outraged.