3 ms·
>trillions No need for hyperbole. The point you are missing is that those books get consciously thrown in the trash. Somebody evaluated them and decided they
by EA0707 2mo ago
>trillions
No need for hyperbole.
The point you are missing is that those books get consciously thrown in the trash. Somebody evaluated them and decided they weren't worth saving. Will some fraction of these be the result of poor taste and those books were indeed worth saving? Sure. But most it's reasonable to assume won't be. In any case, they will still have been deliberated on by an actual human being.
By contrast, these AI companies are doing none of that. They are blanket buying books, scanning them and then pulping them. No human evaluation happens at any point.
- pfdietz 2mo agoSo, if Google consciously throws books in the trash, that's ok, but if they scan them first, that's not ok? Or maybe this is just a thin veneer over anti-techbro antipathy. If destroying a book is such an evil, then isn't not printing a book also a huge net negative? Are you going to call on publishers to make endless print runs to churn out books that then get warehoused? I mean, if these lumps of cellulose are such inherently valuable objects, wouldn't we create endless value by piling up the unread copies?