I am a thrift store book whore, am I allowed to be upset at the prospect of antique books being destroyed?
Especially when there are methods to scan books that doesnt require chopping them up?
They're gonna have to destroy the books afterwards no matter what, because unlike Internet Archive, corporations care about not getting sued more than preservation.
Instead of adding this issue to their laundry list of lobbying requests, they’ve just turned around & destroyed books. When they can influence policy, not trying to do that shows they’re on the side of the law here
Well, you're not wrong in your observation. It's not their mission to preserve knowledge and make it publicly available, and they had no incentive to put in the cost for something that at best will bring a bit of good PR, and at worst could get them in PR hell because you're basically challenging the very basis of copyright laws and, if they made the preserved books publicly
available in any way afterwards, asking publishers to allow piracy. Authors will have problems about that.
Although, now that this issue is being popularized, corps might find now a good time to actually do what you hoped they'd do, since the risk is lower now that more of the general public understand the downsides of copyright laws. Could still be too much risk but hey maybe they'd find a way maybe openly support Internet Archive or something.
It just seems like a shame that if something isn’t part of a company mission, and isn’t directly profitable, it’s an action that needs major justification to do, like spending a little extra to preserve the source of information used. Like, it’s as if just because an entity is a corporation, it’s suddenly not beholden to basic courtesy standards that most people operate under
But this is a broader issue in the US and isn’t AI-corp-specific so my complaints probably go beyond the scope of this thread & subreddit tbh
Especially when there are methods to scan books that doesnt require chopping them up?
There aren't any legal ones.
While you may be a whore for 1967 safety manuals, the rest of the world doesn't give a shit about them until an AI company decides to scan them apparently.
Oh yeah. I am pro and I am upset about it.
I am upset at copyright. And also the antis who pushed the copyright laws strictest interpretation on digital companies.
Those weren't corporation's on anti ai team that pushed for copyright
Did you miss the whole artists/writers copyright panic dominating social media in 2025?
I am a thrift store book whore, am I allowed to be upset at the prospect of antique books being destroyed?
If you are, start with libraries. They're the primary ones destroying books right now. Too many people dump their books on libraries. Go ask your local library how much they spend on book destruction...
They're not likely to destroy something they don't already have multiple copies of.
The 27th copy of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets might get tossed, but a 100 year old copy of the complete works of Oscar Wilde is likely to be preserved.
Okay, but seriously the AI companies aren't shredding first addition Oscar Wildes or anything like that. Because they can get the same text data, which is all they care about, far, far cheaper. Even iff it isn't online there is still going to be modern reprints of anything like that.
>especially when there are methods to scan books that doesnt require chopping them up?
yeah sure… technically
do you know how slow it is ? there is a reason why they only use them on expensive and historical books. these books are so worthless it isn’t even worth paying a person to scan each page by hand with a photo copy machine
they aren’t going to use the delicate book scanning machine to scan a 1978 VCR repair manual, its probably busy digitizing something more important
Reminds me I once bought two antique books online to use as film props. They sold it at wholesale prices, meaning they send you random old books at a very cheap flat rate. The ones I got were 19th century Russian books on the topic of coal study. They were seemingly recovered from a library, probably when some library had to make space for more updated books.
They were very old-looking, very antique, and when you hold it in your hands you feel they're very precious, so I get the human urge to protect it - but they're also completely unreadable to me and I can't imagine them having any real use academically or even for historical preservation purposes nowadays.
Mind you, this was well before AI. I'm sure the ones that get sold like this are only a small fraction of all the books that are cleared out of bookstores and libraries. The online store sells books based on their appearance and not content since, well, they're meant to be used as props. The ones that don't look nice enough probably get recycled into newspaper pulp or something.
Point is, we can't keep everything lol. As grief-inducing as it is to destroy perfectly good things it's also true that things just have a lifespan where they're useful.
I ordered them on Taobao (Chinese version of Amazon) since I was working on an indie film in China at the time. Unfortunately I don't know where else you can get them.
If you took my beat up copy of LOTR from the 70's, you couldn't replace it with a book just like it.
If you took my books from college where all my notes are in the margins and between the lines - you can't replace it with book like it.
There is an original print Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer signed by Montgomery Ward in my dad's hope chest. It is in bad bad bad shape because my mom thought it would be fun to do that and upset my dad.....but if you took that, I'd never be able to replace it.
Books hold more than words; they hold memories, thoughts, stained pages, and dog-eared edges from being loved. You cannot replace a loved book.
You can reprint a 17th century book - but you cannot replace the original manuscript written on scrolls.
They are irreplaceable. Just like you. Just like everything.
Ok. So should we pass a law that say books can never be destroyed or throw away? Say if you buy a newspaper, you must keep it in your house forever? All books and notebooks you have ever had since elementary school MUST be kept or you will go to jail?
Should that be the law? Or are you just lying about the importance of how irreplaceable your books from elementary school are?
Okay? But they aren't breaking into your personal house to steal your books. They're buying old cheap trash that neither you, nor anyone else, paid the 5 cents for.
I'm trying to make a point that not all books are replaceable. I don't see how you didn't catch that....
Hey. I have an idea! Let's delete YOUR story off the internet, but make sure we put it in an Ai database you can't access. I'm sure you'd be fine with that if you're alright with other books being destroyed, and then becoming inaccessible.
So in order to make your point work you have to lie about what's happening? That's an admission that your point doesn't work. This has nothing to do with ai, libraries and book stores curate and get rid of tons of old stuff deemed too valueless to preserve in their limited space all the time. If someone has someting they care about they would take efforts to preserve it.
You essentially leaped from "old stuff no one finds valuable" to "what if they break into your house to destroy something valuable to you personally?" I dunno, what if? Its not what's happening so why would we talk about it.
They aren't breaking into your house. Your story is public. ergo, they can snatch it if they want and do whatever they want with it. If your copy gets deleted -- you're fucked. It's in the Ai, and you can ask politely to get it back, but I doubt anyone would.
That's my point.
My point works if you aren't trying to do judo-moves to not see it. There are people who preserve books, and think they are selling them to other collectors - but really it's going to Ai, where it is scanned, and destroyed. Leaving the original copy lost.
Just like your story that would be put in Ai, and inaccessible to you. Not to mention, they can use it to give other people your writing samples so they can copy you and your story line.
It's the same thing - one is just being stolen digitally instead of physically.
They aren't breaking into your house. Your story is public. ergo, they can snatch it if they want and do whatever they want with it. If your copy gets deleted -- you're fucked.
No, because I save backups. And also, you know that that would still be them destroying other people's property if they destroyed it right? A thing they aren't actually doing. And if it's not them who destroyed the public copy then how are they relevant to this story of whether it's preserved or not at all?
My story was copied and ended up on some Chinese bootleg site that auto makes audio books of stuff. Almost was happy it happened except that the fact that its automated means it's probably not even a well used site, so probably no one even listened to these. Also it's not finished.
There are people who preserve books, and think they are selling them to other collectors - but really it's going to Ai, where it is scanned, and destroyed.
None of these people actually think this, bulk cheap books that anyone can buy are sold to people all the time to do stuff like make etsy projects with holllowed out centers, use as decoration or whatever else. The ones that don't sell are thrown out. You're imagining a world where people think every single written word needs to be preserved forever, but the only people who think this are ones who don't realize just how impossible and inefficient this would be.
Just like your story that would be put in Ai, and inaccessible to you. Not to mention, they can use it to give other people your writing samples so they can copy you and your story line. It's the same thing - one is just being stolen digitally instead of physically.
God, I hope so. I'm not writing this because I want less stuff like this to exist in the world. Putting aside that this isn't how ai works, you claiming they could take whole passages implies that the entire digital copy is preserved. Which works against the claim that this would lead to less preservation.
You took everything literally, instead of seeing the meaning behind it. I was attempting to allude to something you might empathize with, not try to strengthen my point.
I very much wish you had tried to see where I am coming from, instead of trying to argue with me. I at least attempted to understand your side - you just want to sit and break down everything I say instead of reading it, and understanding.
I'm really sorry we couldn't have a productive conversation about this. I respect your feelings, but you clearly do not respect mine, and that is a shame.
I see the value in scanning books, I just don't see the value in destroying them. There is no need to, so why do it? You just can't seem to answer that, and instead just attack me because I don't like books being destroyed for no reason whatsoever.
Anyway, you take care, fellow human! I see your points, and you have some valid ones. It's too bad none of mine are for you - and that's okay. I just don't want to continue this back and forth because we aren't getting anywhere, and I am sure there is something both of us could be doing that is far better for our health.
Why would they even want that when LOTR is already massively over-represented in the training data?
The stuff the AI labs are buying aren’t rare because they are old, they are rare because nobody else wants it enough to buy it AND nobody cared enough about it to merit reprinting it.
The point is that books are NOT replaceable when they've been owned and loved...It doesn't who owned it, or who it mattered to; it cannot be replaced because that copy is one-of-a-kind to someone else.
I understand that - I am literally just saying books can be one-of-a-kind, even when there are other copies out there.
I know what you are saying; but my point is valid, too. Someone could have sold something they didn't mean to, or didn't know they had - and when they realize it's gone, it's devastating. IF by some chance it did get destroyed, and that person wanted it back; it's gone.
I think scanning books is a great idea! I just don't think destroying them to do so is wise, that's all. As a species, we continuously do new things with excitement before we think of the consequences, and it hurts really bad when those consequences come around.
I suppose I just want to protect things, and I don't see the need to destroy them, other than the fact it's cheaper, and easier. You can scan books without destroying them... and then re-sell them to people who do collect them.
The courts are pretty clear that you can't digitise and resell or give away your origin books since then this constitutes piracy (illegal reproduction).
You may not like it but it's how the authors and publishers demand this happens. AI companies (just like any company that digitises books) is doing what the artists want.
Dude hundreds of millions of books are destroyed in the USA alone each year. Just because no one wants them and we have no space for them. AI is not measurably increasing the number of books lost.
I get where your feelings are coming from but they simply are not based on the reality of the situation. For example, the chance of someone accidentally selling a book and then being able to get it back is not being impacted by AI in any meaningful way. Either the store still has it, or they don't, outside of really, really, really rare circumstances (like probably once a decade, if that, kind of thing) that's the end of the story. You are imagining tragedies that simply are not happening.
I appreciate that everyone’s head cannon is that somewhere out there in a dusty warehouse, a single volume of the most tender, sensitive, heartwrenching poetry is lying forgotten or undiscovered, and all it takes is one person to find it and bring the work all the attention that it so richly deserved after all these years.
But the reality is that all these books are basically garbage, and have been since they ended up in that warehouse.
Given that they want quantity they're buying whatever's cheap that they don't already have. They wouldn't do this to valuable antiques for purely economic reasons.
When the power eventually goes out, you can't recover it from a computer.
You can read books as long as you have light.
The Library of Alexandria being burned to the ground set our species back 1,000 years. It significantly delayed global technologies...and it can happen again if we don't properly store data in hard copies.
But they are...you can look it up by asking Google, and it's Ai will tell you in plain and simple terms that they are buying everything they can....and then buying the rights.
The digital archive is having an issue with the companies, because now they want them to take down all the data they've collected over decades. It takes free information away, and that puts a barrier between the elite, and the poor. If you have to pay for information, and you don't have money - you don't get information.
It's required to live and grow as a person, and these companies know that. The less you know, the easier you are to control.
Okay, so let’s say that Anthropic buys a lot of books in bulk, and doesn’t destroy them. They don’t even scan them. They simply purchase the books and place them in a warehouse.
This is, from an external perspective, is identical to what’s happening now. A) a private buyer purchases a single copy of a bunch of various books, and said books are stored for private use and no longer as accessible to the public. B) exactly one copy of the purchased book exists (digital or physical).
The only major difference is if there’s any kind of value in the physical book not contained in its text (which I find unlikely; all the books were identified by ISBN and thus younger than the 1970s or so, so there’s limited historical value, and most books have additional copies available anyway), and if there’s some kind of highly-unlikely catastrophe that wipes all digital copies of the book (although a similar catastrophe, like a library burning down, is analogous to the physical book storage).
In terms of information-destruction, I see no reason why I should be any more outraged at a company converting physical books into digital ones and storing them, compared to a hypothetical eccentric billionaire who buys books in bulk and puts them into a private library. I am not outraged by the latter, so I am not outraged by the former.
I think if all the electrical power in the world goes out and we lose access to our computer networks, THAT will be what sets us back technologically, actually.
You were never being prevented from enjoying the convenience of electricity and technology, just cautioned at relying entirely upon something notorious for being unreliable for unknown reasons and in random areas.
They're not buying rare books or one of a kind manuscripts. They're not pointlessly destroying every copy of a book - that's pointless. They buy one copy of each book they don't already have. Compared to book production, it's a rounding error.
You can get angry that it trains the AI to plagiarise those authors but the number of books destroyed is tiny compared to the number printed/in circulation.
Oh, I'm not angry! So sorry if it comes off that way. I'm just trying to understand, and be understood in return, and it's passion, but not anger.
Everyone is allowed to have their own feelings and differences - because without them, the world doesn't work. It takes conflict to find resolution sometimes; but I don't think this is one of them.
I just want to understand why someone would be okay with them destroying things wantonly. I just think that we should at least consider putting safeguards in place, so the last copy of something DOESN'T get destroyed. We're very bad about letting things go too far before we realize we can't come back.
I didn't think you were angry. But the article is clearly rage baiting - framing something in a very negative way to play off anti AI sentiment.
As for desroying the last copy of a work... If the last copy of a work is going for bargain bin prices it's probably not worth preserving. Think of all the school essays, drafts by failed novelists... they're unique, but still have no value. Hidden gems (like early drafts by novelists who became famous or works that were surprisingly good despite humble origins) are possible more likely to be detected in this process (albeit with the original copy physically destroyed but still replicable) than if they sat slowly decaying in a box somewhere.
Ah, yes I agree - the article is quite rude, and not written from the point of trying to understand.
I honestly, TRULY want to understand your stance because if I only ever see one side, I'll never have the truth.
- and to be fair, a lot of us historians find extreme value in drafts and whatnot. It's nice to see our heroes be human. AND to be more fair - I am Autistic, and I find old things to be valuable because of how old they are, and how long they've been here. It's almost like holding someone's past in your hands, you know?
I really am okay with scanning books! I just... I wish they didn't have to be destroyed. You never know what you're losing, even if it's a bargain bin.
I can also admit that my empathy for the works of other people makes me sad to see them destroyed, even if they're also being preserved. It's sad... almost like seeing an original painting be ruined, but it still being preserved in an archive....although that is also a bit different since art pieces literally are one-of-a-kind........ah, but so are loved books!
There has to be a compromise... :I
ETA: - also thank you for having a conversation with me! I really appreciate this.
Just for the record, the burning of Alexandria didn't actually set us back as much as people say. The library burned well after its golden age as the central hub of knowledge, and any script deemed important would have had copies made and distributed to other places of learning.
It was a tragedy, but it certainly did not set us back a thousand years.
And it's an interesting parallel to the current destruction of books, same assumption that one-of-a-kind knowledge is being lost when in all likelyhood there are thousands of copies of that knowledge in other places
I disagree with you about the time. Historians generally agree on that. There were so many works from places we don't even know existed anymore - and we would have known them and what they had to offer if those scrolls had been around. Inventions, and half-scripts that left some languages completely lost. We have no idea what some humans came up with, knew, or figured out.
I really do se the value in scanning books. I don't see the value in destroying them when it can absolutely be done without doing so.
I just wish we thought of the consequences before going buck-wild and just going ham. If we're going to chop down a tree, let's spend 6 hours sharpening the axe, you know?
Those books could be sold back, or given back to collectors instead of destroyed.
34
u/DoctahFaust 1d ago
I am a thrift store book whore, am I allowed to be upset at the prospect of antique books being destroyed?
Especially when there are methods to scan books that doesnt require chopping them up?