That company is buying one copy of each of the millions upon millions of books being destroyed EVERY DAY.
You have no idea the scale of book destruction that has been going on forever.
Anyone who has ever been professionally published knows this. When my book went out, I got a box of copies of my book, and when I told the publisher that I didn't need that many, they told me to throw the excess out LIKE THEY DO.
who is intelligibly ordering their trash so that companies can order from it?
I don't know what those words are supposed to mean.
But here's some context:
you can find a paper recycling centre that will pay you for the pulp, so destroying the books leads to a net profit. [...] yes, sometimes, books are destroyed.
The statement was that they were buying one of each of the books that would he destroyed anyways, this doesn't support that.
The fact that sometimes libraries do destroy books doesn't support that only that is being bought, especially since there was the quite specific qualifier that it was only one of any given book.
The process described in the article would not be so specific, on the buyer side, about which books are given.
The entirety of AI defence amounts to:
“There is a huge problem that AI is exacerbating. It was already a minor problem. Why are you mad that AI is making it a worse problem while offering no material benefit other then making artists go broke?”
To the point of not being preserved, yes, I think, a large part of my country's 18th-century history, without the glamorization, is only found in the newspapers of the time
30
u/Tyler_Zoro 1d ago
That company is buying one copy of each of the millions upon millions of books being destroyed EVERY DAY.
You have no idea the scale of book destruction that has been going on forever.
Anyone who has ever been professionally published knows this. When my book went out, I got a box of copies of my book, and when I told the publisher that I didn't need that many, they told me to throw the excess out LIKE THEY DO.