Thread

1. jacquesm · 1789726316 · focus · HN ↗

   It's the robbery of all of our culture to sell it back to us at a mark-up. Crimes this large are crimes against humanity. So many people whose life's work got appropriated without consideration, compensation or consent it is baffling.

   It is said that at the heart of every great fortune there is a great crime, so it should be no surprise that the most valuable companies on the planet will most likely result from this crime. And given that justice can be bought by those with the most money you can forget about anything coming of this.

   1. TeMPOraL · 1789734845 · focus · HN ↗

      > It's the robbery of all of our culture to sell it back to us at a mark-up.

      Except, of course, no one has actually been robbed, the culture has not been stolen - it's still there - nor are the people involved selling it back in any form. This rhetoric sounds impressive, but really looks more like "piracy is theft" line from early 2000s, similarly flawed in basic premise.

      Whether the end result threatens the form in which culture is created, at least beyond just threatening the business models of the gatekeepers, is a separate discussion, but you can't draw the heart-string-pulling "life's work got appropriated" arguments there so easily.

      And let's not forget what we got back for this: reified intelligence on a chip almost too cheap to meter, available to everyone across the world - not just rich West, inference is so dirt cheap that whole world uses it. It exploded in popularity organically, because of how many real problems of real people, including individuals and non-profits, it addresses.

      There's plenty to hate about how AI is transforming the world, but one thing it's not, is "robbery of all of our culture to sell it back to us at a mark-up".

      1. MattDaEskimo · 1789737692 · focus · HN ↗

         If we ignore the massive amount of books being destroyed, the outages and increased usage bills for once free websites (some resulting in closure), the increased difficulty to access public information such as Reddit and Twitter, and lastly ignore the amount of conversations being taken away from the public in favor of LLMs, I would agree.

         1. ch4s3 · 1789738359 · focus · HN ↗

            Your talking about a bunch of books that are out of print and sat unsold for years in a warehouse somewhere. The rights holders could print another run tomorrow if they wanted, or better yet digitize them but they don’t. Where’s your ire for the rights holders who sit on these books and don’t do anything with the ?

            1. lkjdsklf · 1789738964 · focus · HN ↗

               > Where’s your ire for the rights holders who sit on these books and don’t do anything with the ?

               Why would I have ire towards someone for doing what they want with their IP?

               I make things that I don't release or show to anyone all the time. Why would I expect others to be any different?

            2. shimman · 1789740564 · focus · HN ↗

               "Yes we are destroying books but it's your fault!"

               Can't believe this is the brain trust of the tech world. It really speaks on how poor SF + VC are at US politics.

               1. [deleted] · 1789741512 · focus · HN ↗

                  [deleted]

               2. BeetleB · 1789743347 · focus · HN ↗

                  They legally bought the books they are destroying.

                  I have every right to burn all the books I possess. And so should they.

                  1. shimman · 1789743876 · focus · HN ↗

                     "Shut up, we have the right to destroy cultural artifacts because we have money."

                     lol this is even stupider than the previous comment. Yeah golly gee, I wonder why the majority of the American electorate distrust tech companies, tech leaders, and tech workers?

                     Y'all need to do some mutual aid and get your humanity back.

                     1. BeetleB · 1789750629 · focus · HN ↗

                        They have no more right to destroy cultural artifacts than you do. It's a red herring, as no one has demonstrated a single loss of a cultural artifact. What was destroyed, that satisfies:

                        1. You cannot obtain elsewhere

                        2. That anyone cares about

                        Destroying a copy of a Harry Potter is not a loss of a cultural artifact if I can still buy the book at a store.

                        Go ahead and start a campaign: For all who are upset by this, list your physical address, and tell everyone to mail their unwanted books to those on the list instead of destroying them.

                        The catch is the recipients are not allowed to destroy them. Then we'll see how much those complaining value culture.

                  2. GuinansEyebrows · 1789743889 · focus · HN ↗

                     the argument of some hypothetical "right to burn all the books i possess" is not really the topic of discussion here. it's not a "can" argument, it's a "should" argument.

                     1. BeetleB · 1789750342 · focus · HN ↗

                        > it's not a "can" argument, it's a "should" argument.

                        When you take a pitchfork against all the libraries out there who either refuse donations, or destroy the donated books, then we'll talk.

                        As plenty of people have pointed out, no one has shown that anything of value has really been lost. Either the works are still available for you to obtain (i.e. they didn't destroy the last version), or they are things no one wanted.

                  3. prophesi · 1789751077 · focus · HN ↗

                     Someone needs to write an updated version of Fahrenheit 451, maybe titled Fahrenheit-451GB-A32.

                     1. BeetleB · 1789751169 · focus · HN ↗

                        The version where it's legal to own books...?

                        1. prophesi · 1789752297 · focus · HN ↗

                           I'm thinking more of a future where big tech successfully moves the overton window for AI, people gradually rely on getting information from LLM's more than books, then it can follow the regular plotline of 451 with the public voting to ban books.
               3. ch4s3 · 1789763032 · focus · HN ↗

                  It’s their fault they don’t print more of them pr digitize them, yes. The fact is though, most of these books weren’t selling and no one wanted them.
            3. MattDaEskimo · 1789746002 · focus · HN ↗

               It's the collective action of losing access to information that's the issue, not the potential of the book itself.

               Regardless, these books were available. Researchers, hobbyists - many people have and will find value.

               Justifying the destruction of information for a for-profit company is bizarre.

               1. rpdillon · 1789746943 · focus · HN ↗

                  Destruction of books is normal and totally OK. Publishing houses do it daily in the thousands. When you own something, you can choose how to dispose of it. Come back when you title of actual valuable rare books that were bought and destroyed. The 404 article was not well researched in this regard.

                  The emotional reaction we're conditioned to have harkens back to 1940s Germany, where the goal was to have people burn all the copies of existing works. But this is not that. They are going for "one of each book" so they have a comprehensive corpus of works to train from. They are willing to buy books to obtain this corpus. It sounds like the system working exactly as intended, with even the book sellers selling these books saying they are "dead inventory".

                  There's a time to be breathless about "destroying all of humanity's knowledge", but let's wait until it's actually happening.

                  Again, I'm am very anxious for anyone to come forward with credible information about any valuable/rare/irreplaceable book that was destroyed in this process. So far zero people have been able to do this, probably because they are buying the books in bulk and want to obtain them as cheaply as possible. Book sellers will know the value of an actually rare/valuable books, and would charge accordingly, which would be pointless for e.g. Amazon to pay. They don't need some crazy first edition, they just need some copy to digitize. The incentives just don't add up to "Amazon is buying priceless art and burning it!" the way the narrative suggests.

               2. ch4s3 · 1789771441 · focus · HN ↗

                  The publishers and rights holders still have the text, and the books themselves weren’t being accessed just sitting in a warehouse. This is a trivial problem to solve, digitize them.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.