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. 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. 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.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.