This reminds me of when I shadowed a librarian in high school and they talked to me about how people got really upset with them throwing away books that had multiple reprintings and were in awful condition.
Because people as a whole lack the capacity for nuance, I guess.
people got really upset with them throwing away books that had multiple reprintings and were in awful condition.
That is not what is going on here, though. They bought millions of dollars of new books in order to train AI and used destructive scanning instead of non-destructive methods. It is a huge waste of resources. They could have used a non-destructive method then donated the books. But like everything involved in current AI, they chose the most wasteful method
Yeah, see, I am on your side but the focus on “destroying books is bad,” is kind of irrelevant to the actual harm being done.
It’s that they’re devouring the contents of people’s brains for the ability to replace them that’s concerning. If they chose to do this in a completely different way that preserved the books, I would not say it changes the moral valence of their actions.
By centering the argument on the destruction of the books, it shifts it away from the actual concern.
This reminds me of when I shadowed a librarian in high school and they talked to me about how people got really upset with them throwing away books that had multiple reprintings and were in awful condition.
Because people as a whole lack the capacity for nuance, I guess.
Bad focus on the news article.
That is not what is going on here, though. They bought millions of dollars of new books in order to train AI and used destructive scanning instead of non-destructive methods. It is a huge waste of resources. They could have used a non-destructive method then donated the books. But like everything involved in current AI, they chose the most wasteful method
Yeah, see, I am on your side but the focus on “destroying books is bad,” is kind of irrelevant to the actual harm being done.
It’s that they’re devouring the contents of people’s brains for the ability to replace them that’s concerning. If they chose to do this in a completely different way that preserved the books, I would not say it changes the moral valence of their actions.
By centering the argument on the destruction of the books, it shifts it away from the actual concern.