this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2026
513 points (95.4% liked)

Technology

80800 readers
3254 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In the filings, Anthropic states, as reported by the Washington Post: “Project Panama is our effort to destructively scan all the books in the world. We don’t want it to be known that we are working on this.”

https://archive.ph/HiESW

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 29 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Honestly, having ALL media available in digital format, free for everyday people to use, should be a thing. Anthropic, however, ain't that.

My money is on Anna's Archive or a descendant being a preserver of civilization.

Unfortunately, copyright is purposefully designed so that most works going into the public domain are irrelevant by then and nobody's willing to convert them.

[–] aurelar@lemmy.ml 58 points 3 days ago (6 children)

The fact that they destroyed the books is the most reprehensible thing to me. They could have resold or donated those books to libraries. Instead, they chose the ugliest and most wasteful thing they could possibly do. Despicable.

[–] brognak@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

99.99999% of the time libraries don't want donated books. Honestly don't know if they ever want them (outside of genuinely rare/interesting ones, and even then). Their collections are usually meticulously curated and are basically the children of whomever is currently responsible for them. Libraries throw away books at a prodigious rate as they wear, or their circulation numbers drop, or because they just run out of space.

Honestly I have no real issue with people destroying (most) books. It's 2026 we have access to printers and presses, we can literally make more books on demand, and again for the V A S T majority of books that's more than good enough (again, not counting anything rare/valuable/interesting but also at that point they kinda cease to become just "books" as the value is more tied than the object itself than the text within)

What I have a massive issue with is them hoarding this information, and/or very, VERY, likely breaking any licensing the book may be under. And on top of that seemingly doing a fucking horrible job at actually creating something worthwhile from this massive waste of man-hours and resources.

[–] bearboiblake@pawb.social 2 points 2 days ago

To be fair, destructive scanning isn't like they destroy it for no reason - to scan a book quickly you need to remove all of the leaves from the binding (this operation is usually irreversible) and feed them into an automatic document feeder scanner. If you need high quality scans of a physical book it's really the only way to go.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] sturger@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

The Bookseller.com makes it hard for me to empathize when I need to “Register to read for free”.

I’m tired of having to surrender my time, effort and personal information to read someone else’s propagandas. If you want me to read your propaganda, you can at least pay for it.

[–] melfie@lemy.lol 10 points 2 days ago

Well, at least now there is a LLM that can hallucinate based on the contents of all those books.

[–] Wispy2891@lemmy.world 78 points 4 days ago (2 children)

It's not secret, it was their defence when they got sued for copyright infringement. Instead of download all the books from Anna's archive like meta, they buy a copy, cut the binding, scan it, then destroy it. "We bought a copy for personal use then use the content for profit, it's not piracy"

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 22 points 3 days ago (4 children)

we bought a copy for personao use, then use the content for profit, it's not privacy

So if I buy a song for personal use, then play that song all day in my club to thousands of people, it's not piracy, is what you're saying?

Because anthropic is full of shit and some weird ass mental gymnastics doesn't change anything

After this debacle, nobody can ever again shame me for piracy, let alone punish me for it

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

C'mon now. You're not nearly rich or influential enough to get away with that and you know it. Rules are for regular people, not the rich or mighty. Sheesh.

/s

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago

Oh I know, but that why I'm getting more and more "Fuck the rules, fuck your laws, until they're the same for everybody"

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 31 points 4 days ago (29 children)

“We bought a copy for personal use then use the content for profit, it’s not piracy”

That is an accurate view of how the court cases have ruled.

Downloading books without paying is illegal copyright infringement.

Using the data from the books to train an AI model is 'sufficiently transformative' and so falls under fair use exemptions for copyright protections.

load more comments (29 replies)
[–] mattyroses@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago

Anyone else ever read Rainbow's End? Cause this is in that.

[–] bus_factor@lemmy.world 116 points 4 days ago (4 children)

I assume "destructively scan" means to cut the spine off so they lie flat, and that one copy of each book will be scanned? Isn't that a pretty normal way of doing it in cases where the prints aren't rare?

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 26 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Probably, yes. I think there's a copyright reason behind destroying the book?

[–] T156@lemmy.world 30 points 4 days ago

Not copyright, as much as if the book isn't precious, it's easier to do that, feed the loose pages into the scanner, and then get an intact one if you want it, compared to the additional expense of having to build and program a machine to carefully turn the pages and photograph what's inside, or the time it would need by comparison.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 81 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Is this an opportunity to self-publish my own book for $100k per copy and be guaranteed one sale?

[–] Thorry@feddit.org 86 points 4 days ago (1 children)

No they will simply steal it, like they usually do.

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 12 points 4 days ago

How about 5000 $200 books written by their own AI (preferably for free, cheapest printing in existence) ?

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 22 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Just don't write it in any OS that backs up your stuff to their cloud...you know...for safe keeping...

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 55 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Article is not available without registering. As for the title, "destructive" book scanning means you cut off the binding and put the pages in a scanner which easily flips through them and takes the pictures. If you're not scanning rare old books, this is a perfectly reasonable way to do it, because setting up a scanner for a normal book and manually turning each page to scan it takes a long time (Internet Archive has videos on how they do it, very nice and impressive, and logical since their original mission was scanning old public domain stuff, i.e. published before 1930 or so). If Anthropic will actually legally buy all those thousands upon thousands of books, that will be a pleasant precedent for an AI company.

Although I very much doubt that random uncritically gathered textual material can "teach their AI tool how to write well". They're still pushing for more and more training data, even though it's clear actual advancement will have to happen (if it can happen) through more refined usage of / training on the data.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works 23 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

People who are okay with this are absolutely disgusting. Some shitty AI company wastes a fuckton of our collective resources resources to build and run their AI data centers, and if that wasn't bad enough they generate a fuckton of unnecessary waste to train the goddamn thing. Fuck capitalism.

[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 days ago

They make everything more expensive. Power, water, ram, storage, and now the used book market will shoot up in cost as millions of books are shredded.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Stefan_S_from_H@piefed.zip 28 points 4 days ago (2 children)
[–] 667@lemmy.radio 21 points 4 days ago (9 children)

Write a book where the spine is a required piece of the story for its understanding or completion.

Kind of like how House of Leaves is best enjoyed with the actual book.

[–] setsubyou@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago (4 children)

I read one once where being able to slightly see through the pages was a key part of the plot

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] GuyIncognito@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 days ago

When Kojima scans feet, he does not destroy them.

[–] Teal@lemmy.zip 7 points 3 days ago (4 children)

AI is not my thing. I don't really appreciate these companies scanning everything under the sun, but this is a case where Google did it better. They used a custom scanner that didn't require books to be destroyed in order to scan.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] SculptusPoe@lemmy.world 23 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (4 children)

When a bookstore goes out of business or just can't sell a book, they don't return it to the printers, they tear off the cover, return that and by law have to throw the rest of the book in the trash and destroy it. So books are already destroyed by the millions. When I was a kid our hometown bookstore went out of business and I watched them throw away 2 metal dumpsters full of coverless books. If they were destroying ancient texts or valuable copies, that would be more something to get excited about. I doubt that they were doing that though.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 19 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Yeah that's exactly it. James Patterson, for example, has written dozens of books, and there are billions of his books alone. They're taking one of each, cutting off the binding, and scanning the pages. This is standard procedure for common books.

So why don't they want people knowing about it? Because a lot of people are anti-AI and will run misleading stories like this.

I'm as anti-AI as the next guy, but unlike other companies scraping all of reddit and stealing art off the Internet, these guys are doing it mostly properly by paying for the books. They still don't have a license to use the material in this manner, though.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works 12 points 4 days ago (11 children)

That much was absolutely is something to get worked up about. Just because it happens more than people realize, that doesn't make it okay.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Reminder, this includes "Morning Glory Milking Farm" and similar books.

I'm sure that will destroy any intelligence.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] leriotdelac@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago

Their world is mostly America, so I'm very skeptical about the claim.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago

All of this, so some hustlebro can make his own AI slop blog polluting the internet, so instead of the actual information, you get an AI hallucinated one from googling.

load more comments
view more: next ›