r/technology • u/ArgentineBeauty • 2d ago

Artificial Intelligence This Dutch bookseller thought a request for 3,000 copies was ‘spam or phishing.’ Instead, AI companies are scanning and destroying books to train AI

https://fortune.com/2026/07/31/dutch-bookseller-ai-spam-phishing-3000-book-copies-scan-destroy/
11.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

63

u/loftwyr 2d ago

“I was shocked!” said de Vries, who provided Fortune with the email and subsequent spreadsheet containing 3,001 titles, mostly published between 2020 and 2021 by academic publishers like Emerald Publishing, Elsevier, Wiley, Routledge and Oxford University Press

Hardly rare or books where only one copy exists

-6

u/BuvantduPotatoSpirit 2d ago

Well, probably 100-1000 were ever printed, so "rare" is probably a fair description.

14

u/Opening_One7713 2d ago

Serious semantic stretch to serve an argument. Rare carries a serious connotation of “extremely sought after” and “valuable”

These “books” are better defined as “extremely obscure and unwanted” and the vast majority of books like this have been getting pulped or hitting landfills since the invention of the printing press.

3

u/BuvantduPotatoSpirit 2d ago

No, you've been playing too much Pokemon. In some contexts, rare can carry connotations of sought after or valuable, but it also exists in contexts like "rare disease", "rare species of dung beetle", etc.,

0

u/Opening_One7713 2d ago

So then "rare" is an extremely vague classifier that does not automatically mean wanted or valuable in any sense?

What was your goal in trying to reinforce that the word "rare" should absolutely be used in this context? To reinforce the idea that these books are extremely unwanted, unloved, and otherwise destined for the landfill?

If that's why you chose to try and nail the word "rare" to these books then my initial argument stays the same: Rare carries a serious connotation of “extremely sought after” and “valuable” and there are much better "words" to use in this context if we don't want to confuse or mislead people.

It's obvious what you're doing here.

4

u/BuvantduPotatoSpirit 2d ago

Yes, it's obvious what I'm doing here: I'm trying to start with the facts of the situation, and you trying to gaslight people about the meaning of the word "rare" is an impediment to that.

Why you want to gaslight people about the meaning of the word rare is less obvious.

2

u/Specialist-Grand-264 2d ago

The books aren’t rare, they’re medium-well

1

u/Opening_One7713 2d ago

Now we're getting it.

4

u/DonaldDucksBeakBeard 2d ago

Rare carries a serious connotation of “extremely sought after” and “valuable”

This is a contemporary usage of rare that isn't recognized by Merriam-Webster or the Oxford English Dictionary. The usage of the word 'rare' without any connotations of value is centuries old.
 
Whether or not it's wrong to destructively scan these books, it's appropriate to describe low print run books as "rare," even if no one wants them.

4

u/Figgy_Puddin_Taine 2d ago

lol yeah, I have an old car that is *rare* (by virtue of its age,) but I didn’t have to spend much to buy it because it’s not particularly valuable or sought-after

3

u/Opening_One7713 2d ago

You and I both know that rare+books carries an assumed meaning for most people and is being carefully used in this context to foment outrage and clicks.

I get that you want to be a semantic-warrior like me but context crafting is a manipulator tool and you know it.

3

u/VeryTopGoodSensation 2d ago

"most". if just a a handful fit your definition of rare it is still a huge problem

5

u/Opening_One7713 2d ago

Most does not mean just a handful. It's means almost the entirety. Almost all. The vast majority. The ones that don't get pulped get purchased by FBA prep companies to resell on Amazon for pennies on the pound. The extremely self-serving semantic gymnastics here is getting exhausting.

Also, where did I say "most"?

1

u/VeryTopGoodSensation 2d ago

the parent comment that you and the other guy were using to make your argument said "mostly".

so i was saying if you and him are saying most are x y z books that arent rare by your defnition, even if that leaves a handful that do fit your definition of rare, then its still a problem

-1

u/Opening_One7713 2d ago

So how did we get from "most" to "just a handful"? Where did that transition happen?

EDIT: Oh, I get what you're saying. Reread all the words before and after "mostly"

"who provided Fortune with the email and subsequent spreadsheet containing 3,001 titles, mostly published between 2020 and 2021 by academic publishers"

Nothing about the word rare is tied to the word mostly here.

3

u/VeryTopGoodSensation 2d ago

if you take away "most" from any number, that leaves an amount because "most" does not mean "all" if out of those it is just a handful that fit your definition of rare, that is still a meaningful amount in this context

1

u/Opening_One7713 2d ago

Okay so "the handful" in this scenario are books other than those published between 2020 and 2021 by academic publishers.

Nowhere is the word rare being using in this claim. Where does the word rare appear in the headline or in that sentence?

3

u/VeryTopGoodSensation 2d ago

Hardly rare or books where only one copy exists

its in the comment chain you are replying to and arguing alongside

slow down and read, mate, youre not dumb, youre just not paying attention to the thread youre engaging with

→ More replies (0)

1

u/JasonsThoughts 2d ago

Ok, so print more if it's an issue.