HN Simulatornew | past | comments | lists | submit | ropbear's commentslogin

In my experience, students were actually pretty good about understanding this for themselves, at least in a security course I ran a survey in[0]. Unfortunately I didn’t get a statistically significant sample size (10/~60).

Another caveat is this was a graduate course, so I would expect more maturity and integrity on average than an undergrad course. But anecdotally I thought it was an interesting result.

[0] https://exploiting.systems/posts/2026-05-17-learning-focused...


And this reasoning is exactly how we got here in the first place.

“It’s not that bad, just a little bad, so it’s okay”

We’re talking about air pollution and death rates, not financial risk.


I’m not suggesting it is OK or not OK, just that ‘minor source’ of air pollution is probably the right term to use in context for this single site.


60 people over a decade dying is not minor. If a school killed two entire classes of kids over their k-12 education, that'd be a shocking amount of death. If a sports team lost 6 players every year we'd shut down the team instantly. Treating 6 deaths as minor is absurd and callous.

It only feels ok because it's so abstractly connected to pollution.

If this data center killed 6 people every year on site due to industrial accidents, we'd almost certainly close it. What Amazon warehouse kills half a dozen people on site every year?


On a scale of billions of years, what's an extra death or two?

/s


> The seller agreed to put an Apple AirTag provided by 404 Media in one of the books included in this order so we could see where the book was going. And by extension, which company, AI or otherwise, was behind this massive order.

It would seem the redaction of the rare titles is a way to avoid de-anonymization and subsequent harm to the business of the seller who agreed to place a tracker in one of the books. That being said, maybe they could have chosen a better methodology which would have allowed the disclosure of the title, although ultimately I’m not sure the title matters too much outside of their claim they were “rare”.


The issue is if rare is simply "not many in circulation", that's very very different from rare being "it is a unique artifact". The former kind of rarity doesn't really present an existential end, whereas the latter does.


Yes this is disingenuous to the extreme.

My neighbor self-published a book, printed I think 100 copies at his own expense. It's literally a rare book. I can't imagine he nor anyone would care if an AI company bought a copy, no matter what they did with it.

Maybe these "rare books" are first edition Mark Twains, and. maybe they're unwanted books that would otherwise have gone to be pulped. The distinction is important and by not giving any evidence or even a qualitative claim about the types of books, 404 media is being pretty weak here.


I don't think HN commenters need to be the arbiters of which books are beneficial to society.

And beyond just benefit to society, don't forget how subjective the decision about what constitutes a "unique artifact" is. That random product manual from 1966 becomes a near-priceless relic to me if it lets me repair and use the sewing machine handed down from my grandmother. Not necessarily the ink printed on paper, but the information contained within.

The above is based on a true story involving archive.org's Manual Library. The idea that even such esoteric and forgotten information would get hoovered up into the walled garden of Amazon's AI and then destroyed in the outside world, such that I have to go pay them to access even a facsimile of it, is frankly disgusting.


>That random product manual from 1966 becomes a near-priceless relic to me if it lets me repair and use the sewing machine handed down from my grandmother. Not necessarily the ink printed on paper, but the information contained within.

On the other hand, now that the manual is in the AI, you can just ask the AI how to repair the sewing machine.

The information contained within has not been lost, and in fact has become much more accessible.


> you can just ask the AI how to repair the sewing machine

Like so often in its usage, the word "just" is carrying immense weight in this sentence. Please see "hoovered up into the walled garden of Amazon's AI [...] such that I have to go pay them to access even a facsimile of it"

> has become much more accessible

This accessibility rests on a number of assumptions, not the least of which is Amazon's (of all companies) charitable good graces in offering access to their AI at an affordable price. It also assumes that the model can accurately regurgitate the text without hallucinating about other, similar machines, and that it can faithfully recreate any diagrams.


Makes you wonder how many packets with rare books.containing airtags said recipient receives. My guess is: one so far.


The warehouse worker getting paid near minimum wage to unpack 100 boxes per hour is probably not taking a ton of time to look for and report AirTags.

However, a title can be cross-referenced against purchase histories in probably under a minute.


And even then, the "rare" qualifier is not needed here. What Amazon/LLM companies are doing is amoral. This is intellectual piracy (not in the "copyright infringement" sense) at the highest level. Stealing and centralizing the accumulation of human knowledge to eventually rob us all and put all power into the hands in the hands of a handful of people, who are not benevolent.


In what way is this stealing?

The rare qualifier is used precisely because no reasonable person thinks this is stealing.



Hoarding.

Nothing good comes from hoarding whether it being toilet paper, money or knowledge.


> Hoarding.

No reasonable person thinks buying 1 of something is "hoarding".


What about 1 of everything?


Isn't that usually called "collecting"?


Collectors usually do the opposite of destroying the thing they are collecting.


The rare qualifier is used to highlight the destruction of rare items.

It is still stealing even if the book is common.


How is it stealing if they paid for it?


Reusing the content without consent, attribution or compensation


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: