>If they are truly rare, then they are likely not valuable,

Sometimes I don't even know how to respond to comments here. I don't want to be rude, but you just have to give this a moment of thought. Is all the media that you find valuable common? I know that's not the case for me based on my own experience.

So these books are not worth anything because they have so few copies but they are still worth including in only their models? Seems a bit contradictory

They may have been made scarce by many methods, perhaps a low print run; court rulings; burning in a revolution to suppress dissenting views; scanning to avoid competitors to get the content and prevent other LLMs to reference, search, or train on it. Perhaps it's a particular edition that is rare (e.g., the first edition had a different description and was thoroughly changed in the second edition of the book, which may be important to have all the facts from someone's biography).

Good point, why waste time deciphering old badly burnt scrolls when anything worthwhile should have been preserved.

You're confusing the worth of the book and its content. A book can be valuable (ie a rare bible print), whereas its content is not (we have all the bible variants copied).

That's what state libraries are for, although I understand that sometimes is hard to wrap around the concept of using public money for something different than producing money.

What you personally find important is not what everyone else finds important or inspiring. Destroying something takes it away from every single future human being.

> If they are truly rare, then they are likely not valuable

"likely" being the keyword here, what about heavily censored books?

Nobody's said it in this thread so I'll drop it here where you ask "Why save physical books?"—

The problem isn't with morals or copyright. What we're up in arms about is case law. Past rulings have implied that destruction of books significantly contributes to the process being "transformative". This encourages companies to destroy the books. I think this is really dumb.

Why save physical books? It's because the reason to destroy them isn't good. If you think there's too many bad books out there, that's a different argument. Maybe your fight is against consumerism, I don't know.

Massively missing the point. Having paper books isn't the point. Preserving copies of books is the point, so history isn't lost. Often those books only exist as paper copies due to their age. I don't really care what happens to the paper copies, only that their content is preserved in a way that is accessible. Anthropic's private servers aren't it.

> If they are truly rare, then they are likely not valuable, otherwise there would be more copies or their contents could be found elsewhere.

That's what I keep saying about the van Goghs I burn to heat my home but everyone is still mad at me!

I ask "more clean air", you answer "why, did you deserve it, having clean air is not free, there's a real cost" Somebody else asks "We need more accessible energy", you answer "why we bother with your needs, you're not efficient, energy belongs to more efficient purposes, you can live without that much energy". I can continue with more, but hope you got another viewpoint. Btw, I'm disgusted there are "humans" like you in existence. We definitely don't share the same cultural ancestry, and I hope ours will prevail at the end, rather than cold blooded, mechanical "brains" like those of your kind.

> If they are truly rare, then they are likely not valuable, otherwise there would be more copies or their contents could be found elsewhere.

The Gutenberg bible is rare, its content is not rare, and some would argue that the content itself is not valuable, and yet the Gutenberg bible is valuable.

Same can be said about many books.

I agree with you for the same reason I think McDonald's is the best restaurant in the world!