frontpage.
newsnewestaskshowjobs

Open Source @Github

fp.

Can we see AI's contributions directly in the economy yet? and by how much

https://www.echohive.ai/ai-economy-hidden-productivity
1•echohive42•49s ago•1 comments

The more you buy, the more you lose

https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-more-you-buy-the-more-you-lose/
1•lelanthran•1m ago•0 comments

Technology Radar: An opinionated guide to today's technology landscape

https://www.thoughtworks.com/radar
1•hakkikonu•3m ago•0 comments

Growing a language by Guy Steele [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ahvzDzKdB0
1•azhenley•4m ago•0 comments

Task Manager on the Mac

https://twitter.com/davepl1968/status/2082189145871679587
1•janandonly•5m ago•1 comments

Kafka-UI – Open-Source Web UI for Managing Apache Kafka Clusters

https://github.com/kafbat/kafka-ui
1•hakkikonu•5m ago•0 comments

Predictive Speculative KV Replication for Bursty LLM Inference

https://jwlabs.vercel.app/post/biting-the-bullet
1•shreybirmiwal•6m ago•0 comments

Specializing Speculative Decoding to increase drafter accuracy

https://jwlabs.vercel.app/post/specialization-is-all-speculation-needs
1•shreybirmiwal•6m ago•0 comments

Pygame Tutorial for Beginners: Game Loop, Screen Window, & FPS Explained – No AI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0IjXbKQfNc
1•shriekdj•7m ago•0 comments

Sqlite.ai Pricing

https://www.sqlite.ai/pricing
1•peter_d_sherman•9m ago•1 comments

Show HN: Claude MIDI Twister – An agent visualizer for a DJ MIDI controller

https://www.dylanfisher.com/claude-midi-twister/
1•dylanfisher•10m ago•0 comments

Ask HN: What do you want in a font for programming?

1•_century•11m ago•0 comments

The Nudge Unit (UK Internal Propaganda Operations)

https://www.pimlicojournal.co.uk/p/inside-the-nudge-unit
2•barry-cotter•11m ago•0 comments

Show HN: A bookshelf you can share as a link

https://digitalshelf.me/cip
1•ciprian0•14m ago•0 comments

Typistify: A cross-platform, offline-first Typst editor

https://github.com/typstify/typstify
1•oogali•16m ago•0 comments

Show HN: GG Translator – Turn in-game flaming into friendly language

https://ggtranslator.com/
1•mcadenhe•17m ago•1 comments

Show HN: Reading Pacer – A "Struggle Detector" for kids learning to read

https://readingpacer.com/
1•ataturkle•18m ago•0 comments

OpenAI serves more than one billion active users

https://openai.com/index/building-abundant-intelligence/
4•hallvard•19m ago•2 comments

Best free Text to Speech at the time

https://neuronai.uz/en/tts/
1•yutabek•19m ago•0 comments

How to Confuse Some SSH Bots

https://nochan.net/b/Internet-Crap/20260108-Confuse-Some-SSH-Bots/
1•Bender•22m ago•0 comments

Ask HN: What's your monthly personal AI budget?

2•thatgloomyguy•23m ago•2 comments

Designing Icons

https://m3.material.io/styles/icons/designing-icons
1•Cider9986•23m ago•0 comments

QM: A multiplayer agent harness for work. In Slack and on the web.

https://qm.ycombinator.com/index.html
1•taubek•23m ago•0 comments

We've moved from income world to wealth world

https://www.ft.com/content/6a35508c-c0bd-4000-81b3-7c7383fb24fd
1•julianpye•23m ago•0 comments

$0.26 DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 ties $5.01 GPT-5.6 run on Agentic Memory Benchmark

https://atmbench.github.io/leaderboard.html
1•howardme1•25m ago•0 comments

Samsung announces FDA-cleared smart ring for sleep apnea risk

https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/samsung-announces-fda-cleared-smart-ring-sleep-apnea-risk
2•brandonb•25m ago•0 comments

Lookup Tables Could Cut AI Energy Costs

https://spectrum.ieee.org/ai-energy-weightless-neural-networks
1•rbanffy•26m ago•0 comments

How Donald Trump Silenced the Voice of America

https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/how-donald-trump-silenced-the-voice-of-am...
2•firefax•27m ago•0 comments

Adam and AdamW: adaptive optimisation and weight decay

https://idlemachines.co.uk/essays/adam-adamw
1•smaddrellmander•27m ago•0 comments

F-16 thrust-vectoring nozzle now being used for an AI-piloted VTOL fighter

https://shield.ai/shield-ai-and-ge-aerospace-light-off-x-bat-engine-completing-thrust-vectoring-n...
1•r2sk5t•29m ago•0 comments
Open in hackernews

AI companies destroy rare and non recoverable physical books

https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/26422014.library-alexandria-burns-ai-companies-destroying-books-bulk/
41•DoddgyEggplant•1h ago

Comments

Terr_•37m ago
At least 80% of the anger here is misdirected, we should be blaming stupid copyright laws created over the last several decades by big-media lobbyists.

Even if the person running the scanner treated every book with utmost love, museum-level care, and holy sanctity, copyright law would still require them to shred/burn the pristine antique book at the end anyway, or else they get sued for bazillions by the modern companies that "own" the book's contents.

beering•27m ago
Is that true? I don’t remember Google Books destroying scanned books and they scanned a ton of books.
beering•21m ago
Follow up: I can’t seem to find any ruling that says you need to destroy the scanned book. Destroying the book might bolster your case in a copyright lawsuit, but the law does not require it afaict. I doubt you would lose a lawsuit simply because you put the book in a locked warehouse after scanning it.
vitorfblima•21m ago
IANAL, but I think you are allowed to copy work for non-commercial use.
pfdietz•20m ago
I don't think so. I believe teachers (for example) have gotten in trouble over this.
pbhjpbhj•17m ago
It's very dependent on jurisdiction (and if you're rich, or a big company).

In UK there's no non-commercial use exception at all.

In USA it can fall under Fair Use, commercial nature is not the sole measure though.

vitorfblima•8m ago
In my jurisdiction (Brazil) there is non-commercial use, but most people don't know about it.
jerf•16m ago
The term you want to Google on is "fair use", and be prepared for a nightmare of complexity and fuzzy borders if you want to really learn about it.

"Non-commercial" use can relate to one particular aspect of fair use, but there definitely is no blanket "you can copy work for non-commercial use" proviso in copyright law.

It fell off the front page but here's a relevant story from today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49123300

pbhjpbhj•20m ago
They broke copyright law. Too big to care, it something.

Some legislation got pushed through in some jurisdictions to allow them to claim things were "orphaned works".

dilyevsky•18m ago
yes it's true, us court has ruled destructive scanning is required to make it "fair use" (ianal, etc etc) - https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2025/06/from-bo...
pfdietz•21m ago
Even without copyright isssues Google would have been perfectly fine in destructively scanning these books.
lacker•36m ago
Personally, I end up throwing away a decent amount of books that the book donation people won't take. Especially old technical books. Textbooks from 2001. These headlines just don't tell me anything useful. "Rare" doesn't mean anything.

Please, give me one example of an interesting and unique book that the AI companies have destroyed.

ohyoutravel•34m ago
Oreilley’s 1999 classic: Learning Python.
pbhjpbhj•23m ago
They destroyed it, there's nowhere to buy it or read it for the public?

Not sure if that was a whoosh?

£5 .. don't think it's destroyed .. https://www.abebooks.co.uk/Learning-Python-Mark-Lutz-OReilly...

Legend2440•35m ago
Who says they're rare and nonrecoverable? If they're bought in bulk from used booksellers, they're probably quite common titles.

We throw away nearly a billion books every year. They're not sacred, and scanning a few million isn't a tragedy. People just don't like AI and want to be outraged about it.

qarl2•33m ago
And... at the very most... each AI company destroys ONE copy of a book.
Retr0id•32m ago
Good thing there are hardly any AI companies these days.
Legend2440•30m ago
Well, if they're bought in bulk, there's gonna be some duplicates. They probably don't know what they're buying until they start scanning.

But still, the number of duplicates will be inversely proportational to the rarity of the book. Lots of copies of James Patterson and Twilight, probably few or zero rare 16th-century manuscripts.

pixl97•25m ago
I would assume the very first step would be cataloging the author, title, and revision of the book so hundreds of thousands of hours of time are not wasted scanning duplicates.
Legend2440•20m ago
They probably still throw away the duplicates even if they don't scan them, because the wholesale value of a used paperback of the Da Vinci Code is like half a cent.
dekhn•33m ago
This is one of those articles that goes out of its way to enrage people, when the underlying reality is far simpler, more straightforward, and less nefarious.
pixl97•24m ago
I like how you get downvoted by the AI haters for a logical take.
john_strinlai•31m ago
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/06/anthropic-destroyed-milli...

ars from a month ago is a bit less emotional about it:

"The court documents don’t indicate that any rare books were destroyed in this process—Anthropic purchased its books in bulk from major retailers"

but also brings up a reasonable point that there are good ways to do this type of scanning non-destructively.

Catloafdev•25m ago
The scanning process they use is _intentionally_ destructive, not accidentally destructive.

It's not because they hate books or something. It's literally to stay in the law due to the legal rulings surrounding AI companies and copyright.

If they had the option of not destroying the books without any risk of further lawsuit, they would. They aren't like some crazy people that just want to destroy books.

dralley•23m ago
Cutting off the binding of the book to separate the pages makes them easier to scan, that's part of the reason why they do it destructively.
john_strinlai•22m ago
>The scanning process they use is _intentionally_ destructive, not accidentally destructive.

i am aware. i am saying that there are options to _intentionally_ be non-destructive.

>They aren't like some crazy people that just want to destroy books.

i didnt say or imply they were

Terr_•
HelloUsername•30m ago
Discussed on 27.jul.2026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49068738 515 comments
Aboutplants•30m ago
People underestimate the massive number of completely useless books that have been published over the centuries. Any significant historical or social contributions are not in danger of going away.
zuzululu•28m ago
headline is misleading destroy implies the work is lost but AI companies are scanning them to preserve the contents and learn from it and which we will collectively benefit and add to the GDP

it is very common to break the back bones of books for mass scanning, I use one at home, I find old books offline, usually people try to donate them to the library but i buy it from them for scanning. It's the only way to economically and fast, there's no good solution beside cutting the spine and feed them into my scanner.

pfdietz•27m ago
If books were precious physical objects of great value, why is that not reflected in their prices? Used books are usually worthless.

And if their inherent value was so great, regardless of supply or use, wouldn't we be able to churn out infinite value by just printing enormous nunbers of copies and storing them?

This absurd consequence shows the outrage here is without rational foundation. It's feelings run amok. Feels are not a good way to think, people.

qsera•19m ago
>why is that not reflected in their prices?

Because the consumers are stupid and think being "new" is worth a lot more, for some reason, when it comes to art/literature/movies. So they are willing to pay more for new stuff that could be mediocre.

I would really pay 10 times the price of some old books, but consumer demand is nearly zero because they are old, so they have gone out of print...

tgv•18m ago
If air is so valuable to you, why don't you pay premium for it? Not that it's comparable to books, but it has the same presupposition as your question.
pfdietz•17m ago
If someone had posted "OMG Google is using up air" I'd have been equally contemptuous.

I'm kind of surprised we aren't hearing that as an argument against burning fossil fuels, actually.

Legend2440•15m ago
Because air is extremely common and not scarce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value

Similarly, wholesale used books are cheap because they are extremely common and not scarce.

josefritzishere•25m ago
This is horrifying and dystopian.
pfdietz•19m ago
The only thing horrifying here is the ridiculous reaction to this perfectly acceptable procedure.
zuzululu•12m ago
yeah its strange, the "destructive scanning" method has been around for ages, you really can't compete with paper fed scanners
ChrisArchitect•24m ago
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49068738
cortesoft•14m ago
I find it interesting that no one cared if these books were destroyed before, but now they are suddenly valuable and worth preserving?

These are books that were sitting in some warehouse waiting to be destroyed until it was discovered that AI companies would buy them in bulk. Most of these books are 'rare' because no one bought them, so they didn't print many, and the ones they did print weren't sold so they sat in a warehouse.

I feel like people are imagining some rare, handwritten book transcribed by some 17th century monk. That is not what these are, they are part of the millions of published books that never get any traction, are barely sold, and then are destined to fade into obscurity as they are eventually cycled out of the warehouse and into the incinerator.

But now that AI companies want to add a 'scan them first' step before destroying them, they are suddenly precious and must be preserved?

smb06•8m ago
AI companies getting involved makes it newsworthy
qsera•14m ago
>they're probably quite common titles.

Old books could have been common back in their day, but they might not be very common today.

18m ago
> i am saying that there are options to _intentionally_ be non-destructive.

Yes, techniques exist, but they are not "reasonable" here, because for these books copyright law requires they get destroyed after the scan anyway.

The non-destructive scanning in TFA was done for different books with a different legal situation, ones that did not require destruction.

Catloafdev•17m ago
The problem is the 'options to be intentionally non-destructive' come with legal liabilities that don't exist if they destroy the original copy.
john_strinlai•10m ago
sure, i agree with that. all they content the pirated originally also came with legal liabilities.

they weighed the risk and made a decision. my comment was not calling them "crazy people" for making that decision. i thought my comment was pretty neutral.

Catloafdev•6m ago
Your comment was fine, I didn't think you were implying that at all. I was just trying to clarify that they aren't choosing to do that for arbitrary reasons.
tempestn•16m ago
But you're implying that they could use non-destructive means and choose not to.
john_strinlai•15m ago
yeah, i think they could have.

they weren't shy about pirating content before, and i think there is a decent legal argument they could have made. non-destructive scanning is also probably more expensive. so they made a business decision based on risk (and i would assume cost).

i dont think that makes them "crazy people"

basisword•17m ago
They do have the option to not destroy the books. Their hand isn’t being forced. You can choose not to be scumbags just as you can choose to use a legal loophole to rip off writers, destroy books needlessly and resell their content through your service.
Legend2440•6m ago
This benefits me personally by having the information in the books freely available through the AI, which anyone can use. I'm all for it.
qsera•11m ago
They are cheap because they are old, and people are so stupid that they think if something is old, it should be worthless.
michaelmrose•9m ago
If we value things according to their monetary value we must conclude that Elon musk is more valuable than every teacher in Americas labor for the next decade. Economic value is oft divorced entirely from any notion of real value.

What you are describing derisively as "feels" is actually nuance the very essence of intelligence is not reducing complexity to tapioca.

Destroying the last copy of a rare book reduces the sum total of human knowledge even if its not one already of note.

Historically current thinking isn't the best and most accurate judgement of value. We cherish many works that were not notable upon publication or even in the author's lifetime.

Previously the works were distributed and hard to lose all at once now they are possibly inaccurately scanned and even that slightly lossy data may disappear all at once in a wave bankruptcy especially if the economy crashes again as seems to happen every 10 to 20 years.

I suggest you ruminate instead of patting yourself on the back