AI Companies Are Buying Rare Books, Scanning Them for Training Data, Then Shredding Them
Multiple AI companies are buying rare books, scanning them for training data, then shredding the originals — including irreplaceable texts.
According to The Next Web, new research has uncovered a troubling paradox at the heart of AI-assisted decision-making: using AI advice made people three times less accurate while simultaneously doubling their confidence in their answers.
The study suggests AI tools are actively suppressing critical thinking rather than augmenting it. Participants who relied on AI guidance ended up substantially more wrong than those working independently — yet walked away feeling significantly more certain they were right. It is a specific kind of harm that doesn't show up in capability benchmarks or user satisfaction scores.
The implications extend well beyond consumer UX. In medicine, law, engineering, or finance — any domain where an expert's judgment carries real weight — overconfident-but-wrong AI-assisted decisions are a compounding liability. The research frames this not as a bug to be patched but as a fundamental challenge for how AI gets integrated into professional workflows where being wrong with certainty is worse than being wrong with doubt.
All comments are reviewed before appearing. Keep it respectful.
Multiple AI companies are buying rare books, scanning them for training data, then shredding the originals — including irreplaceable texts.
Adam Mosseri says Instagram no longer requires engineers to code 40–60% of the time and has scrapped the traditional technical interview loop.
Sam Altman says AI won't shorten the workweek because humans enjoy staying busy and will just create more work to fill the time.