
The information displayed in the AIM should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its member countries.
Amazon has been accused of purchasing and destructively scanning rare books to train AI systems, then destroying the physical copies. This practice, uncovered by investigative reports, has raised concerns over property destruction, cultural heritage loss, and potential copyright violations linked to AI development.[AI generated]
Why's our monitor labelling this an incident or hazard?
The article explicitly links AI companies' use of physical books for training large language models, involving destructive scanning that results in the destruction of books. This practice has led to major copyright infringement lawsuits and settlements, indicating realized harm to intellectual property rights. The destruction of books also harms property and cultural heritage. The AI system's development and use are central to these harms, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. The event is not merely a potential risk but an ongoing harm, and thus it is not an AI Hazard or Complementary Information. It is not unrelated or a beneficial use, as the AI system is the source of harm rather than a countermeasure.[AI generated]