It is one of the most enigmatic books in the world and it was written by a schizophrenic who never left the asylum.

In 1921, a Swiss psychiatrist published a book with a title that sounded like a contradiction: one of his inmates, a mentally ill patient, was an artist. And from that oxymoron an entire discipline was founded. The man in question, Adolf Wölfli, never knew it: he had been locked up in the Waldau asylum for more than two decades when he was labeled, and he would die there without knowing that André Breton would place his work among the three or four most important of the 20th century. Who was it? Wölfli was born on February 29, 1864 near Bern and died on November 6, 1930 in the aforementioned Waldau psychiatric clinic, where he entered in 1895 after being convicted of sexual assault on minors. There he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and he also remained there for thirty-five years, without ever going out on the street again. He almost always worked in a cell of just seven square meters: the result There were 1,460 drawings, 1,560 collages and some 25,000 pages of writings with all kinds of creations, from texts to invented music, and all often bound by himself. The obrón The autobiographical fantasy that started his legend, ‘Von der Wiege bis zum Graab’ (‘From the cradle to the grave’), takes up just over 3,000 of those pages and was created between 1908 and 1912. Then came the geographical and algebraic notebooks (1912-1916), the song and dance notebooks (1917-1922, about 7,000 pages) and the dance and march album notebooks (1924-1928). He even created a funeral march that he left unfinished when he died. To the heavens In that narrative he promoted himself in stages: first he was the boy Doufi, then the Knight Adolf, then the Emperor Adolf and finally, Saint Adolf II. Each drawing also incorporated its own musical notation, with a staff of six lines instead of five, which Wölfli interpreted by rolling up a sheet of paper. He did not simply improvise: he also made small pieces that he called “bread art”, expressly designed to sell to doctors and visitors. The good doctor. None of this would have come out of Waldau without Walter Morgenthaler. The doctor arrived at the hospital in 1907 and, unlike his colleagues, did not treat Wölfli’s graphic impulse as a symptom that had to be contained, but as a production that would give free rein to many aspects of his illness. In 1921 he published ‘Ein Geisteskranker als Künstler’ (‘A mentally ill person as an artist’), a monograph that took Wölfli out of clinical anonymity and turned his work into an object of interest for two very different circles of thinkers: psychiatry and the artistic avant-garde. Brute art. Jean Dubuffet discovered Wölfli’s work in 1945 and called him “the great Wölfli”, according to herself. foundation that manages his legacy. Three years later, Dubuffet and Breton founded the Compagnie de l’Art Brut, thus creating the label that would bring together artists with no academic training or intention to exhibit. In 1965, in the catalog for a surrealist exhibition in Paris, Breton described Wölfli’s work as one of the three or four most important of the century. The definitive accolade came in 1972: the Swiss curator Harald Szeemann brought his drawings and writings to the influential art exhibition Document 5 of Kassel, along with a reconstruction of his cell. There are those who compare today the whole of his work with ‘In the Realms of the Unreal’, the equally excessive manuscript by the American Henry Darger. Both Wölfli and Darger unintentionally earned a space in history: someone outside of them decided, after their death or imprisonment, that it deserved to be contemplated as an artistic work. Since then, there have been exhibitions about Wölfli, some huge, like the one in Japan in 2017, which included the collective efforts of three museums. Where is. A good part of Wölfli’s 25,000 pages are still distributed among archives and private collections, as well as in partial catalogs published since the 1970s. The foundation maintains an open inventory and continues to incorporate pieces that reappear at auctions or donations. He also continues to receive inquiries from private collectors who locate loose sheets and want to confirm their provenance within the original notebooks. With no expected closing date for this documentation work, each piece that appears forces us to rewrite, even if just a little, the map of what Wölfli managed to produce in those seven square meters. A whole world. In Xataka | Someone has discovered the biggest mystery of Rembrandt’s work: why a Muslim ended up becoming an old Dutchman

AI companies are buying tons of old books because they are free of AI Slop. Then they destroy them

The impact of AI is no longer only in digital terms, but it affects frameworks as seemingly little linked to the virtual environment as second-hand books. Booksellers around the world are detecting the purchase of batches of books focused on very specific points. By crossing the data, the intentions are guessed, and again the AI ​​and its voracious need to be fed with data in an almost gargantuan way is behind it. Buyer robots. Marçal Font runs the Fènix bookstore, in Badalona, ​​and has been receiving purchases for weeks from a Canadian company that suspects it is automated: consecutive orders from the same buyer separated by just a minute. About twenty Spanish second-hand bookstores have sold to the same company since the end of April, some with orders of more than a thousand copies, almost always out-of-print non-fiction: they talk about a monograph on the castellers of Granollers from the seventies, a technical winemaking manual, conference minutes from half a century ago, diaries from the Civil War… All over the world. The same pattern is repeated in Germany, the United States, New Zealand and Australia: a Silicon Valley company has placed an order for more than 3,000 books with a Spanish bookstore. What distinguishes this type of buyers from ordinary customers is the indifference about price and the absence of thematic coherence. another example: An American bookseller went from selling twenty books in a good week to hundreds, with purchases that ignored the market value of the copy and an eye for subtlety, jumping from one topic to another with no apparent relationship. On the forums of Alibris, another book-selling marketplace, a platform official attributed the uptick to the arrival of new wholesale buyers who are hoarding commercial books. Two companies, one destination. The buyer identified in Spain is ZoomBooks, a Canadian second-hand book buying and selling company that sends orders to an Illinois logistics operator, PrepFort, in charge of scanning and cataloging the shipments. When asked, ZoomBooks denies collaborating directly with Anthropic, the company behind AI assistant Claude, and defines itself as a second-hand bookstore dedicated to recycling. Regarding the final destination of the books, and about the publications that its own website published about how to feed algorithms with used copies and destroy them later, the company responds that it does not comment on its commercial agreements because they are subject to confidentiality. Photo by Ugur Akdemir on Unsplash In parallel, another type of intermediary operates, more explicit about its function: ISBNdb, a bibliographic metadata database that now offers AI laboratories the purchase of between a thousand and a million books on request. Your own website puts it crudely: printed books before 2022 are the reserve of human text that no internet tracking can any longer guarantee, protected against contamination by texts generated by AI itself that now flood the network. Forced destruction. This commercial offer is supported by a specific ruling. Federal Judge William Alsup ruled in June 2025, in the case Bartz v. Anthropicthat training language models with legally purchased books constitutes a transformative use protected by the doctrine of fair use. He also considered it legal to digitize those copiesbut only because the printed copy disappeared in the process. That is, the digital copy takes the place of the paper book. Put another way: if the physical book survived the scan, the company that bought it would keep two copies having paid for one, and the argument of fair use would weaken. The shredder is a mandatory step in the legal process. Jason Leung on Unsplash Secret project. Months before that ruling, Anthropic was already carrying out a large-scale purchasing operation known internally as Project Panama. An internal company document, uncovered by The Washington Post based on declassified judicial documents, thus defined the action: “Scan Destructively all the books in the world.” The same document asked that the project remain hidden. ISBNdb has turned that same caution into a sales argument: it offers its clients, AI companies, a confidentiality agreement with each order and bluntly admits the image problem caused by the mass destruction of books. No headline about destroyed books generates sympathy, or as they themselves say, “destroying books gives a bad image“. What worries booksellers. Spanish second-hand booksellers have alerted the Ministry of Culture of what is happening. Miguel Ángel Ortega, president of the UNILIBER antiquarian booksellers association, recalls that his union fulfills functions of preservation and conservation of bibliographic heritage in addition to buying and selling, and it is contradictory for him to sell copies only for them to end up destroyed. Font puts it without half measures: “we are facing a form of literary plunder.” What is already protected by legal deposit and well cataloged runs less risk. But there are also “fanzines, neighborhood newsletters, local publications, documentation of social movements…” according to Font. Xavier Vinaixa, a researcher who helped uncover the case, and analyst Antonio Ortiz agree that the industry increasingly needs human text not contaminated by AI to avoid the collapse of the model, although Ortiz clarifies that the scarcity of data weighs less today than it did two years ago because training relies increasingly on reinforcement learning on already qualified data. Researcher Patrícia Ventura talks about how knowledge has to remain a public good, not a private reserve of a handful of companies. Image | Prateek Katyal in Unsplash

Anthropic was accused of stealing books to train its AI models. Their solution has been simple: pay

A federal judge in San Francisco has given the final green light to the $1.5 billion agreement between Anthropic and a group of authors and publishers that They reported her for using her books without permission to train Claude. And after extracting millions of books from digital libraries without authorization, and from physical bookstores to scan and destroy en masse, everything has ended up being settled with money. What has happened? Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin definitively approved this Monday the agreement that Anthropic reached with the plaintiffs, as collect Reuters. The figure was already known since last year, when Judge William Alsup gave his preliminary approval, but this last step was missing for the money to begin to be distributed. How we got here. A group of writers sued Anthropic in 2024 accusing her of using copies of her books to train Claude without her consent. Judge Alsup ruled in June 2025 that training AI with copyrighted books falls under “fair use,” a decision that set an important precedent for the entire industry. The judge also clarified that, although training with those books was legal, Anthropic had broken the law by downloading more than 7 million copies from digital portals without authorization and storing them in a kind of internal library that was not necessarily intended for training, according to explains Reuters. That specific point was going to be decided in a separate trial, with compensation that could skyrocket to hundreds of billions of dollars. So to avoid this, Anthropic preferred to make an agreement. Between the lines. As we explained some time ago, the court documents that came to light revealed the real scope of the project, baptized “Panama”, and with which the company came to physically buy and scan millions of bookscutting their loins to digitize them and then recycling them. Before going this route, Anthropic employees, including its co-founder Ben Mann, had downloaded books directly from unauthorized repositories such as LibGen. The company has always maintained that this content was never used to train a business model, but it was precisely that part of the process that took it to court. How much and to whom. The distribution is made at a rate of about 3,000 dollars per work, out of an estimated total of 500,000 titles between authors and publishers, according to details TechCrunch. Aparna Sridhar, deputy general counsel at Anthropic, said in a statement that the company reached this agreement in 2025 after the ruling that recognized training with books as fair use, and added that more than 91% of the affected authors and publishers have already claimed their share of the payment. For his part, Justin Nelson, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, has called the settlement “historic” and has stated that it represents the largest copyright recovery ever achieved, according to collect also Reuters. Not everyone is satisfied. Some authors have raised objections, arguing that the amount was insufficient, benefiting plaintiff’s lawyers too much or unfairly leaving out certain rights holders. Judge Martinez-Olguin has rejected these arguments, considering that they did not realistically reflect the risks of having gone to trial, and approved fees of more than $101 million for the lawyers, below the $187.5 million they had requested. according to Reuters. Some authors and publishers directly opted out of the agreement and have their own lawsuits against Anthropic that are still ongoing. Why it is important. This closure does not resolve the underlying legal debate for the rest of the sector. And since it is an agreement and not an appealed ruling, Alsup’s decision on “legitimate use” will never reach an appeal court, so it does not constitute binding jurisprudence, as underlines TechCrunch. Each judge is free to interpret similar cases in their own way, and that is just what is happening with the lawsuits opened against Google, Meta, Midjourney and OpenAI for similar reasons. Cover image | Anthropic, edited by Xataka In Xataka | It took 15 years for computers to improve the productivity of companies. AI may take longer for one reason: sabotage

In China, ‘bookfluencers’ are the sales engine of the publishing industry. The problem is that no one can read 700 books.

In China, publishers have discovered a rich vein thanks to bookfluencers. Reviews on social networks such as Douyin (the Chinese TikTok) or RedNote have become the sales engine for many books in recent years. However, the volume of books and the intense competition between these influencers has led to the credibility of the model beginning to be questioned. what has happened. They tell it in world of chinese. A book content creator posted a 25-minute video exposing another professional colleague who has more than half a million followers. In the video, he shows a paper almost 5 meters long with a list of 700 books that this bookfluencer had supposedly recommended on his social networks. There wouldn’t be any problem if it weren’t for the fact that they were the readings of a single year. It comes out almost two books a day. Authenticity not found. There is even more and, when reviewing the reviews, he found something curious. They were full of repeated and very exaggerated phrases. For example, this influencer felt “transformed” by 17 different books and “healed” by 33 more. We don’t know if he used AI to summarize the books and do the reviews, but clearly they weren’t real reviews. The online community of readers had been criticizing the lack of authenticity for some time and this video was the last straw. Read for the algorithm. Reading fans criticize the model that has been created with online recommendations. For several years now, the publishing industry has made these influencers a key resource to promote their launches, but with the passage of time, the volume of readings and the need to keep up to date with all the trendsis transforming reading from a leisurely and private activity to something manufactured for the “by weight” algorithm. The business works. Video reviews are giving publishers very good results, as in the case of the novel ‘The Last Quarter of the Moon’, which went from 600,000 copies to more than 6 million after a famous influencer recommended it. Large publishers allocate a specific budget and pay commissions of between 15 and 30% of the sales generated through their channels. The dependence on this promotional model is such that, according to editor Bai Bai, “In many cases, if no influencer is willing to take charge of a book or promote it, the book is practically doomed to failure at the moment of its publication.” A precarious job. Although publishers turn to these creators and give them good commissions, it does not mean that it is exactly a grateful job. There is enormous competition between creators, who have to constantly be up to date with trends in order to satisfy the algorithm and have their content go viral. Still, income is very unstable, pushing creators to post more reviews and exaggerate the impact the books have had on them. Anqian Reads, one of these bookfluencers, says “The ironic thing is that since I’ve been a book influencer, I have less time to read.” Image | 愚木混株 Yumu in Unsplash In Xataka | Universities are discovering something: fewer and fewer students are reading long essays without losing concentration

the seven Harry Potter books

In 1941, during his confinement in the Auschwitz concentration camp, the writer Primo Levi recited from memory verses of the Divine Comedy to other prisoners to hold onto something the Nazis couldn’t take away from them: memory. Because sometimes, surviving starts with remembering. Mariupol: the last goodbye. The story was told in a extensive BBC report. Oleksandr Ivanov left Mariupol in April 2022 convinced that that call to his wife would be the last. In the midst of the collapse of the Ukrainian defense, surrounded by corpses, unlit bunkers and the permanent smell of death, the marine officer ended captured and sent first to Olenivka and then to a penal colony in Mordovia. There began a captivity 1,495 days. Almost four years without knowing if his country still existed, if his family was still alive or if the war was over. Time stopped being measured in days and began to be measured in silences. Prison as a psychological weapon. They counted in the middle that what destroyed the prisoners most was not hunger, although Oleksandr lost thirty kilos, nor the cold, or the overcrowding of eight men in a tiny cell forced to spend most of the day standing. It was mental demolition. The Russian guards repeated over and over again that Ukraine had disappearedThey burned letters in front of them and filled the air with constant propaganda on the radio. Talking was prohibited. Think, told in the reportwas almost the only thing left. And when you spend months thinking about your life, your family and a future that may never come, even your memory begins to run out. The most unlikely weapon. It was at this point in history where the unthinkable appeared. Apparently, Oleksandr had been obsessed with Harry Potterto the point of having reread the saga so many times that he had almost completely memorized it. Thus, what was an obsessive hobby ended up becoming a survival tool. First he confessed to his companions that I knew the story. Then he began to narrate it. Book by book. Chapter by chapter. Whispering so that the guards wouldn’t hear him. For five or six hours a day, in that Russian cell, a Ukrainian soldier turned seven fantasy novels into something much more important: a form of keep sanity alive. Image of Oleksandr on his Instagram account Hogwarts inside a cell. Of course, the scene stopped being entertainment very quickly. Oleksandr narrated it like a serial, always stopping at the most exciting point to create anticipation. His companions began to wait every morning just to find out how the story continued. In an environment designed to collapse from the inside, the saga filled the void. The prisoners began to see themselves as Azkaban inmateswith the guards converted in dementors on the other side of the door. And that metaphor was not minor: in the logic of Harry Potter, dementors can only be fought with a Patronus. For them, that Patronus was the hope of returning home. Humanizing the jailers. The BBC explained The irony was even stranger because Oleksandr had tattoos related to the Harry Potter universe since before the war. Some Russian guards recognized the symbols because they had seen the movies or read the books. And during certain moments, something unusual happened: they stopped seeing him as an enemy and spoke to him with a certain normality. The war outside the cell. Meanwhile, his wife Nelly reconstructed his trail piece by piece from Ukraine. Each released prisoner memorized family telephone numbers and transmitted news upon release. That’s how he knew where he was, how he was and what he was doing. Until one day he heard something incredible: that Oleksandr was counting harry potter in prison. Far from seeming absurd to him, it was a sign that he was still alive. If he could still tell stories, he thought, he was still whole. Even wrote to JK Rowling explaining how his books had become a refuge for prisoners of war. He never received a response. After all this time. On May 15, Oleksandr was released in an exchange with 205 other Ukrainian soldiers. He came back broken physically, but intact in something essential. While he recovers, he devours news to fill four years of emptiness and receives packages from strangers with Harry Potter objects. His wife, who got tattooed during the war the phrase “After all this time? Always”, the same one he wears on his skin, summarizes the story better than anyone. One where, in the end, what kept Oleksandr alive was not just military discipline or physical endurance. It was something much more unexpected and simple: the ability to remember a story and turn it into light when everything around looked black. Image | Adam PolselliRyan McGrady, JoitsInstagram In Xataka | We have to start thinking about the Ukrainian war in terms greater than those of the First World War. In Xataka | The drone war has left a clear lesson for Ukraine: you can’t leave home without a 100-year-old machine gun

we read increasingly simpler books and it is affecting us

A study of hundreds of bestsellers from recent years reveals that the sentences of the most popular books have shrunk by almost a third since the 1930s. What was once a paragraph is today a sentence. What was once a phrase is today a tweet. And the effects, according to several researchers and as it could not be otherwise, extend far beyond the literature. Shorter sentences. If you leaf through a hit from the 1930s, it is normal to find sentences of twenty words, sometimes more, with subordinate clauses, with clauses, with ideas that branch out. According to an analysis by The Economist elaborated on hundreds of New York Times bestsellersthe average sentence length of the most popular books has fallen by almost a third since that decade. ‘Harper’s Magazine’ estimates the average per sentence of a bestseller of that time at 22 words; Today it’s around 12. The article gives an example among many others: ‘Modern Painters’ by John Ruskin, number one in sales in its day: its first sentence is a whopping 153 words. Let’s remind Gen-Z that I couldn’t start ‘Wuthering Heights’‘ because of the subtlety of its grammar. Fewer readers. The shortening of sentences occurs while reading declines in almost all indicators. A study from the University of Florida and University College London Based on the activity diaries of more than 236,000 Americans over two decades, it quantifies the decline: the share of adults who read for pleasure daily fell from 28% in 2004 to 16% in 2023, a reduction of more than 40%. A “sustained and constant” decline of around 3% annually. In United Kingdom the data points in the same direction: 40% of Britons did not read a single book in 2024. The average Briton read three in the entire year. What is striking about the American study is that polarization is also advancing. Those who continue reading spend a little more time than before, 83 to 97 minutes on average per day. The phenomenon is not that everyone reads a little less, but that a minority reads a lot more while the majority has stopped reading completely. Mobile phone as the usual suspect. The most immediate explanation points to smartphones. It is not incorrect, but it is insufficient. ‘The Economist’ recalls that a Benedictine monk from the 4th century already described in his texts how the afternoon sun, the heaviness of lunch and the drowsiness of siesta time made it impossible to keep the book open. The problem of reading concentration predates algorithms and dopamine. What has changed in the modern age is the willingness to read. The crux of the matter. Professor Jonathan Bate, Professor of English Literature at Oxford, warns that losing the ability to read complex prose can also mean losing the ability to “develop complex ideas that allow you to see nuances and hold two contradictory thoughts at the same time.” The Economist uses data on public discourse to reinforce this thesis. An analysis of almost 250 years of US presidential inaugural addresses, applying the Flesch-Kincaid readability test, shows a clear trajectory: George Washington’s speech scored 28.7 points (graduate level); Donald Trump’s, 9.4 (high school). Reading is good. science has been documenting for a long time the cognitive benefits of sustained reading: improved reasoning, concentration, empathy and even reduced risk of mortality with just 30 minutes a day. But those benefits require reading, not planning to read. Reading has historically functioned as one of the few mechanisms of social mobility that does not require elite schools or family capital. Just a book and the desire to open it. The problem that the current data raises (from bestsellers with 10-word sentences to 40% of Britons without reading a book in a year) is that this desire does not have much firm territory on which to settle. Header | Photo of Thought Catalog in Unsplash In Xataka | In Tokyo there is a bookstore with only one book in the catalog. It has been open for ten years and works

Science has calculated the real impact of reading books on your brain. And it has a very simple recipe: 30 minutes a day

It is well known that a sedentary lifestyle It is one of the great enemies of public healthespecially at advanced ages where muscle loss is a great danger. However, there are sedentary activities that are really beneficial and that we sometimes stop, such as reading books. Its benefit is such that science has shown that immersing yourself in the pages of a good book It not only feeds the intellect, but also lengthens life. The demonstration. One of the most important studies who wanted to focus on the benefits of reading, beyond the cognitive benefits or the richness of vocabulary for everyday life, analyzed a group of 3,635 nationally representative participants in the United States over 12 years. And as a result, they saw that the longer the time spent reading books, lower risk of mortality. The results. To understand the magnitude of the discovery, the researchers followed all the patients until 20% of them died and only 80% remained. There they put the cut and began to draw conclusions. The first is that non-readers reached this point at 85 months, while book readers reached this same threshold at 108 months. This is something that translates into a 23-month survival advantage for those who had the habit of reading books, or in other words, readers reduced the risk of mortality by 20% throughout the 12 years of follow-up. Furthermore, this protection was maintained regardless of a person’s gender, wealth, education, or health status. The format matters. Although you may think that any type of reading is appropriate, even the back of a shampoo, the reality is quite different. In this case, the study explicitly compared the impact of reading books versus reading the newspaper or a magazine. The findings here demonstrated that reading books contributes to a significantly greater survival advantage than that seen with newspapers or magazines. While magazines offer short articles that we often skim, books require a higher level of concentration. Something that is enhanced above all because the authors constantly present themes, characters and topics and that is essential to be able to follow the thread of the story that is being presented to us. Because? Here science is quite clear that the key is in the brain, since the “cognitive score” functioned as a complete mediator of this survival advantage. This means that reading books improves cognition and it is this cognitive improvement that prolongs life. Here reading books activates different specific neural processes that create this advantage. Among the most notable points, we find that active reading of books improves skills such as reasoning, concentration, critical thinking and vocabulary. But it also promotes social perception, empathy and emotional intelligence, which can lead to better health behaviors and stress reduction. Fundamental things when we talk about extending life. It’s backed up. In addition to the original study published in 2016, science has wanted to continue investigating the benefits of reading with a study published in 2024 where the complexity of reading in older adults pointed to less cognitive decline. But it has also been decided to analyze even the cultural level of the citizens, where it has been seen that low literacy increases mortalityonce again making the act of reading books stimulate our brain and protect our cognitive reserve. Although it is not necessary to be reading all day to guarantee having a better brain, studies specifically point out that with about 30 minutes a day It is enough to start reaping these advantages and obtain more years of life in which to continue reading. Images | Blaz Photo In Xataka | The problem is not that we are reading fewer books: it is that the books we read are much simpler and easier

Anthropic wanted to secretly scan and then destroy millions of books to train its AI. It hasn’t been so secret

A language model for AI needs input if it is to be trained to be more accurate and effective. The issue is how the information is obtained and whether there is an ethical way to do it that is profitable for the technology company in power. There is no doubt that the preferred option for companies has been to use all possible physical and digital content without anyone’s permission. There is also evidence. A judicial leak reveals that Anthropic invested tens of millions of dollars in acquiring and digitizing literary works without permission from the authors. According to account Washington Post, the project, internally called “Panama”, was part of a frenetic race among big technology companies to accumulate massive data to train their artificial intelligence models. How it all started. The Panama Project was launched by Anthropic in early 2024. According to internal documents revealed per the Washington Post, the goal was to “destructively scan every book in the world.” Furthermore, these documents also explicitly state that the company did not want anyone to know that they were working on it. In about a year, the company spent tens of millions of dollars buying millions of books, cutting their spines with hydraulic machines and scanning their pages to feed the AI ​​models that power Claudeits star chatbot. According to the media, the books, once digitized, ended up being recycled. Because has come to light. The details of the project have been revealed in a lawsuit for infringement of rights copyright filed by literary authors against Anthropic. Although the company agreed to pay $1.5 billion to close the case in August 2025, a district judge decided to make more than 4,000 pages of internal documents public last week, exposing the entire operation. They are not the only ones. Court documents reveal that other technology companies such as Meta, Google and OpenAI had also participated in this race to obtain massive information to train their models. According to revealed According to the documents, an Anthropic co-founder theorized in January 2023 that training AI models with books could teach them “how to write well” instead of imitating “low-quality internet slang.” On the other hand, an internal Meta email from 2024 described access to a digital library of books as “essential” to be competitive with rivals in the race to dominate AI. However, the documents revealed by the media also show how Meta employees expressed concern on several occasions about the legality of downloading millions of books without permission. An internal email from December 2023 indicates that the practice had been approved after being “escalated to MZ,” apparently referring to CEO Mark Zuckerberg. According to court records to which the media has had access, the companies did not consider it “practical” to obtain direct permission from publishers and authors. Instead, they found ways to mass-acquire books without the writers’ knowledge, including downloading unauthorized copies from third-party sites. Chat logs from April 2024 show an employee asking why they were using servers rented from Amazon to download torrents instead of Facebook’s own. The answer: “Avoid the risk of tracing” the activity back to the company. Data torrent. The documents to which the Washington Post has had access also they test that Ben Mann, co-founder of Anthropic, personally downloaded over 11 days in June 2021 a collection of books from LibGen, a gigantic library of copyrighted content. The outlet further revealed that, a year later, in July 2022, Mann celebrated the launch of the ‘Pirate Library Mirror’ website, which boasts a massive database of books and openly claims to violate copyright laws. “Just in time!!!” Mann wrote to other Anthropic employees, according to the outlet. Anthropic stated in legal documents that it never trained a revenue-generating business model using LibGen data nor did it use Pirate Library Mirror to train any full model. Anthropic’s legal solution. According to point the medium in its article, faced with the legal risk, Anthropic changed its strategy. The company hired Tom Turvey, a Silicon Valley veteran who had helped create the project Google Books two decades earlier. Under his direction, Anthropic considered purchasing books from libraries or secondhand bookstores, including New York’s iconic Strand bookstore. The company ultimately ended up buying millions of books and stacking them in a giant warehouse, often in batches of tens of thousands, according to court filings. The Washington Post assures In addition, the company worked with used book sellers in the United Kingdom. A project proposal mentions that Anthropic sought to “convert between 500,000 and two million books in a six-month period.” What the law says. Most legal cases against AI companies are still ongoing, but the media mention two court rulings that have considered that the use of books to train AI models without permission from the author or publisher may be legal under the “fair use” doctrine of copyright. In June 2025, District Judge William Alsup determined that Anthropic had the right to use books to train AI models because they process them in a “transformative” way. He compared the process to teachers “teaching schoolchildren to write well.” That same month, Judge Vince Chhabria ruled in the Meta case that the authors had not shown that the company’s AI models could harm the sales of their books. In the Anthropic case, the physical book scanning project was considered legal, but the judge determined that the company may have infringed copyright by downloading millions of books without authorization before launching Project Panama. The final agreement. Instead of facing a trial, Anthropic agreed to pay $1.5 billion to publishers and authors without admitting guilt. According to point According to the media, authors whose books were downloaded can claim their share of the settlement, estimated at about $3,000 per title. Cover image | Emil Widlund and Anthropic In Xataka | If AI is going to leave us without jobs, in the United Kingdom they are already seriously discussing the solution: a universal basic income

Adobe presents itself as a champion of creators in the age of AI. Lawsuit alleges he used copyrighted books

Adobe has built part of its artificial intelligence strategy on a very recognizable banner: protecting creators in a time of profound change. While other technology companies accumulated criticism for the origin of their data, the company presented itself as a responsible alternative. That position is now facing a lawsuit which focuses on the training of one of its models and the use of copyrighted works. The case is not an anomaly, but rather a reflection of a question that the industry has not yet been able to clearly answer. The lawsuit was filed Tuesday in the U.S. Court for the Northern District of California and takes the form of a proposed class action. An author named Elizabeth Lyon accuses Adobe of using copyrighted books, including her own, to train the company’s AI models, with SlimLM at the center of the case, without permission. According to judicial documentation, these works would have been part of the training process of systems designed to respond to human instructions. Lyon claims to be acting on behalf of other rights holders who would find themselves in a similar situation. The great debate about data that trains AI To understand why this type of litigation is repeated with increasing frequency, it is worth taking a moment to look at how current artificial intelligence works. Beyond the visible applications, from chatbots to image generators, there are underlying models that act as the core of the system and learn from huge volumes of data. Generally speaking, more data can improve performance, although it is not the only factor. The problem appears when the key question arises about the origin of that information and the conditions under which it has been used. The model indicated in the lawsuit is not Firefly, Adobe’s best-known creative system, but SlimLMa family of smaller language models designed for specific tasks. These models are designed to assist users with document-related functions, especially on mobile devices. It is not an AI aimed at large-scale creative generation, but rather a system that operates in the background. That difference is relevant because it shows that the debate over training data is not limited to the most visible applications. According to the lawsuit, the conflict would not be in SlimLM as a final product, but in the data used during its training phase. Adobe has explained that these models were pre-trained with SlimPajama-627Ba open source data set published by Cerebras in June 2023. The court brief maintains that SlimPajama derives from RedPajama, another dataset widely used in the industry, and which in turn incorporates Books3, a massive collection of copyrighted books. That chain is the one that, according to the plaintiff, would have allowed the inclusion of works without authorization. Until now, Adobe’s public narrative on artificial intelligence has been primarily articulated around Fireflya product clearly identified with respect for creators and the use of licensed content. The company has defended that these models were trained with licensed content, such as Adobe Stock, and public domain material, and has accompanied that message with compensation programs for Adobe Stock contributors. The demand, however, is not directed at that visible front, but, as we say, at SlimLM, a more discreet model, integrated into assistance tasks and without a direct commercial presence. This separation is key to understanding the real scope of the case. The proceedings against Adobe are framed in a broader context of litigation in the United States related to the training of AI models. In recent years, authors and other rights holders have taken to court technology companies like OpenAIor Anthropicwith lawsuits alleging the use of protected works without authorization. Some of these processes are still open and others have ended in million-dollar agreements. This scenario explains why each new case is interpreted as another step in the legal delimitation of the use of data in artificial intelligence. For now, the case is in an initial phase and leaves many unknowns open. The plaintiff requests a unspecified financial compensation and raises the action on behalf of other potentially affected parties, while Adobe did not respond to Reuters’ request for comment. It will be the judicial process that determines whether the lawsuit is successful, is filed or results in an agreement. Beyond its specific outcome, the litigation once again puts the focus on an issue that remains unresolved: how to balance the advancement of AI with the rights of those who create the content from which it learns. Images | Rubaitul Azad | Adobe In Xataka | Gemini 3 Flash has surpassed GPT-5.2 Extra High in several benchmarks: Google has just changed the rules of the lightweight model

There are a lot of people going to libraries to look for books that don’t exist: an AI invented them

Junk content made with AI is sneaking into every corner of the internet: it is ruining the authenticity of Etsythe Wikipediait confuses us search for an apartment in Idealista and of course plague social networks. He ‘slop’ of AI is reaching the real world, specifically libraries. What is happening. They tell it inScientific American. There are people going to libraries and archives in search of books or scientific articles that do not appear anywhere for one reason: they do not exist. International Red Cross has alerted to the situation and blames AI tools such as Gemini, ChatGPT or Copilot. They assure that “These systems do not conduct research, verify sources or collate information. They generate new content based on statistical patterns and, therefore, may produce invented results.” In Xataka He "AI slop" turned into art. A Chinese creator is copying the absurd aesthetics of generative AI, and it’s hilarious Fed up librarians. The research director of the Virginia library estimates that at least 15% of the queries they receive through mail are about documents and works generated by ChatGPT and similar tools. “For our staff, it is much more difficult to prove that there is no single record,” he says. A Bluesky user recounts a similar experience when a student asked him to find a series of references. After searching for a while without success, he asked the student where he got the list from and he confessed that it came from Google’s AI summaries. Made-up dating isn’t something that started happening the day before yesterday,In 2023 there were already discussions about it. Seattle University found that it is often very difficult to verify these invented quotes. The reason is that AI usually gives titles of magazines or books that exist, but what does not exist is the chapter or issue where the information is found. What it does is mix information to make it seem convincing, when in reality it is a dead end. AI and books. Invented references are not the only problem, there are librarians who also They criticize books created entirely with AI for being “incredibly bad” and we have recently learned of the case of South Korea and the resounding failure of its AI school book program. On the other hand we have the copyright problem. As with works of art, books too have been used to train AI without compensating their authors. A group of authors sued Anthropicfor this reason, but The judge ruled in favor of the company. {“videoId”:”x8jpy2b”,”autoplay”:false,”title”:”What’s BEHIND AIs like CHATGPT, DALL-E or MIDJOURNEY? | ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE”, “tag”:”Webedia-prod”, “duration”:”1173″} Papers on AI, made with AI. In an article by Futurism They said that a consequence of the AI ​​slop is that the papers that investigate AI themselves are made with AI. It is estimated that the number of papers on AI has doubled in recent years and journals such as NeurIPS have had to ask doctoral students to help them review them. There is a specific case of a researcher named Kevin Zhu who has participated in more than 100 papers in one year, an exorbitant figure for experts. To no one’s surprise, many of these papers are a real disaster full of made up quotes, blatant errors and sometimes hidden text to manipulate the review systems themselves. hallucinations. That AI invents things is quite common, they are the In AI jargon it is known as hallucinations and one of the weak points of language models; The advances are enormous, but the reality is that We still can’t trust AI and it is necessary to verify the information. Hallucinations are often the reason why those who use AI in their jobs are caught, such as the consulting firm Deloitte, which delivered a report to the Australian government that contained references to completely fabricated reports. Image | Cottonbro studio, Pexels In Xataka | The birth of an anti-reading movement: more and more people admit to using AI to summarize books (function() { window._JS_MODULES = window._JS_MODULES || {}; var headElement = document.getElementsByTagName(‘head’)(0); if (_JS_MODULES.instagram) { var instagramScript = document.createElement(‘script’); instagramScript.src=”https://platform.instagram.com/en_US/embeds.js”; instagramScript.async = true; instagramScript.defer = true; headElement.appendChild(instagramScript); – The news There are a lot of people going to libraries to look for books that don’t exist: an AI invented them was originally published in Xataka by Amparo Babiloni .

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.