Yeah, usually they're just sourced from public-domain book collections such as Google Books (who scan older books which can end up visually messy), and I'm pretty sure some of those that are offered on Amazon were straight-up based on pirated PDFs.
because you’re paying
Well no, it's the buyer who is paying. Which they might find off-putting, if the final price is too high, so you get fewer buyers and less profit.
As for the quality, there’s literally no reason that a book that is printed on demand has to be low quality or use low quality materials.
Except that in practice they simply are of lower quality. I've seen quite enough of such books. Maybe higher quality materials could be used, but that would raise the price for the end-user even more, and possibly slow down the production.
and the proof is the fact that Amazon is filled with AI generated garbage books
One has to wonder how much money they actually make, though. I saw some YT videos about the topic, IIRC it's really difficult. Their mere presence doesn't prove their profitability but only the belief by many people that they could be profitable.
It's easy to start a business, sure. But you didn't explain the rest of the process and don't seem to actually know a lot about the particulars of book publishing (neither do I, but whatever I do know doesn't agree with your imagined "solution").
I guess, but print on demand is also more expensive than printing in bulk, when looking per unit, and of lower quality (paper and binding). I'm not too familiar with the details of book publishing but I wouldn't expect that people are not using this route simply because they failed to notice its benefits.
It's mostly self-evident, I guess, so I didn't think it needs translation. The ambulance had to pass through, the protesters tried to follow it through the police cordon, but the police blocked the ambulance and attacked the protesters.
I tried to read about "just-in-time economy" but I really don't see how it would apply to book market?
Hmm, purism can take many shapes, it's not a strictly formulated stance (even though it might act like it is "scientific" because it minds etymology). It doesn't have to be negative towards neologisms, in fact it can be very positive towards them if they're based on native material and are meant to replace loanwords.
From the sidebar:
‘Traditional’ here means ‘Physical’, as in artworks which are NON-DIGITAL in nature.
Large AI companies themselves want people to be ignorant of how AI works, though. They want uncritical acceptance of the tech as they force it everywhere, creating a radical counterreaction from people. The reaction might be uncritical too, I'd prefer to say it's merely unjustified in specific cases or overly emotional, but it doesn't come from nowhere or from sheer stupidity. We have been hearing about people treating their chatbots as sentient beings since like 2022 (remember that guy from Google?), bombarded with doomer (or, from AI companies' point of view, very desirable) projections about AI replacing most jobs and wreaking havoc on world economy - how are ordinary people supposed to remain calm and balanced when hearing such stuff all the time?
Oh man...
That is the point, to show how AI image generators easily fail to produce something that rarely occurs out there in reality (i.e. is absent from training data), even though intuitively (from the viewpoint of human intelligence) it seems like it should be trivial to portray.
Yeah, I don't think that would fly.
"Your honour, I was just hoarding that terabyte of Hollywood films, I haven't actually watched them."
As W. Labov has passed away, I came across a comment reposting this screenshotted request, along with the paper in question:
https://betsysneller.github.io/pdfs/Labov1966-Rabbit.pdf
The paper is quite a rollercoaster, ranging from describing of disturbingly racist ideas about native Hawaiian and Black children that some scientists still pushed at the time (1970!*), to Labov's own disarmingly cute and humane solution to the issue of testing children's language abilities.
Edit: *1970 - according to the article itself, which is apparently based on Labov's 1970 talk; however, the URL suggests that the article was published in 1966, which is contradictory. I'll try to find out where and when this was actually published...
Edit 2: It looks like it is from 1970, from Working Papers in Communication, vol. 1 (Honolulu: Pacific Speech Association). It is surprising that a recently published book also claims that it's from 1966, probably the authors got the file from the same URL with the wrong year.
Edit 3: The original Twitter thread: https://xcancel.com/betsysneller/status/1516848959284678656
❤️