Data that you can prove was generated by humans is now exceedingly valuable ...and most of that comes from the days before LLMs. The situation is a bit like how steel manufactured before the nuclear age is valuable.
adamnemecek 2 hours ago [-]
But why would people train on excerpts from Google Books when whole books can be downloaded on libgen and such?
How funny. They have a DMCA Takedown Requests link...
NedF 18 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
didip 8 minutes ago [-]
Google Books could have been a subscription service ala Netflix.
Then it would have been hella useful.
xorsula1 3 hours ago [-]
My guess is they detected being scraped and did this as preventive measure.
londons_explore 1 minutes ago [-]
[delayed]
Andrex 54 minutes ago [-]
My guess is they're cozier with publishers now than 20 years ago when they fought all the way to SCOTUS.
"Hey, remove search?"
"OK, it was costing money anyways."
breppp 2 hours ago [-]
my guess is that the copyright landscape changed due to AI training, and these publishers won't let Google use that data anymore
adamnemecek 2 hours ago [-]
The books are still there, it seems like the rankings have changed though.
26 minutes ago [-]
bryanrasmussen 2 hours ago [-]
Since I pretty much only use Google Books for public domain books, old magazines, and newspapers I haven't noticed any problem with it. Maybe it's not as dead as this person thinks.
mikestew 1 hours ago [-]
This was addressed in the post, I'm sure you just missed it when you read it:
"But a few days ago they removed ALL search functions for any books with previews, which are disproportionately modern books." <emphasis mine>
Google Books is long dead. If you click on the author's name in one of the results, it will search inauthor:"Author's Name" and this search will return garbage because it chokes on double quotes. This has been true for at least a couple of years; Google Books is not compatible with itself. Changing the double quotes to single quotes fixes it. Also, lately, when you filter only for books that have Full View some results that have Full View get dropped for no intelligible reason.
Nobody is looking at it. I wouldn't be surprised if the preview search was switched off by accident.
For me Books is only useful (and it is very useful) for books out of copyright, 100+ years old. Sometimes they aren't at archive.org.
I hate Google, but I think it's a bit absurd to criticize them on this if somehow it's over AI. The only reason Google created Books may even have been AI, but they were hoping to have the books open to everyone, and the publishers and authors whose full text is being blocked are literally the people who stopped it from happening. Maybe they spoke up about AI, too. I find it even hard to even criticize that Google doesn't take care of Books - it has no purpose or profit potential for them anymore, it's obviously charity that they don't take it down completely.
mystraline 3 hours ago [-]
Thats easy.
Check out library genesis, Anna's archive, and scihub for content.
Piracy isnt theft if buying isnt ownership.
GorbachevyChase 1 hours ago [-]
Ironic those doing the most for making information open and accessible are the criminals.
al_borland 36 minutes ago [-]
A centuries old problem. Early translations of the Bible to English were illegal or required licenses.
William Tyndale was put to death for translating the Bible into English, which would have been an act to make information open and accessible.
direwolf20 1 hours ago [-]
Of course. When it's criminal to make information open and accessible, only criminals will make information open and accessible.
adamnemecek 3 hours ago [-]
None of these does full text search.
jszymborski 3 hours ago [-]
And they are under constant threat by nation states. sci-hub hasn't seen new papers in ages.
greenavocado 3 hours ago [-]
Build a local index
adamnemecek 3 hours ago [-]
My problem is finding references I don't know about.
They don't do full text search anymore esp for copyrighted books. I wonder if this is not a regression but an intent to give them a let up in the AI race.
toephu2 37 minutes ago [-]
Yup, it's for AI.
Similarly, a year ago or so ChatGPT could summarize YouTube videos. Google put a stop to that so now only Gemini can summarize YouTube videos.
jeffbee 2 hours ago [-]
It isn't obvious why the left results are preferred over the right results.
advisedwang 2 hours ago [-]
The left results are contemporary, the right are decades old. That includes editions of the same book --- surely the newer edition is going to be preferred by most readers.
thaumasiotes 1 hours ago [-]
> surely the newer edition is going to be preferred by most readers.
Why? Where different editions exist, the reader will want to know which one they're getting, but they're unlikely to systematically prefer newer editions.
But also, Google Books isn't aimed at "readers". You're not supposed to read books through it. It's aimed at searchers. Searchers are even less likely to prefer newer editions.
jeffbee 2 hours ago [-]
I guess. That's not immediately clear to me. However, browsing around on Google Books suggests to me that it is the corpus which changed, not the algorithms.
adamnemecek 2 hours ago [-]
The corpus is still the same, like searching the name of the book will find it, but the full text search.
kingstnap 3 hours ago [-]
My guess: Text search and indexing is expensive. And you are getting some kind of AI vector search instead.
Which tends to be kind of poop compared to true text search.
ChrisArchitect 2 hours ago [-]
Title is: Google has seemingly entirely removed search functionality from most books on Google Books
Rendered at 21:17:05 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
“Our mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”
https://about.google/company-info/
Data that you can prove was generated by humans is now exceedingly valuable ...and most of that comes from the days before LLMs. The situation is a bit like how steel manufactured before the nuclear age is valuable.
> The largest truly open library in human history
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna%27s_Archive
Then it would have been hella useful.
"Hey, remove search?"
"OK, it was costing money anyways."
"But a few days ago they removed ALL search functions for any books with previews, which are disproportionately modern books." <emphasis mine>
Nobody is looking at it. I wouldn't be surprised if the preview search was switched off by accident.
For me Books is only useful (and it is very useful) for books out of copyright, 100+ years old. Sometimes they aren't at archive.org.
I hate Google, but I think it's a bit absurd to criticize them on this if somehow it's over AI. The only reason Google created Books may even have been AI, but they were hoping to have the books open to everyone, and the publishers and authors whose full text is being blocked are literally the people who stopped it from happening. Maybe they spoke up about AI, too. I find it even hard to even criticize that Google doesn't take care of Books - it has no purpose or profit potential for them anymore, it's obviously charity that they don't take it down completely.
Check out library genesis, Anna's archive, and scihub for content.
Piracy isnt theft if buying isnt ownership.
William Tyndale was put to death for translating the Bible into English, which would have been an act to make information open and accessible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-Library
Here are two screenshots taken on Jan 20 and Jan 23 https://bsky.app/profile/adamnemecek.bsky.social/post/3mdbup...
They don't do full text search anymore esp for copyrighted books. I wonder if this is not a regression but an intent to give them a let up in the AI race.
Similarly, a year ago or so ChatGPT could summarize YouTube videos. Google put a stop to that so now only Gemini can summarize YouTube videos.
Why? Where different editions exist, the reader will want to know which one they're getting, but they're unlikely to systematically prefer newer editions.
But also, Google Books isn't aimed at "readers". You're not supposed to read books through it. It's aimed at searchers. Searchers are even less likely to prefer newer editions.
Which tends to be kind of poop compared to true text search.