Then again, there is the little-remembered bit of Eisenhower's farewell address.
https://www.archives.gov/miles...

Immediately after his (much repeated) warning about the dangers of the military-industrial complex, he them went on:

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Funny few people remember that one. It sure looks like these scholars are chasing the money.

...it acts increasingly drunk over time until it pukes all over your open apps and files one random day, either forcing you to reboot or self-rebooting via crash?

...even more monopolish. If there isn't such a word, there should be, as it keeps happening.

and 6 of those 7 are probably bots.

The extreme left has gone way beyond UBI and Universal Healthcare. They are now advocating outright Communism, praising Chairman Mao, etc.

All 7 of them.

You can't blind a trial where your diet is a 3:1 ratio of fats to non-fats. There just no sugar pill for that. There's no self-selection here either- just eligibility evaluation followed by informed consent (because people are not mice). A placebo control arm would be immoral due to the pace of this disease leaving no option for crossover.

  As for sample size, the sheer size of the effect blows away your objection. Ask yourself this: "There are 18 glioblastoma patients. Seven of them have stayed alive 33, 36, 36, 84, 43 and 44 months after diagnosis. Calculate the odds of this occuring by chance". Answer: 0.1 to 1.2%, making it extremely unlikely to happen by chance. Even if you add 2 more people to N (assuming they were ineligible due to comorbidities), the answer stays the same: VERY UNLIKELY. This is even before you analyse the compliant subgroup.

Small N is not a problem when the "Effect Size" is this large. In statistics, if you are looking for a tiny 2% improvement in survival, you need thousands of patients to prove it isn't an accident. But if your effect size is massive like this one is, you only need a small group. A 3-year survival rate jumping from 8% to 58% (compliant subgroup), or even from 8% to 25% (naive analysis of overall group) is a massive signal. It is like testing a parachute: you donâ(TM)t need a randomized trial of 10000 people jumping out of planes with and without parachutes to prove they work; the effect size of the parachute is immediately obvious in a small sample jumping with parachutes (It's also the moral trial to do).

A few points:
1) maybe you didn't follow my argument: that's why it's farcical to believe that these companies are wasting money buying/destroying them when they are digitally available. Why would they waste $$ they don't have to?

2) FWIW, that's the 1901 edition, the 1915 3rd ed was (as the author says) largely rewritten with updated information not available for the 1901.

3) Do you realize your comment is literally justifying scanning and preserving books that aren't yet available?

Isn't there a clear bright line of liability here?
If the hugging face event cost hugging face (hypothetically) $250,000 to fix, how is the ai creator not instantly on the hook for a multiple of those damages?

It feels like we should quickly establish say a 10x multiplier as standard penalty for ai caused damages.

I know it's a shitty post facto tool and yes, it has failed plenty of times, but product liability is a well-precedented path (ie no new law approach has to be created) to compelling corporate responsibility. If this were the case, even a trillion dollar market value would feel shallow compared to potential liabilities.

Someone please name one rare, valuable book that has been destroyed. I'm still waiting.

Nobody has answered my criticisms of this particular Frankenstein story:
1) there's essentially nothing IN rare books that LLMs benefit from
2) rare old books are difficult to ocr in the first place, when reprints are both easier to scan AND cheaper.

This entire contrived hysteria is even more amusing as people basically don't read anymore, not generally. Oh heavens! They're destroying the books NOBODY READS? Really? That's what you're weeping about?

The only remaining meaningful contemporary book sales are women reading their own particular flavor of smut.
https://www.pensandpoison.org/...

Less than half of adults say they've read ONE BOOK in the last year.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ma...

I love old books. I'm currently reading Rogers 3rd ed (1915) of A History of Babylonia and Assyria and it's delightful. An absolute pleasure to read from the skill of the author, the comprehensiveness of the information (without a tedious agenda to flog, imagine!), to the very tactile experience of leather bound, deckle-edged paper. A joy every minute I'm reading it.

I would genuinely join you if there truly was a threat against old books.
But this? This is a manipulated hysteria contrived for some reason, maybe an experiment to see if they could spur nearly-illiterate sheeple to rise up to 'save' something they absolutely care nothing about.

I linked to one below

Yes, my blog is terribly written. :-D

But the rest of what you says is utterly wrong.

Have a look at the paper I pointed earlier in this thread on patients kept alive using his protocol.

The basis of Dr. Seyfried's work is that the 'nuclear DNA mutations cause cancer' theory is wrong. It's the mitochondria. This is shown by research where nucleus from cancer cells transplanted into normal cells resulted in a normal cell. And when mitochondria aretransplanted from a cancer cell to a normal cells, that gave rise to a cancer cell.

You can't fault a man for who he happens to talk to, otherwise you'd be condemning Jesus too. I don't know what he told Mercola; maybe "here's a smarter way to think about this"? :)

Have a look at the paper I pointed earlier in this thread on patients kept alive using his protocol.

The basis of Dr. Seyfried's work is that the 'nuclear DNA mutations cause cancer' theory is wrong. It's the mitochondria. This is shown by research where nucleus from cancer cells transplanted into normal cells resulted in a normal cell. And when mitochondria aretransplanted from a cancer cell to a normal cells, that gave rise to a cancer cell.

That's literally what I said, you dumb pillock.

The fact that Canada is insisting on their right to propagandize their own populace doesn't change that it's propaganda.
Of COURSE it's still 'soft power', even if the target is their own disaffected population.

Duh?

You mean the site whose water discharge processes were indeed certified shortly after that article in 2025?

https://www.faa.gov/media/9434...

Water discharge is covered in section 3.2.7, fyi.

Here is one:

https://www.frontiersin.org/jo...

Kiryttopoulos and colleagues (2024), "Successful application of dietary ketogenic metabolic therapy in patients with glioblastoma: a clinical study," Frontiers in Nutrition, vol. 11, article 1489812. Seyfried is a contributing author.