> it's never come to fruition before

*gestures vaguely in the direction of Europe*

Y'know it's kinda funny but socialism works fairly well when you don't have capitalist countries actively sabotaging them. You'd think that if it was unworkable you wouldn't have to put in all that effort.

=Smidge=

It's only local to China in the sense that they choose what {packages/CCP poison} go in there.

For all values of u, Linux is local to u in the sense that u chooses what packages go in there.

Ha ha, Linux already has..

# top -o gpu
top: unrecognized field name 'gpu'

.. d'oh! Never mind.

â

like this ??

Seriously, all Jensans fault.

HE knew he had a big demand, that would cause him to use most of the supply thus stuffing up the whole world.
He should have either pre-pared SKhynix and said, tripple your ram output or, not bought all the ram off the supply.
So they could either increase DDR4 supply, or make lower specced more supply of DDR5.
Seriously how much ram do they need? A trillion peta bytes of ram? Improve your damn code first, instead of committing 50 billion in purchases,
a smart person would buy less more often, and improve code, rather than lazily buy 90% of the world supply just to be king.
I wonder when people will start ram raiding data centers for 3 million in GPUs and RAM in the pickup.

And is asking an AI to proofread something that much different than MS Word flagging spelling and grammar errors?

Great question, and I think there isn't any significant difference.

But LLMs use a type of math that apparently has the evil bit set. Meanwhile, up here in VirtueVille, the computer code we write to create things, uses different math that doesn't have the evil bit set. Conclusion: we can look down on those AI companies and their stupid users. ;-)

Now, I wouldn't expect an AI service to be better at copyediting than an average human, but I haven't kept up so I'm ignorant of their performance. (All my "AI" experience is that I used Claude twice to, it turned out, fix some typos in some RoR config initializers.) But whether an AI service is as good at copyediting as a human or not, it's that user's choice and, as long as they sign off on the work and really take responsibility for it (declare the words to be their opinion), then I've got no problem with them doing that, whether it uses LLMs or Markov chains or human slaves or Searle's Chinese Room.

The words will be judged by their quality, not provenance.

That said...

Here's a similar story where I'd probably come to the opposite conclusion(!), despite the clown in it pretty much doing what I preach above, though he was using the AI service to do a lot more than copyedit. Behold this 3M expert witness cross-examination (134 page PDF) in the Watson Grinding case. It's slow going at first, but eventually you'll be laughing and cringing like in a good episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm.

Fuck. I don't know.

> Solar and wind are dispatchable.

The other way around.

The availability of solar and wind are contingent on the sun shining and wind blowing. They are not considered dispatchable because we can't command the sun to shine or wind to blow whenever we need it.

Any powerplant can be disconnected from the grid. Happens all the time both intentionally and not so intentionally. The question is how much financial and logistical cost occurs when it does happen; and with solar and wind it's extremely low.
=Smidge=

> The important context here you may be missing is that this entire opinion is in the context of Hachette v. Internet Archive where non-destructive digitization was ruled not fair use.

It's really strange to argue that the opinion is "in the context of" Hachette when it's not mentioned even once, but okay. The linchpin of that case was that Internet Archive was providing complete copies of the digitized works to others via a digital lending system (not free-for all downloads, but still allowing other people access). That case is also completely irrelevant here because Anthropic was emphatically NOT giving other parties access to the copyrighted works, on whole or in part.

There was also nothing about destructive vs non-destructive digitization in Hachette v. Internet Archive. That's really reaching for straws, man.

> The judge further makes this clear when at the end of the opinion, when the analysis is summarized on page 30 and 31, they write "On balance, as the purchased print copy was destroyed and its digital replacement not redistributed, this was a fair use."

Highlighted the relevant part you keep skipping over. Hope you see it this time.

> So if Anthropic had not engaged in the destruction, they might have won still on that

No, because it was decided Anthropic was engaging in fair use through three separate, existing cases and none of them had anything to do with destruction of anything. Let me re-quote the only thing you need to take away from all this:

"Anthropic was entitled to retain a copy of these works in a print format."

Since you cannot be both entitled to retain the physical copy, AND be legally obliged to destroy the physical copy, everything you are arguing is still, and forever will be, bullshit. Digitizing the works for easier reference and processing is fair use (Texaco, Google Books), and doing so did not materially impact the copyright holder's interests (Sony). That is what makes Anthropic's acts fair use. Destroying the physical copies is barely a footnote in this case.
=Smidge=

Facial recognition is really neat technology, and we are all slightly better off thanks to its development. It's also imperfect, and nearly-guaranteed to be a net negative if you fully trust it, without human verification.

If you want to come out ahead by using cool technology, you're going to have to think about how to use it. There just isn't any shortcut around thinking.

If you have something which is only 99.9% reliable, that can be useful but it's going to be wrong sometimes. How are you preventing that wrongness from breaking your system? Insulting (much less turning-away) regular, recurring, paying customers is usually considered a really bad move, generally resulting in lower profits.

Free money falls out of the sky. Should we take it? Today we'll be interviewing Republicans, and learning that the answer is No because asceticism is a fundamental ideal that we should all strive toward. Burn a sacrifice instead!

> So, let me suggest tentatively that given that you weren't even aware this order existed until a few minutes ago, and thought that there was just a settlement should make you slightly less confident about this conclusion

Yeah no. The part I cited, is cited because it is the only relevant part with regards to mandating anything be destroyed. You are insisting that destruction is necessary for legal compliance, which is 100% bullshit.

If it soothes your soul, I'll quote the document you linked;

"This order grants summary judgment for Anthropic that the training use was a fair use. And, it grants that the print-to-digital format change was a fair use for a different reason."

Even if they had not argued that destruction of the books was part of what made the effort "transformative" - they had already demonstrated that scanning the books was inherently fair use and transformative because the other cases they cited covered everything they were doing and were already ruled fair use. The destruction and therefore avoidance of creating an "additional copy" is merely icing on the cake; they were in the clear even without that argument. It is basically without consequence.

You keep quoting Anthorpic's arguments, try actually reading what the judge thought of those arguments?

Digitizing the books counts as fair use in this case for exactly the same reason as it does in the Google Books case because it fundamentally changes the way the media is interacted with ("eased storage and enabled searchability"), and in the Sony case because it "was not done for purposes trenching upon the copyright ownerâ(TM)s rightful interests." (page 14)

Further, "As a result, Anthropicâ(TM)s format-change from print library copies to digital library copies was transformative under fair use factor one. Anthropic was entitled to retain a copy of these works in a print format. It retained them instead in a digital format, easing storage and searchability." Emphasis mine. Anthorpic was under no obligation to destroy the books, but being the legal owners of the physical copies had the right to do with them as they pleased, including destruction, insofar as copyright was not violated. (Page 17)

Further further, "To be clear, this print-to-digital conversion involved a different and narrower form of transformative use than the broader one advanced by Anthropic. Anthropic argues that the central library use was part and parcel of the LLM training use and therefore transformative. This order disagrees. However, this order holds that the mere conversion of a print book to a digital file to save space and enable searchability was transformative for that reason alone." Emphasis mine. The judge ackno0wledges thay they did not create additional copies, but flatly rejects the idea that destruction of the physical originals makes the act transformative and fair use. It is merely transformative in the same sense as the Texaco and Google cases, where digitization improves access or convenience. This is directly opposed to your conclusion that the destruction was a necessary and "major" reason it was transformative. It was literally meaningless. (page 18)

Anthropic had every right to retain the physical copies if they saw fit; it was just easier for them to destroy the books as part of the scanning process. You're allowed to destroy your own property and that has no weight one way or the other in terms of copyright.
=Smidge=

Again, the fact that the books were destroyed after scanning is not material to the law or any ruling. All that matters is they are not sharing the copyrighted works illegally; in the passage you cite, specifically, that the digital scans are not distributed to others. The references to the other cases (Texaco, Google, and Sony Betamax) is solely to argue that if those cases were transformative and/or fair use, then their scanning of books is also transformative/fair use. They then argue that what they are doing is somehow "extra" transformative because they're destroying the original - that is such a minor part of the argument that it's basically of no consequence.

Your comment that they are "required to do this to comply with copyright rules" is complete bullshit. The ONLY part of the situation where anything was legally required to be destroyed, is the pirated digital copies they were not entitled to make a permanent library of.
=Smidge=

> but one of the major reasons for that ruling was that the books are being destroyed when they are scanned

Absolutely wrong. The settlement - not even a ruling - was that Anthropic had to delete the digital books it had pirated, because they were illegally obtained and so they were not entitled to keep copies of them. Absolutely no part of the lawsuit involved questions over the destruction of physical media.

There is no requirement that any of these companies destroy the books after scanning them. It's simply easier - as you point out - to cut the bindings and scan the pages as separate sheets rather than use a specialized book scanner that doesn't destroy the book in the process. That's it.
=Smidge=

As you increase the size of the bulk licenses' box, the amount of expensive cardboard increases as a square, but the number of licenses that fit inside the box increases as a cube. This results in a reduction of the amortized cardboard cost per license.

If a cost reduction isn't happening, then I would suggest people look into the shape of their bulk licenses. It may be that a same-sized box holds fewer licenses than it did ten years ago, due to the addition of "AI features" being tacked onto everything, resulting in irregular, difficult-to-efficiently-pack licenses.

But this is a good thing. Meta patenting this means there's only one company we need to worry about pulling this shit.

Read his comment again. His objection has nothing to do with what's being patented; it's just a super-generic anti-recording complaint. This patent does not prohibit anyone else from pissing him off by recording things.