You're missing the point.

Leaks of personal information like this are only possible because some company decided to collect and store it all in one place. It's never a matter of if, but only when, a database will be breached and data leaked.

The age verification laws will create even more vast databases of personal information; names, addresses, financial information, various service accounts, even deep information about each person's habits and preferences. All in the hands private businesses who were the lowest (or at least most corrupt) bid. It's never a matter of if, but only when, a database will be breached and data leaked. It will be a prize sweeter than any criminal organization or malicious state actor could possibly have dreamed of.

Let's stop putting everyone's eggs in the same basket against their will, hmm? Especially when it doesn't even solve the problem it's championed to solve.
=Smidge=

Sure? I've had PV on my roof for the past year. 430W nominal panels. Problem is most of them point east and some of them point west, because the orientation of my house, and the ones that point west are shaded the later half of the afternoon due to trees. Despite the sub optimal orientation, they average about 2kwh daily when the sun is shining.

I'm in lower NY where we have like... weather and stuff, y;know? I'm sure they'd do a lot better in California with better orientation. Full sun for 5 hours a day on average is not unreasonable.
=Smidge=

They will not work in a power outage, because that would mean it could feed power back into a downed electrical grid which is how people get killed. It's also extremely illegal for that reason.

=Smidge=

The payback for these types of systems is like 3-6 years depending on circumstances.

A single 400W panel with microinverter should handily average 2kwh daily as pong as it's pointed in vaguely the right direction. In California that's reducing our electric bill by over 60 cents a day just for power costs, not including avoided taxes and fees. Doesn't sound like much, but at $400 "installed" it's paid for itself in well under 2 years. After that, basically free money as savings to the tune of like $20/mo.

And you can take it with you.

I'd say it's a no-brainer if you have a place to put it, but if you're actually opposed to the concept you might actually not have a brain.
=Smidge=

I get paid for my excess solar. Not a lot, mind you, and only once a year, but they still cut me a check if my net balance is negative.

=Smidge=

> The numbers I saw suggested a 1% change in humanity's emissions, half the CO2 budget for the world, would solve the problem.

Where did you see that? Even the Paris Accords - which are kinda the minium effort - calls for 50% CO2 reduction by 2030.

=Smidge=

> However we don't have data on the deep ocean.

Of course we do. What a silly thing to even suggest.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary....
https://sos.noaa.gov/catalog/d...
https://www.nature.com/article...

=Smidge=

> The measures taken did - nothing.

"The doctor said I needed surgery to treat this cancer. I took some aspirin instead. The measures I took did nothing, so clearly the doctor lied to me."

> Perhaps it is time to exercise our collective masses of grey matter (and our AIs) to figure out some feasible coping measures and implement them.

We know what to do. We've known what to do for decades. He simply have not done them, mostly because there's too much money and power to be had in maintaining the status quot. We don't need "AI" to solve this already solved problem and, in fact, "AI" is sucking up the resources we need to solve it while also making the problem worse, faster.
=Smidge=

> Europe isn't socialist. They have some social policies.

So you know that meme, with the Orange County Choppers guys, goes something like this;

"Socialism doesn't work!"
"Norway is Socialist and they're doing great"
"They're not Socialist they're Capitalist with strong social policies"
"Then let's adopt those policies"
"No, that's Socialism!"

That's literally you. You are that asshole. Congratulations.
=Smidge=

> 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=

> 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=

> 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=