> 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=

Maven is the name given to it by the DOD.

Google backed out of the project early. The actual LLM is by Palantir.

=Smidge=

It was an LLM that chose the target.

Yes, the data was outdated. The LLM still chose the target.

Yes, it was a human who ultimately made the decision to launch the attack. They trusted the LLM, which chose the target.

I'm not saying it would not have happened if not for the LLM, but if the LLM wasn't involved there would have been more humans involved, and less trust in the data, and maybe someone would have caught the error in time.

Regardless, my point is that they are already using AI to make decisions about who to murder. That is a fact even the Pentagon admits, and Peter Thiel brags about.
=Smidge=

> Nobody with any sanity whatsoever would honestly suggest that at this point.

They're already using AI to identify military targets.... that's why they blew up a school full of children with cruise missiles, remember?

=Smidge=

Third option: The same person/people who has influence over Trump also has influence over everyone else in the party. That being big donors and foreign powers, mostly.

But in terms of DC politics it's mostly fear of breaking ranks since that'll get you ostracized.
=Smidge=

Given hat innocent people are necessarily going to get hurt, and a successful surveillance state would be much MUCH worse about that, and that innocent people mistakenly caught up will generally receive better outcomes than innocent people intentionally targeted (e.g. getting charges dismissed etc), then it seems like leveraging the flaws of the system to argue against its creation is definitely the better option.

=Smidge=

It's interesting that the response to less than perfect license plate recognition is to brag about how a total surveillance state is so much easier to implement in Europe.

=Smidge=

The only thing I can infer from your reply is that you do not understand what either (or both) "fascist" and "socialist" mean.

=Smidge=

You're assuming that most politicians care what people want.

That's most important is what the corporations want. The value of a total surveillance state is a great secondary benefit for the fascists currently in power, too. You don't have to imagine being tracked down and harassed, if not outright prosecuted, for protesting or campaigning for the 'wrong team.'

=Smidge=

Turbine blade recycling is a thing now. Perhaps there is still room to scale, but it exists.

Oddly, one of the most cost effective methods is to grind the blades up and feed them into rotary kilns used in cement processing. The resin burns clean providing supplemental heat reducing fuel use offsetting emissions, the glass fiber melts and becomes part of the silica for the final product, and any metals are fully recoverable.

=Smidge=

> 300 gallons PER TURBINE! That's a lot.

It really isn't. That's roughly one full tank of diesel for one semi truck.

> so little fuel most plants still keep all their spent rods on-site

They keep the spent rods on site because they are FORCED to. it takes a few years before the self-heating from radioactive decay lowers enough for them to be handled without active cooling. Until then, they are kept first in water pools (which also shields the radiation) for 3-5 years and then moved to air cooled steel canisters inside concrete casks.

> Your 20~30 year claim seems to be the first result and also in AI-generated answers. It goes against what I've heard from farmers and ranchers.

"AI-generated answer versus personal anecdote which isn't even personal because I'm actually just citing a podcast." Except the 20-30 years is not "AI-generated" but documented standard for planning and evaluation purposes.

If your concern is wasting/laundering money, then that's the nuclear industry in a nutshell. Tens of billions of dollars per plant, with billions in cost overruns, over decades of construction.
  =Smidge=

> Tacking them on where?

Annual or registration fees. An extra $150-$200 per period in many states, with some of them charging more based on weight.

For example, New Jersey charges an additional $1080 to register a battery electric vehicle, which is four years worth of the $270/yr fee they will start charging you on year five and beyond.

> I've been thinking about swapping a worn out ICE in a classic car with a Tesla crate motor.

Tesla doesn't do crate motors, and Tesla drivetrains are traverse axles which are not drop-in replacements for classic cars. What you may be thinking of is some third party solution?
=Smidge=

From another source it sounds like the plant's SCADA system was compromised and shut down/disabled, causing some plants to go offline.

The immediate consequence is they would lose remote control over the pumps, fans, and valves at these facilities and either default to some safe state or just shut down entirely. Someone would have to drive over and manually reset/control everything, which is exactly what they did. Addressed promptly enough most people would even notice something was wrong.

The long term consequences could be that they end up getting incorrect status information about the facility's operation, causing a longer disruption until complaints start coming in and they have to run around trying to figure out what's wrong. Loss of water pressure, distribution of untreated water, distribution of over treated water, depletion of reserves are all obvious problems a bad enough attack could cause. Physical damage to equipment is also not impossible, which would be the worst case scenario.... you're not fixing a broken well/system pump or AOP reactor in two or three hours, and it you lose a bunch of them at once you could be at reduced capacity for months.
=Smidge=