What gets me is that I haven’t heard a reasonable explanation of exactly what the AI will do besides: nukes and biolabs we already have
& ofc AI is making climate change worse, some of the Amazon datacenters are using fossil fuels to generate a country’s worth of power, but that’s never part of their calculations
Viruses against humans, viruses against livestock as an attack against humanity's food chin, plant diseases, half of humanity feeds on three plants maize, wheat, rice. Attacks against infrastructure like water, internet, electricity.
Which one of these would it be? All of them in parallel? Or something we wouldn't think of. If I were to play chess against Magnus Carlsen, I wouldn't know with which piece he will checkmate me, but I know that I am going to lose.
I’m well aware tech companies are evil and yet work at one.
My current read is that ~20-30% of people in America actively delight in hurting others (ICE supporters etc)
Another 30% do not seem to care about anything but their own well-being. (I don’t like to think I fall here but as a big tech peon it doesn’t look good).
The remaining percent seem to care and are trying their best but looking at how things are going it’s not enough
I tried both and found Fastmail vastly easier to use.
The encryption part wasn’t that valuable for me and ofc Proton doesn’t encrypt the metadata and unless they’re proton too it’s not E2E so I’m happy sticking with Signal for that sorta stuff and leaving email for talking to businesses.
> Proton doesn’t encrypt the metadata and unless they’re proton too it’s not E2E
To be fair though your emails are E2EE at rest in your inbox, so in the event of seizure or a subpoena they can’t hand over anything usable aside from metadata unlike fastmail who will hand everything over.
Perhaps partially? I assume that cutting the pages out of the spin makes them easier to scan at least partially. That said I have no insider knowledge of this type of operation so I don't know how much easier that actually makes it.
But ultimately, it's a moot point, because the legal requirement means the books must end up destroyed. Even if the people at Amazon wanted to scan the books in a way that required no destruction at all, it's not currently (legally) possible for them to do so, so they might as well take the easy way out today.
Cutting the pages out makes them machinable. Non-destructive scans involves gently turning pages, and paying a lot of attention to the state of the spine. Destructive scans involve guillotine cutting the spine off, scanning the covers by hand, putting the pages into a hopper, clamping them in and hitting a button. While that book is scanning, you're already cutting the spine off the next book. If the machine jams, try to work the jam out gently, scan the pieces, and let the computer stitch it together.
A judge a while ago decided that as long as the physical copy is destroyed, and "transformed" into an electronic copy, you can do the upload. But if you preserve the physical copy after scanning it, you are in violation of copyright because you "copied" the book.
That's literally the only reason they are trashing them. It's a legal requirement.
Can you find a citation for this? I have heard this claimed rule recently from other people, and I haven't seen this decision (nor do I know what level of court or jurisdiction it might be). This is not a rule that I heard many years ago when working on and adjacent to copyright issues (including book scanning!), although of course the issue has been newly litigated again recently, so there may be new interpretations coming out.
Edit: Someone else linked to an order in Bartz v. Anthropic which appears to emphasize that destroying the original copies improved the defendant's position with respect to the fair use analysis. Is that the decision you're thinking of?
Ah, so I can buy and scan a dvd, destroy it and then legally distribute the legal copy via torrents. Good to know, because that is what the LLM thieves are doing.
Distributing an exact copy of the text would be illegal; if you could get an LLM trained on a book to output the exact copy of the text from the book then that would be illegal as well.
They still made a bunch of copies and reused it to train multiple models after making the first copy. Unless they copy and destroy a book each time they use it as as training sample
reply