pfdietz

9 ms·

241.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
It has to be sufficiently transformed. Simply scanning it doesn't qualify. The legal system by contrast is leaning toward training of AI as being sufficiently transformative.
242.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
Right. But destroying a book even without making a copy is also allowed. It's very very common, in fact; something approaching a billion books are destroyed each year in the US.
243.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
The mathematicians could make an argument that applies to everyone. But that probably leads to outright communism, and that well is still quite poisoned. Maybe AI ultimately gets powerful enough to give us Banksian full luxury communism.
244.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
An alternate interpretation of Tao is that he has no illusions about where this is going and is trying the optimize his outcome. I wonder what he's telling his grad students and prospective grad students.
245.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
Destroying your copy of a copyrighted work does not violate copyright.
246.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
That would be illegal.
247.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
The scan doesn't go away, and can be released when the copyright expires. Oh no, a lump of cellulose is gone. Will no one think of the fibers?
248.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
The "putting it online" part is where you are f-ing up.
249.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
I'm reminded of a quote that's been (mis)attributed to Dorothy Parker. "This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force."
250.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
It's hilariously common online as well. Bullshitter makes a claim, someone calls them on the BS, they put up a link, and (lo and behold) the link when examined does nothing to defend the claim. Often the link directly contradicts the
251.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
> 94.8% This seems consistent with Sturgeon's Law.
252.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
Nowhere are the supposed rare books listed. Confuses "(not all that) old books" with "rare books". Ragebait, nothing more.
253.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
I can see the difference. But is that a difference that matters? Why is the thin elite layer you are referring to a group anyone else should care about, any more than any other occupational minority that's been rudely displaced over
254.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
Imagine the response of the general population to the kinds of arguments you all are making. "Where were you when our jobs were changed out of existence?" They will be properly outraged by the perceived intellectual elitism, t
255.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
Some of us are getting tired of the obviously irrational response to these developments. There is so much argument that boils down to "this would be very bad for me, therefore it can't happen". Cope is a good word for tha
256.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
I can imagine a world like that, but in what way does that describe what is actually happening?
257.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
It's another example of Moravec's Paradox. Explaining something to another person uses capabilities that go back millions of years. Mathematics goes back thousands of years. Evolution has made us very good at verbal communicati
258.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
This already describes the world for the vast majority of people. These changes are just the same thing coming to a thin intellectual elite who thought they were immune. ["First time?" meme]
259.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
Yet another reason not to buy a BMW.
260.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
Just most people. Your quibble doesn't save you. Why should anyone take your personal idiosyncratic definition of value seriously, especially when it leads to absurd consequences? The simplest explanation here is that you have just n
261.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
Equating people to inanimate objects is a remarkable argument. How about we reject that out of hand.
262.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
When your justification for your idea is that everyone else is stupid, maybe you need to reevaluate who is being stupid.
263.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
If someone had posted "OMG Google is using up air" I'd have been equally contemptuous. I'm kind of surprised we aren't hearing that as an argument against burning fossil fuels, actually.
264.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
The only thing horrifying here is the ridiculous reaction to this perfectly acceptable procedure.
265.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
I don't think so. I believe teachers (for example) have gotten in trouble over this.
266.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
Even without copyright isssues Google would have been perfectly fine in destructively scanning these books.
267.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
If books were precious physical objects of great value, why is that not reflected in their prices? Used books are usually worthless. And if their inherent value was so great, regardless of supply or use, wouldn't we be able to churn o
268.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
They want to keep out the poors (read: blacks.) American racism, same as it ever was.
269.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
This article seems to confuse lithium-ion and lithium-metal batteries. Lithium-ion batteries intercalcate lithium ions into pre-existing electrodes and that doesn't form dendrites. Dendrites are a phenomenon of lithium-metal batterie
270.
by pfdietz 3mo ago
That's some industrial strength denial you've got going there. Please entertain the possibility that people who are presenting reasoned arguments with evidence against you are not "psychotic". BTW, is Ken Buzzard also

More ›