For one, I'd get my dental layout scanned and then use the 3d model of my teeth to commission a giant pair of pincers where the cutters are replaced with a life-sized metal recreation of my teeth. I would use these to press bite marks on all sorts of things that a human being physically could not bite into, and emotionally would not want to.

Confirmed.

"training AI on a book without paying for it is stealing" -> "fine, we'll buy the book"

"if you pay for one copy you can only keep one copy" -> "okay, so we'll shred the physical copy and keep the digital one"

"now nobody can read it!" -> "you couldn't read our copy anyway, because we're not interested in selling it, and you've set up a legal framework where you can't read books without paying for them"

Point 3 has been a problem as long as books and markets have existed. Point 2 is the most common legal solution for digital lending libraries. The only thing that's new is point 1, and that's a direct response to lawsuits that people on this website have long cheered.

anyway the reason they are destroying books is because it's simply MUCH easier to get a fast and clean scan of a book's pages if you cut off the spine and can scan the pages flat.

The process, known as “destructive scanning,” involves cutting the spine from a book so its pages can be fed through high-speed scanners before the remaining physical copy is discarded.

[from a fortune article about the same subject, not paywalled for me but there might be a paywall if you read too many articles idk]

in contrast, the non-destructive scanning by the internet archive is an extremely slow, manual process with significantly more complicated equipment required (and often a worse result! text near the spine can end up warped just from the way the pages are pressed and photographed)

All agree on the facts of the format change. Anthropic “destructively scan[ned]” the print copies to create the digital ones. Anthropic or its vendors stripped the bindings from the print books, cut the pages to workable dimensions, and scanned those pages — discarding each print copy while creating a digital one in its place. The digital copy was then housed in the “research library” or “generalized data area” in place of the print copy (Opp. Exh. 22 at 145– 46, 193–94). Authors do not allege and our record does not show that Anthropic provided its converted digital copies of print books to anyone outside Anthropic. […]

Here, for reasons narrower than Anthropic offers, the mere format change was a fair use. Storage and searchability are not creative properties of the copyrighted work itself but physical properties of the frame around the work or informational properties about the work. See Texaco, 802 F. Supp. at 14 (physical), aff’d, 60 F.3d at 919; Google, 804 F.3d at 225 (informational); Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (“Sony Betamax”), 464 U.S. 417, 447 (1984) (rightful interests). In Texaco, the court reasoned that if a purchased scientific journal article had been copied “onto microfilm to conserve space, this might [have been] a persuasive transformative use.” 802 F. Supp. at 14 (Judge Pierre Leval), aff’d, 60 F.3d at 919 (reducing “bulk[ ]” “might suffice to tilt the first fair use factor in favor of Texaco if these purposes were dominant“). In Google Books, the court reasoned that a print-to-digital change to expose information about the work was transformative. Google, 804 F.3d at 225 (Judge Pierre Leval). And, in Sony Betamax, the Supreme Court held that making a recording of a television show in order to instead watch it at a later time was copying but did not usurp any rightful interest of the copyright owner. 464 U.S. at 447, 455. Important to the Supreme Court’s reasoning was the expectation that most such copiers would not distribute the permanent copies of the work. Finally, in A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., our court of appeals recognized the reasoning just explained, and therefore rejected by contrast a digitization effort that was touted as space-shifting but in fact resulted in the multiplication of copies shared with outsiders through a file-sharing service. 239 F.3d 1004, 1019 (9th Cir. 2001), aff’g in this part 114 F. Supp. 2d 896, 912–13, 915–16 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (Judge Marilyn Hall Patel) (citing Sony Betamax and Texaco).

Here, every purchased print copy was copied in order to save storage space and to enable searchability as a digital copy. The print original was destroyed. One replaced the other. And, there is no evidence that the new, digital copy was shown, shared, or sold outside the company. This use was even more clearly transformative than those in Texaco, Google, and Sony Betamax (where the number of copies went up by at least one), and, of course, more transformative than those uses rejected in Napster (where the number went up by “millions” of copies shared for free with others).

Yes, Anthropic is a commercial outfit. And, this order takes for granted that Anthropic in fact benefited from the print-to-digital format change — or it would not have gone to all the trouble. But the crux of the first fair use factor’s concern for “commercial” use is in protecting the copyright owners and their entitlements to exploit their copyright as they see fit (or not). See, e.g., Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 562 (1985). That the accused is a commercial entity is indicative, not dispositive. That the accused stands to benefit is likewise indicative. But what matters most is whether the format change exploits anything the Copyright Act reserves to the copyright owner. Anthropic already had purchased permanent library copies (print ones). It did not create new copies to share or sell outside. [...]

As a result, Anthropic’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.

@starsabove-aspect

Take it slow, take it sincerely, and don't take it seriously.

If you like to watch people do home decor online, you will often see people doing professional level whirlwind makeovers, where the whole space is transformed in a matter of days. That is not realistic for what decorating your own home is like, unless you have hella money to throw at the project. In which case, congratulations.

But more practically, I am usually only doing things one step at a time. I have a vague vibes-based concept for each room--I can reblog an older post about that, if you like--and then it's just a question of stumbling across the right items for the space. Usually I start with a paint color, and even then, there's often a process of trial and error. I painted the whole sunroom three times before I mixed a shade of verdigris I liked. I did my whole bedroom in one shade of black before I realized I wanted a different sheen of paint and a more complex color. And then it's a waiting game. Waiting to come across the right furniture. Waiting to find art that I like for the walls. Waiting to feel like I've got my head around what I want for the room.

It's really just figuring out what you think is interesting, and cool, and beautiful, and finding places in your home that fit.

but then you twist both halves and unscrew it to find a flat-head screwdriver in the middle.

BUT, if you twist the very end and unscrew that

you find a phillips screwdriver.

BUT DON’T THINK THAT’S ALL THERE IS! THERE’S MORE!! unscrew the very end again to find a smaller flat-head screwdriver!

BUT THAT’S STILL NOT THE END!!

unscrew the end of this screwdriver to find a final, teeny tiny, flat-head screwdriver

look at how cute it is!