Scott Lindsey
@scottlindsey.bsky.social
Dad / Developer with a boring job, Liberal, Anti-Crypto AI enthusiast
Things become very different. But it is hard to imagine how we get there with the present approaches.
October 1, 2025 at 10:25 PM
Things become very different. But it is hard to imagine how we get there with the present approaches.
People are raising a lot of good points but I’m off grid right now.
When I get back I’ll try to find exact numbers — am I right or wrong in thinking that AI electricity use is not that large?
When I get back I’ll try to find exact numbers — am I right or wrong in thinking that AI electricity use is not that large?
June 28, 2025 at 3:45 PM
People are raising a lot of good points but I’m off grid right now.
When I get back I’ll try to find exact numbers — am I right or wrong in thinking that AI electricity use is not that large?
When I get back I’ll try to find exact numbers — am I right or wrong in thinking that AI electricity use is not that large?
I do think we need regulations on this matter. There is not enough transparency and tech companies may not be motivated to use water responsibly.
June 26, 2025 at 6:09 PM
I do think we need regulations on this matter. There is not enough transparency and tech companies may not be motivated to use water responsibly.
"It uses water" tends to be pretty squishy. If you pointed me at a data center that was draining an aquifer in a desert, I would join you in condemning that.
But here in the PNW we only worry if they are paying enough because it just comes back down as rain.
hillsboroherald.com/hillsboro-re...:
But here in the PNW we only worry if they are paying enough because it just comes back down as rain.
hillsboroherald.com/hillsboro-re...:
Hillsboro Residents Will Get Soaked On Water Rates Again As Industry Gets Another Break
Editors Note: Charolyn Concepcion has reviewed hundreds of pages of data provided by the City of Hillsboro water department. Her
hillsboroherald.com
June 26, 2025 at 5:46 PM
"It uses water" tends to be pretty squishy. If you pointed me at a data center that was draining an aquifer in a desert, I would join you in condemning that.
But here in the PNW we only worry if they are paying enough because it just comes back down as rain.
hillsboroherald.com/hillsboro-re...:
But here in the PNW we only worry if they are paying enough because it just comes back down as rain.
hillsboroherald.com/hillsboro-re...:
Here's the IEA report on worldwide energy use, and I've linked to the section on electricity.
I think they are saying that AC is the largest driver, but then transport and industrial use.
www.iea.org/reports/glob...
I think they are saying that AC is the largest driver, but then transport and industrial use.
www.iea.org/reports/glob...
Electricity – Global Energy Review 2025 – Analysis - IEA
Global Energy Review 2025 - Analysis and key findings. A report by the International Energy Agency.
www.iea.org
June 26, 2025 at 5:39 PM
Here's the IEA report on worldwide energy use, and I've linked to the section on electricity.
I think they are saying that AC is the largest driver, but then transport and industrial use.
www.iea.org/reports/glob...
I think they are saying that AC is the largest driver, but then transport and industrial use.
www.iea.org/reports/glob...
And yes, as a coder I absolutely need to be all about AI.
Being knowledgeable about AI is how you avoid user errors like trusting AI output without validating it.
Being knowledgeable about AI is how you avoid user errors like trusting AI output without validating it.
June 26, 2025 at 4:30 PM
And yes, as a coder I absolutely need to be all about AI.
Being knowledgeable about AI is how you avoid user errors like trusting AI output without validating it.
Being knowledgeable about AI is how you avoid user errors like trusting AI output without validating it.
Increased electricity use can be fine -- see China's declining CO2 footprint. Sadly the Trump admin exists and will slow down the transition to clean energy.
arstechnica.com/science/2025....
arstechnica.com/science/2025....
Renewable power reversing China’s emissions growth
It’s the country’s first one-year emissions decline that’s not linked to economic issues.
arstechnica.com
June 26, 2025 at 4:28 PM
Increased electricity use can be fine -- see China's declining CO2 footprint. Sadly the Trump admin exists and will slow down the transition to clean energy.
arstechnica.com/science/2025....
arstechnica.com/science/2025....
There are some wild numbers going around about energy use, but they tend to be wrong. US electricity use did tick up in 2024, but it was mainly driven by EVs and residential decarbonization.
For some reason you don't hear people on Bluesky being mad about EVs.
For some reason you don't hear people on Bluesky being mad about EVs.
June 26, 2025 at 4:25 PM
There are some wild numbers going around about energy use, but they tend to be wrong. US electricity use did tick up in 2024, but it was mainly driven by EVs and residential decarbonization.
For some reason you don't hear people on Bluesky being mad about EVs.
For some reason you don't hear people on Bluesky being mad about EVs.
I think your problem is billionaires, not machines.
June 26, 2025 at 4:07 PM
I think your problem is billionaires, not machines.
Both companies started with piracy. Anthropic started buying and scanning only after they got some momentum.
I think at the time it was too much of a moonshot to justify spending, let's say $100MM, on buying books.
If it didn't work they could just delete the files and move on.
I think at the time it was too much of a moonshot to justify spending, let's say $100MM, on buying books.
If it didn't work they could just delete the files and move on.
June 26, 2025 at 3:34 PM
Both companies started with piracy. Anthropic started buying and scanning only after they got some momentum.
I think at the time it was too much of a moonshot to justify spending, let's say $100MM, on buying books.
If it didn't work they could just delete the files and move on.
I think at the time it was too much of a moonshot to justify spending, let's say $100MM, on buying books.
If it didn't work they could just delete the files and move on.
"blog post", LOL.
Maybe plaintiffs didn't make this argument because it was going to lose and lawyer time is expensive, Judge Chhabria?
Defense would have had to explain to you that protecting incumbents is not the purpose of copyright law.
Maybe plaintiffs didn't make this argument because it was going to lose and lawyer time is expensive, Judge Chhabria?
Defense would have had to explain to you that protecting incumbents is not the purpose of copyright law.
June 26, 2025 at 3:29 PM
"blog post", LOL.
Maybe plaintiffs didn't make this argument because it was going to lose and lawyer time is expensive, Judge Chhabria?
Defense would have had to explain to you that protecting incumbents is not the purpose of copyright law.
Maybe plaintiffs didn't make this argument because it was going to lose and lawyer time is expensive, Judge Chhabria?
Defense would have had to explain to you that protecting incumbents is not the purpose of copyright law.
If what the machines produce is "slop", then there is no concern! We can let the machines produce and consume the boilerplate corporate emails -- we just need to make sure that actual humans have the means to demand better content.
June 26, 2025 at 7:37 AM
If what the machines produce is "slop", then there is no concern! We can let the machines produce and consume the boilerplate corporate emails -- we just need to make sure that actual humans have the means to demand better content.
Actually I’m wrong — all this judgement found was that the plaintiffs failed to show harm as a result of AI training. I’m conflating it with yesterday’s Anthropic judgement.
The unfortunate effect of requiring AI companies to buy and scan huge collections of books is shutting out small players.
The unfortunate effect of requiring AI companies to buy and scan huge collections of books is shutting out small players.
June 26, 2025 at 5:53 AM
Actually I’m wrong — all this judgement found was that the plaintiffs failed to show harm as a result of AI training. I’m conflating it with yesterday’s Anthropic judgement.
The unfortunate effect of requiring AI companies to buy and scan huge collections of books is shutting out small players.
The unfortunate effect of requiring AI companies to buy and scan huge collections of books is shutting out small players.
The gist of this ruling is that reading books is not “stealing”.
There was some illegal downloading, and the AI companies are fully on the hook for that. It may cost them billions.
There was some illegal downloading, and the AI companies are fully on the hook for that. It may cost them billions.
June 26, 2025 at 5:27 AM
The gist of this ruling is that reading books is not “stealing”.
There was some illegal downloading, and the AI companies are fully on the hook for that. It may cost them billions.
There was some illegal downloading, and the AI companies are fully on the hook for that. It may cost them billions.
You want to look at the Luddites for a good parallel.
Skilled textile weavers replaced by machines which did the same thing, operated by lower paid workers.
But here we are today and you won’t find many people who want to go back to hand woven cloth.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
Skilled textile weavers replaced by machines which did the same thing, operated by lower paid workers.
But here we are today and you won’t find many people who want to go back to hand woven cloth.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
Luddite - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
June 26, 2025 at 5:06 AM
You want to look at the Luddites for a good parallel.
Skilled textile weavers replaced by machines which did the same thing, operated by lower paid workers.
But here we are today and you won’t find many people who want to go back to hand woven cloth.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
Skilled textile weavers replaced by machines which did the same thing, operated by lower paid workers.
But here we are today and you won’t find many people who want to go back to hand woven cloth.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
The only problem I see is abundance.
People are (reasonably) afraid that authors won’t get paid if authoring becomes a solved problem.
But if the work is being done, shouldn’t there be more wealth for everyone?
Maybe structuring a society around everyone being as busy as possible is bad.
People are (reasonably) afraid that authors won’t get paid if authoring becomes a solved problem.
But if the work is being done, shouldn’t there be more wealth for everyone?
Maybe structuring a society around everyone being as busy as possible is bad.
June 26, 2025 at 3:21 AM
The only problem I see is abundance.
People are (reasonably) afraid that authors won’t get paid if authoring becomes a solved problem.
But if the work is being done, shouldn’t there be more wealth for everyone?
Maybe structuring a society around everyone being as busy as possible is bad.
People are (reasonably) afraid that authors won’t get paid if authoring becomes a solved problem.
But if the work is being done, shouldn’t there be more wealth for everyone?
Maybe structuring a society around everyone being as busy as possible is bad.
No, the ruling makes it plain that an intent to train an AI in no way makes copyright infringement permissible.
This ruling just finds that plaintiffs failed to show that training an AI on their content harmed them.
This ruling just finds that plaintiffs failed to show that training an AI on their content harmed them.
June 26, 2025 at 2:08 AM
No, the ruling makes it plain that an intent to train an AI in no way makes copyright infringement permissible.
This ruling just finds that plaintiffs failed to show that training an AI on their content harmed them.
This ruling just finds that plaintiffs failed to show that training an AI on their content harmed them.
I don’t think torrenting books and consuming YouTube videos are similar.
June 26, 2025 at 1:57 AM
I don’t think torrenting books and consuming YouTube videos are similar.
I’m not “stealing” and I don’t work for an AI company, I’m just a worker who sees the writing on the wall.
My skills have been obsoleted on the regular, not sure why authors get a pass on learning new skills.
My skills have been obsoleted on the regular, not sure why authors get a pass on learning new skills.
June 26, 2025 at 1:11 AM
I’m not “stealing” and I don’t work for an AI company, I’m just a worker who sees the writing on the wall.
My skills have been obsoleted on the regular, not sure why authors get a pass on learning new skills.
My skills have been obsoleted on the regular, not sure why authors get a pass on learning new skills.
Why do we think authors should be protected from competition?
If someone invented a machine that generated food would you say “what about the farmers?”
If someone invented a machine that generated food would you say “what about the farmers?”
June 26, 2025 at 1:08 AM
Why do we think authors should be protected from competition?
If someone invented a machine that generated food would you say “what about the farmers?”
If someone invented a machine that generated food would you say “what about the farmers?”
Hilarious. The judge is mad that copyright is not intended to protect human authors from competition, so he crafted as narrow a ruling as he could get away with.
This is a win for AI companies.
This is a win for AI companies.
June 26, 2025 at 1:03 AM
Hilarious. The judge is mad that copyright is not intended to protect human authors from competition, so he crafted as narrow a ruling as he could get away with.
This is a win for AI companies.
This is a win for AI companies.
The judge is unhappy because he felt compelled to follow the law to a place he did not want to go, so he made as narrow a ruling as he could.
Ultimately, copyright law is not intended to protect authors from automated competition.
Ultimately, copyright law is not intended to protect authors from automated competition.
June 26, 2025 at 12:52 AM
The judge is unhappy because he felt compelled to follow the law to a place he did not want to go, so he made as narrow a ruling as he could.
Ultimately, copyright law is not intended to protect authors from automated competition.
Ultimately, copyright law is not intended to protect authors from automated competition.
I mean it's happening with Grok all the time. They ask "@grok is this true" and don't like the answer.
As much as Elon would like Grok to be conservative, it is a derivative of Llama 3, which is trained on millions of books.
No one who has read millions of books is conservative.
As much as Elon would like Grok to be conservative, it is a derivative of Llama 3, which is trained on millions of books.
No one who has read millions of books is conservative.
June 25, 2025 at 9:11 PM
I mean it's happening with Grok all the time. They ask "@grok is this true" and don't like the answer.
As much as Elon would like Grok to be conservative, it is a derivative of Llama 3, which is trained on millions of books.
No one who has read millions of books is conservative.
As much as Elon would like Grok to be conservative, it is a derivative of Llama 3, which is trained on millions of books.
No one who has read millions of books is conservative.
Well, then I apologize for attributing that to you.
The author of this story seems to have hallucinated this idea, I can't find anything to back it up in the actual summary judgement.
The author of this story seems to have hallucinated this idea, I can't find anything to back it up in the actual summary judgement.
June 25, 2025 at 9:09 PM
Well, then I apologize for attributing that to you.
The author of this story seems to have hallucinated this idea, I can't find anything to back it up in the actual summary judgement.
The author of this story seems to have hallucinated this idea, I can't find anything to back it up in the actual summary judgement.