Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says
111–120 of 299 posts
Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says
#112[flagged]
Remember how Kim Dotcom got destroyed for criminal copyright infringement? One would think the big tech CEOs would face the same fate, that police officers would rappel down helicopters, storm their mansions and bring them out in cuffs. Instead the AI companies reached these absurd settlements with publishers that made a mockery out of all the previous copyright enforcement victims.
He just lost another court case… I wonder if we're getting close to the government spending as much to prosecute the man than what Hollywood possibly lost..
Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember how Kim Dotcom got destroyed for criminal copyright infringement? One would think the big tech CEOs would face the same fate, that police officers would rappel down helicopters, storm their mansions and bring them out in cuffs. Instead the AI companies reached these absurd settlements with publishers that made a mockery out of all the previous copyright enforcement victims.
Remember how people used to justify their own personal software piracy with arguments like "information wants to be free", "no one stole anything, you still have the data", "I was never going to buy it anyway", and "copyright should be abolished?" > Instead the AI companies reached these absurd settlements with publishers that made a mockery out of all the previous copyright enforcement victims. Isn't that at least s…
Settlements after the fact, not agreements beforehand.
No that's not something. That's just having infinitely more money to fight legal battles.
Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more complicated than that because Google has been legally displaying other people copyrighted material for years. In any case there's still a difference between publicly available copyrighted data and whether you can use it for model training, and the innovation around model training, RLHF, etc which you presumably have some interest as a country to allow companies to invest in with some legal protections (like…
So you're saying it's more important to safeguard slop outputs than the original work of human beings.
No, I am saying that there is a good chance that for the good of humanity, society decides that for miracle AGI we collectively forfeit copyright in LLM training yet IP protections for model development is still kept.
There are many cases in the early 2000s were copyright protections were relaxed for tech advancements
Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says
#115[flagged]
> Translation: Alibaba will continue distillation attacks using accounts that aren't directly attributable to it's own corporate infrastructure. What's a "distillation attack"? How is it different from simply distillation?
using infected machines as proxies would be a fair line in the sand
Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says
#116[flagged]
Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember how Kim Dotcom got destroyed for criminal copyright infringement? One would think the big tech CEOs would face the same fate, that police officers would rappel down helicopters, storm their mansions and bring them out in cuffs. Instead the AI companies reached these absurd settlements with publishers that made a mockery out of all the previous copyright enforcement victims.
Reminds me, did the AI companies redistribute that copyrighted material to others and make their money that way? Did Kim use the copyrighted material to generate something novel from it? copyright law literally says something isn’t infringement if it is a novel transformation. I get the jokes and criticism about AI companies fighting and complaining about competitors distilling, but this is a much weirder comparison.
But distribution isn't the only crime here, obtaining the material illegally apparently is a crime too. And the damn robot can also spit me harry Potter verbatim so I don't know how it would also not be distribution?
Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue here is not whether Anthropic used Common Crawl, Alibaba also does that. The issue is that by distilling Claude, Alibaba reuses the IP anthropic used to train the model that's more akin to historical Chinese reverse engineering methods and disrespect of IP
> Alibaba reuses the IP anthropic used to train the model that's more akin to historical Chinese reverse engineering methods and disrespect of IP Why is this any worse than Anthropic's disrepect of IP? You've apparently drawn a distinction between the two here, but I'm failing to see what it actually is.
Copyright law and IP law is not the same although everyone seem to conflate the two.
Search engines for example historically ignored copyright law by copying excerpts or serving other site images, it doesn't mean someone copying Google's code has some moral frepass
Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says
#119[flagged]
[flagged]
Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says
#120Considering their massive distillation, if US companies stop publishing new models to the public, would China still be able to develop new open weight models?
Depends on a lab, but they do have plenty of compute and engineering. So this would only slow down the progress.