Well, that's a revenue hit for sure for Anthropic.
Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says
251–260 of 299 posts
Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not from China? One country has a recent track record of massive amounts of industrial espionage and one doesn't.
There are so many Chinese open weights models that any company with resources can run them in-house (or with a trusted provider). There might be some valid concerns about model alignment, but at least the model running in-house isn't going to conduct espionage. Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
This is the most hilarious, ironic thing of it all. If you want secure, high performance, you run Chinese models like DeepSeek on your own (or trusted) infra. Meanwhile you can never trust OpenAI and Anthropic's models.
Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says
#253[flagged]
Wasn't one of the big promises the AI labs made "uncopyrighting"? Ie. the ability to reconstruct large works, including source code, without actual access to the source code? Everything from movies to operating systems.
I remember hearing something about this. Reminds me of the many lies that political candidates make to garner interest and approval. Except who's holding them accountable - like there's not even a list anywhere tracking these lies.
Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
They redistributed the statistical patterns of those copyrighted materials. Which perhaps should be treated similarly nos As for your "technically not copyright infringement" defense. Those laws are from a time when those patterns couldnt be derived and dostributed at scale. A human had to learn and teach them. That made it different. The scale enabled my modern tech makes it a whole dofferent situation. The same way…
> They redistributed the statistical patterns of those copyrighted materials. Which perhaps should be treated similarly nos Nos for the same reason that me giving you a word cloud of the frequency of words within Harry Potter isn’t infringement. It’s a novel transformation.
Thats not as complex or scalable as what LLMs can do. The capability and scale is what changes the equation. Quantity is a quality unto itself here
Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may be conflating the book thing with internet scanning. On the book case, a class action case was brought to court and it was settled. There's no use in bringing it up further, it has been settled, and it bears no relation to the Anthropic v China case. You like programming? Think of encapsulation, imagine if you had to think about f(x) but someone brings up y, now you have to think about f(x,y) and what other p…
My response was directed to your insincere characterization of Anthropic's actions. As we can see from the comments here, the public opinion hasn't settled the same way as the court case has, and that's why it's still discussed.
But 'the public opinion' doesn't matter. The case was brought by copyright holders to the courts, and Anthropic and the copyright holders made a deal wherein the copyright holders were paid money in exchange for dropping the case and all claims to the intellectual property of Anthropic's derivative product.
If the damnified have considered the matter settled, why would it matter what third parties have to say about it? Third parties would have pushed for more compensation, or ownership of the derivate product. If you feel damnified yourself you can open a case and explain why the actions of Anthropic have hurt you personally.
Otherwise it is a matter that doesn't concern the general public, we have no say in it and there is no right to be offended on behalf of parties that have already settled the argument.
Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says
#256Earlier 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
Anthropic clearly doesn't respect other people's IP, it's real rich that they now insist on theirs being worthy of protection. Fwiw, I think the concept of IP in general is counter to human progress.
> in general is counter to human progress.
Historically most evidence seems to point to the contrary.
Amongst other things after the printing press was created it was impossible for anyone who was an author to survive from their work unless they were independently wealthy or had rich patrons.
Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says
#257Earlier 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.
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..
KimDoctCom?
Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never get tired of posting this answer because everyone on the internet is adopting this hot take: If you look at it with your eyes crossed, Anthropic and the chinese are doing the same thing. If you look at it with nuance 1 the chinese are doing way worse stuff, and 2 stealing from a thief would still be stealing 1. The chinese are making multiple accounts (at least 49,000)[1][2], using proxies/VPNs, possibly usin…
What seems to be missing from that take is that a) Alibaba paid for the access b) there is no IP theft because LLM output is not copyrightable. Anthropic seems to want to both own and eat its stolen cake.
Would be an interesting exercise to have the frontier models calculate their civil liabillity or the extent of the liabillity the can impose on fellow pay-it-forward theives
Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
The practical implementation of IP? Sure, that's debatable. But the concept of IP is rooted in favoring progress. The thought process being, that if one's intellectual work can be copied and reused and modified and what not without issues, why should anyone invent things anymore? Just wait for the next person to do it and then copy their work, that's way less effort than inventing things yourself. IP aims to protect…
The Soviet Union, for all it's faults, had a fair bunch of scientific and technological breakthroughs without relying on IP. Sure, one person gets rewarded more with the IP system. But at the same time, that breakthrough then can't be built upon by others. Overall, I think it does more harm than good because of how it monopolizes technologies and ossifies development. I think free sharing of knowledge will always bea…
> fair bunch of scientific and technological breakthroughs
Outside of military technologies they had massively fallen behind the west by the 80s. Without the western tech they licensed or copied they were permanently stuck in the 50s. Even their crappy cars were licensed copies of cheap European cars from the 60s.
When it comes to consumer electronics, vehicles and a bunch of other things they were comically behind. So it’s really not a good example..
> monopolizes technologies and ossifies development.
As bad as it might be empirical evidence shows that historically a superior system has never existed (it might be feasible but everything that was tried underperformed).
Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
The practical implementation of IP? Sure, that's debatable. But the concept of IP is rooted in favoring progress. The thought process being, that if one's intellectual work can be copied and reused and modified and what not without issues, why should anyone invent things anymore? Just wait for the next person to do it and then copy their work, that's way less effort than inventing things yourself. IP aims to protect…
What absolute bollocks. Human ingenuity and innovation is only limited by the greed of elites, not due to something as damaging as "IP." Good grief. All one has to do is look at how humanity has consistently progressed due iterating on what has existed is how we progress, not whether some corporation that wants to rat fuck us all for a few pts in share value.
> progressed due iterating on what has existed is how we progress
Progress was extremely slow until the 1800s. Coincidentally corporation and modern capitalism in general developed around the same time. Of course I’m not necessarily saying it was the main or direct course since it isn’t exactly possible to create an experiment comparing it to other systems (of course that was tried an failed completely in the USSR, Maoist China and similar places)