161–170 of 654 posts
This is a too big to fail scenario. If these companies fail, so does the US economy. Normal laws for individuals don't apply, so any comparison to that is pointless.
If failure means catastrophe for the nation, it shouldn't have been a private, for-profit project in the first place and instead be a public project.
But why not jail like Kim Dotcom? And why no Feds jumping on Dario’s window? They are not only pirating, they also resell it!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A summary of what happened is not a full-throated defense of anyone.
[flagged]
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/september-8/riaa...
> in practice the RIAA offered defendants the option of establishing a “Clean Slate” by destroying all of their illegally acquired files and paying a settlement of approximately $3 per illegal song.
The two notable cases were:
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._Thoma...
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_Music_Entertainment_v...
But why not jail like Kim Dotcom? And why no Feds jumping on Dario’s window? They are not only pirating, they also resell it!
Because no one wants that. They’re offering incredible value for what they took.
Obviously exaggerating.. but not by much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the downvotes, my response is to read: https://authorsguild.org/advocacy/artificial-intelligence/wh... > If there is a current publisher(s) (which still possesses an exclusive license), the author(s) will split the $3000 with the publisher. Any co-authors will share the author portion and, if there are multiple publishers (e.g., different publishers have exclusive rights to different formats), they will share the…
>It is split between the publisher and the author, also publishers will have a large catalog of books they will submit, an author typically will only have a few -- the payout will be going to the lawyers and mostly to publishers. This is innumerate. If it's split 50% between authors and publishers, then it won't be "mostly to publishers". Mathematically it will be equal between "authors" and "publishers", and because…
> if there is more than one rightsholder
Again, a publisher will have a whole catalog of books / titles, a non-negligible portion of that the publisher will own the copyright to (no one to split it with). There's all kinds of books outside of novels, there's media tie-ins, IP franchise books (ie Star Wars), childrens books, textbooks / reference materials, etc etc etc. Yes, with novels the author tends to own the copyright, but you're forgetting all of the other kinds of books out there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because no one wants that. They’re offering incredible value for what they took.
I mean.. it also sends the message that you can ignore the law if you're rich. $1.5B is like a single failed training run for Anthropic. They burn that in a long weekend because somebody forgot to abort a hyper parameter search. Obviously exaggerating.. but not by much.
Judge Alsup issued the original order that determined they were liable for piracy but that training LLMs on books was fair use. It's worth reading if you're interested in the topic. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69058235/231/bartz-v-an...
Yes, that is interesting. It sounds like he was aware of the theoretical possibility of a book being regurgitated verbatim. Do you know if he was aware it had been done? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49000742 If he was not aware, I wonder if he still would have described the process as "exceedingly transformative" had he been aware.
Note also that Sonnet 3.7 had to be jailbroken.
Note also that they got high memorization for a few books that were widely quoted. The books in question can probably also be "retrieved" by putting phrase prefixes into Google, which is probably why Sonnet 3.7 knows them with the precision of a fanboy. Material being widely repeated in the training set is a well-known cause of memorization.
Usually a thief isn‘t allowed to keep what he has stolen
Judge Alsup issued the original order that determined they were liable for piracy but that training LLMs on books was fair use. It's worth reading if you're interested in the topic. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69058235/231/bartz-v-an...
Alsup is an interesting judge. He has handled several important tech cases, such as Oracle v Google, and Waymo v Uber. He's also a longtime hobbyist programmer working in BASIC, much of it in support of his ham radio hobby. Screenshots of his shortwave propagation prediction program here [1]. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/19/16503076/oracle-vs-googl...
His middle name is Haskell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because no one wants that. They’re offering incredible value for what they took.
I mean.. it also sends the message that you can ignore the law if you're rich. $1.5B is like a single failed training run for Anthropic. They burn that in a long weekend because somebody forgot to abort a hyper parameter search. Obviously exaggerating.. but not by much.