301–310 of 654 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kill a man you’re a murderer. Kill a thousand, you’re a conqueror.
I harass the sea with my tiny boat and am called a pirate, you do it with a great fleet and are called a king.
A one time payment like 1.5B doesn’t do anything. There needs to be a royalty payment based on if the AI regurgitates existing ideas. That is probably the correct way to legislate this. If anything a human does can instantly be copied by an LLM, and then sent to all its subscribers, things need to change
I do recall that a "famous redditor" was driven to suicide for making works available and he wasn't even making money for it.
He wasn’t just some famous redditor. Aaron Swartz helped create Reddit and invented RSS. If I put my conspiracy theory hat one and I always get piled on for this theory in other online communities but I think it could be possible. The theory is I think Aaron found some very dark stuff while exploring the MIT private networks, things that he was not supposed to see and could be very damaging to a lot people if they we…
Epstein was relatively restrained even in his personal email, I doubt he was using MIT administrated systems to facilitate a pedo ring
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because no one wants that. They’re offering incredible value for what they took.
1. Some people want that, with good reason. 2. There's incredible value in what they stole. 3. IANAL, but I don't believe "but now everyone can write like a terrible version of the writer we fleeced" is a valid legal defense.
Copying is not theft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This settlement has basically nothing to do with LLMs. At least not as far as the courts are concerned. Alsup ruled [0] that feeding a book into an LLM is transformative and counts as fair use. Especially when they purchased a physical copy of the book, scanned it, and destroyed the original. But if I'm reading the ruling correctly, Anthropic might have been fine even with feeding pirated books into their LLM (as lon…
> At least not as far as the courts are concerned. Alsup ruled [0] that feeding a book into an LLM is transformative and counts as fair use. Especially when they purchased a physical copy of the book, scanned it, and destroyed the original. > But if I'm reading the ruling correctly, Anthropic might have been fine even with feeding pirated books into their LLM (as long as they eventually deleted them afterwards) The w…
You have to be careful, just because the judge points a factor out as notable, doesn't mean that factor was required.
The destruction of source books makes Anthropic's fair use argument [2] especially air tight, but it would be a mistake to assume that act was required, or is what made it transformative.
In the previous google books case [1] (which this case cites), google borrowed books from libraries, scanned them, then returned them. They were not destroyed, google didn't even keep the physical copy.
Yet Google Books was ruled fair use, because it was transformative.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,....
[2] Note... This part of the ruling is still not about LLMs. This was about Anthropic's right to scan books and then keep a digital library of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans are not computers. Humans are not a service. In the end, all laws are made up rules and can absolutely be written to have different outcomes and restrictions based on if a human is doing something or if a program is doing it.
Real question, if an LLM shouldn't be able to remix someone's written work, why should a robot be able to build a chair that kinda looks like a chair a carpenter built that one time? The carpenter was a human, and humans are not a service. Why this distinction only for intellectual work?
A one time payment like 1.5B doesn’t do anything. There needs to be a royalty payment based on if the AI regurgitates existing ideas. That is probably the correct way to legislate this. If anything a human does can instantly be copied by an LLM, and then sent to all its subscribers, things need to change
This settlement has basically nothing to do with LLMs. At least not as far as the courts are concerned. Alsup ruled [0] that feeding a book into an LLM is transformative and counts as fair use. Especially when they purchased a physical copy of the book, scanned it, and destroyed the original. But if I'm reading the ruling correctly, Anthropic might have been fine even with feeding pirated books into their LLM (as lon…
It seems to be the modus operandi of corporations in general: they commit any kind of infringement they want and then later they go for a settlement with a value that's, of course, not too big for a company too big to fail.
In the meantime, the average person or company gets shafted.
In my opinion, we are one step away from AI companies capturing the entirety of copyright legislation.
A one time payment like 1.5B doesn’t do anything. There needs to be a royalty payment based on if the AI regurgitates existing ideas. That is probably the correct way to legislate this. If anything a human does can instantly be copied by an LLM, and then sent to all its subscribers, things need to change
The correct way to legislate this is to abolish copyright. It is strictly a negative force. Nobody makes art because of copyright, only in spite of it.
This is not even than a slap on the wrist. Publishers who negotiated this really fucked up writers. According to US federal law, pirating a single copyrighted work and gaining commercial advantage of it (which Anthropic 100% did) represents five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. But it gets worse: "Penalties for a copyright infringement conviction may increase if the defendant has previous similar convictions, mad…
Those are the maximum penalties though It's seemingly $3,000 per book, so they could've (and did, partially) just bought the books themselves for way cheaper, and with only a fraction of that money going to the authors
But they didn't. The fact they partially did proves that they knew they should've, so they can't even claim ignorance.