Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge approves $1.5B Anthropic settlement for pirated books used to train Claude

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 654 posts

Re: Judge approves $1.5B Anthropic settlement for pirated books used to train Claude

#571

Post by Lerc »

freejazz wrote: post #557
satvikpendem wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Therefore copyright is not necessary.

That's a big leap

For strict definitiond of necessary (see also sufficient) this is correct.

A is not necessary for B if a single instance of B exists without A.

In colloquial terms it is frequently used to suggest a recommendation with an imperitive need.

Different things for the same word. Only the former can be used to determine if something is necessary, the latter is a subjective assertion and can have no proof either way.

Re: Judge approves $1.5B Anthropic settlement for pirated books used to train Claude

#572

Post by dyauspitr »

sakjur wrote: post #246
dyauspitr wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s like you can ignore the law if you have a great idea that works out. Lots of people have ended up doing it. Uber did it for a long time. Musk, did it with the sale of Tesla cars. There are a bunch of examples from outside of the US as well.

That sounds like an oligarchy. Especially if "great" is measured in dollars rather than public good.

In most cases it’s for the public good (even if a lot of the public has to be taken kicking and screaming), atleast the examples I listed above are. Uber and Tesla both revolutionized entire industries. So did Anthropic.

Re: Judge approves $1.5B Anthropic settlement for pirated books used to train Claude

#573

Post by dyauspitr »

theplumber wrote: post #258
leni536 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abolish copyright then. The selective enforcement needs to stop.

This is my point too. This fucking double standard/class discrimination pisses me off.

Not everything can be black and white. Human nature requires fuzz because we don’t all agree on everything.

Re: Judge approves $1.5B Anthropic settlement for pirated books used to train Claude

#574

Post by dyauspitr »

monooso wrote: post #223
dyauspitr wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want it to happen again. Copyright is important but I want someone that does tremendous good to be able to fall into a grey area where they’re given a free pass. But only on a case by case basis. Keep the lines fuzzy. That way we get to defend copyright but someone extraordinary also has a ray of hope of getting away with subverting it.

> Keep the lines fuzzy. That way we get to defend copyright but someone extraordinary also has a ray of hope of getting away with subverting it. That's a very charitable way of saying "someone with deep enough pockets can ignore the law and get away with it."

Or something that works for the public good in the long term even if the public won’t accept it now because the masses are short sighted and only care about their own little worlds.

Re: Judge approves $1.5B Anthropic settlement for pirated books used to train Claude

#576

Post by satvikpendem »

insanitybit wrote: post #553
satvikpendem wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a derived image be under copyright?

Because that's legally the case? I don't understand the question. Using a lossy compression algorithm on an image does not remove its copyright protection.

Taking in an image then creating something new based on the ideas of that image is legally permissible, if you mean that you think AI training produces only derivative works.

Re: Judge approves $1.5B Anthropic settlement for pirated books used to train Claude

#577

Post by satvikpendem »

greycol wrote: post #563
satvikpendem wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it different other than, "just cause?" No one seems to have actual reasoning to back it up while it feels very similar the other way around, is human brains and neural nets (notwithstanding that they're both called neurons) seem to learn similarly and can act on similar classes of problems like language and mathematics.

There are several distinct differences, I think the most pertinent one is that you can create seperate instances of the LLM that ingested that media without reingesting the media (i.e. you can copy the LLM but you can't copy a human). Copright law is screwed up for multiple reasons but it makes sense to treat LLM as different than a human consuming the media, especially if the LLM is created for profit (e.g. movie ow…

I don't understand how the first pertinent one is relevant, when the LLM can't recreate verbatim at length an entire work anyway. It is literally unable to based on information entropy, it is not big enough to contain all of the bits of the training data at maximum theoretical compression.

Re: Judge approves $1.5B Anthropic settlement for pirated books used to train Claude

#578

Post by marcus_holmes »

greyw wrote: post #144
marcus_holmes wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good question. Can you ask an LLM to repeat the entire contents of a novel, word-for-word, and read that instead of the original book? I haven't tried it, but I would guess it would not be able to do this. Can you ask it questions about the book and expect it to get them right? Yeah, probably. Same as if I read the book and you asked me questions about it. The LLM would probably answer those questions better than I c…

If you ask me to repeat the contents of a novel I read line by line I can do it too. Is this fair use? Do I have to pay someone?

That's a remarkable memory you have! I'm jealous

Good point, are you plagiarising every book you've read every time you remember it? If you recite some of a book to a friend, do you need to pay the author a fee?

I would say not. So why are we talking about LLMs in the same vein?

Re: Judge approves $1.5B Anthropic settlement for pirated books used to train Claude

#579

Post by inigyou »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #555
inigyou wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kim built something designed to share files. Are you saying Microsoft should go to jail for SMB?

You're confusing a technology for a service. Any way, the internal emails are available where you can see the executives of megaupload knew exactly what megaupload was being used for, and even used it themselves to pirate content, and went out of their way to allow copyrighted content to remain up after takedown notices were sent.

So Microsoft should go to jail for OneDrive then
Post reply on HN