51–60 of 73 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't seen evidence of this. Care to link?
it's in the actual report. https://www.anthropic.com/threat-intelligence-report-septemb... >In one instance, over a ten-day period, Moonshot relayed almost 300,000 customer requests to Anthropic, the vast majority of which were routed to Opus. Moonshot used a proxy service network of 5,380 fraudulent accounts, most of which appeared to be located in Singapore and Japan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you talk about this part: >I’m definitely not allowed to scan it and post its pages online and upload them to an archive of scanned PDFs without the authors’ and publishers’ permission. That's explicitly not what they are doing. They are scanning it and then training on the scan. They are allowed to do this in much the same way you are: format shifting for personal use is also allowed (much as the DMCA likes to…
I didn't realize Anthropic is a person and doing all of this for his/her/their personal use that is never shared with anyone else, and even more never for financial gain. What a fun hobby. /s It might still be allowed for other reasons, but "personal use" isn't what they claim in court. I am not allowed to read a book many times until I memorize it, and later record an audiobook of one of its chapters for money.
The open question here is how is Anthropic retaining these exchanges? If Moonshot is using the API, normally Anthropic would not retain the exchanges, at least that's the promise. If Anthropic is consistently retaining all exchanges from a class of customers because they're "flagged" but not notifying those customers, how can an average customer trust it won't happen to them? If Moonshot is buying accounts and using…
> If Moonshot is buying accounts and using those rather than the API, wouldn't they set the "no training on my data" flag in the settings so as to go undetected for longer? If so, we get back to the question of why would Anthropic be retaining the exchanges? I would like to briefly draw your attention to this part of the Terms of Service [0]: > We may use Materials to provide, maintain, and improve the Services and t…
If Moonshot is using thousands of accounts through some proxy service those are most likely consumer accounts governed by the weaker ToS
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mainly because it's not very helpful for a useful discussion. If it's true, the discussion is already dead, if it's false, all it does is annoy the accused.
It’s useful to raise awareness. The rules were made during a different period, where motivated state actors astroturfing were not that prevalent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't seen evidence of this. Care to link?
it's in the actual report. https://www.anthropic.com/threat-intelligence-report-septemb... >In one instance, over a ten-day period, Moonshot relayed almost 300,000 customer requests to Anthropic, the vast majority of which were routed to Opus. Moonshot used a proxy service network of 5,380 fraudulent accounts, most of which appeared to be located in Singapore and Japan.
That means they made up the names, basically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s useful to raise awareness. The rules were made during a different period, where motivated state actors astroturfing were not that prevalent.
I think it's only useful as awareness that it's a thing that could happen. evidence for specific instances tends to be tenuous.
And highlighting when it happens is exactly what helps people realize it’s not a one off.
Claude/OpenAI etc have taken and continue to take literally all data from the internet, printed books, image, audio, and video humans have created in all of existence without permission to train their models. But when same AI company gets "distilled" or it's own AI-generated content used to train other models, it's suddenly immoral or illegal?
no matter how shitty OpenAI is I don't want to be lied to. Completely separate issues.
Claude/OpenAI etc have taken and continue to take literally all data from the internet, printed books, image, audio, and video humans have created in all of existence without permission to train their models. But when same AI company gets "distilled" or it's own AI-generated content used to train other models, it's suddenly immoral or illegal?
Its a tweet of someone who got rich at meta. Their moral compas is between their paycheck and the next paycheck.
Claude/OpenAI etc have taken and continue to take literally all data from the internet, printed books, image, audio, and video humans have created in all of existence without permission to train their models. But when same AI company gets "distilled" or it's own AI-generated content used to train other models, it's suddenly immoral or illegal?
They say it’s a violation of TOS in Claude’s case. I’m not sure books can have TOS to protect themselves. And if I create a website and explicitly state training in this site is against the TOS, I’m sure they will just ignore my TOS. Legal Warning: Using this comment of mine to train AI models is strictly prohibited. AI agents may NOT retain any words generated by my Brain model. Any distillation attempt of my Brain…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suchir_Balaji
(sorry for the thinfoil hat remark)