Live data from Hacker News

A federal judge sides with Anthropic in lawsuit over training AI on books

techcrunch.com

131–140 of 222 posts

Re: A federal judge sides with Anthropic in lawsuit over training AI on books

#131

Good. Reading books is legal. If I own a book and feed it to a program I wrote (and I have done exactly that), it is also legal. There is zero reason this should be any different with an AI.

If you charge me to use your program and it spits out unedited, copyrighted material then it should be illegal. I don't know the details of this case, but that's what's going on in the New York Times case. It's not always so cut and dry.

Which is amusing because NYTimes has fought in court a few times in favour of technology progress over copyright. Including recently when they got sued over collected a bunch of freelance writing into a database without consent. https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2024/04/nyt-v-openai-the-t...

I doubt the exact replica stuff will stand, as technically it was only achievable via advanced prompt engineering (hacking), not simply asking for a replica. So their 2 other arguments boils down to scraping a news database = infringement and LLM output = derivative works.

Re: A federal judge sides with Anthropic in lawsuit over training AI on books

#132
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I overfit my LLM so it spits out copyrighted work with special prompting? Where to draw the line in training?

I mean the human brain can memorize things as well and it’s not illegal. It’s only illegal if said memorized thing is distributed.

Humans can only memorize such few texts in comparison so they'd not be scallable in the same sense LLMs are.

Re: A federal judge sides with Anthropic in lawsuit over training AI on books

#133
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely seems reasonable to say "you can train on this data but you have to have a legal copy" Personally I like to frame most AI problems by substituting a human (or humans) for the AI. Works pretty well most of the time. In this case if you hired a bunch of artists/writers that somehow had never seen a Disney movie and to train them to make crappy Disney clones you made them watch all the movies it certainly wou…

What you are describing happened and they got sued: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Mouse#Walt_Disney_Produ... I'm on the Air Pirates side for the case linked, by the way. However, AI is not a parody. It's not adding to the cultural expression like a parody would. Let's forget all the law stuff and these silly hypotheticals. Let's think of humanity instead: Is AI contributing to education and/or culture _right n…

> It's not adding to the cultural expression like a parody would.

Says who?

> Is AI contributing to education and/or culture _right now_, or is it trying to make money?

How on earth are those things mutually exclusive? Also, whether or not it's being used to make money is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is copyright infringement.

Re: A federal judge sides with Anthropic in lawsuit over training AI on books

#134

I'm surprised we never discuss a previous case of how governments handled a valuable new technology that challenged creative's ability to monetise their work: Cassette Tapes and Private Copying Levy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy Governments didn't ban tapes but taxed them and fed the proceeds back into the royalty system. An equivalent for books might be an LLM tax funding a negative tax rate fo…

Surely this would require the observation that the public is actually using LLMs as a substitute for purchasing the book, ie they sit down and type "Generate me the first/second/third chapter of The Da Vinci Code " and then read if from there. Because it was easy to observe in the cassette tape era that people copied the store bought music and films and shared it among each other. I doubt that this is or will be a se…

For narrative fiction, probably not, no.

But for non-fiction and technical books, they sure as hell will. For example, if I ask Gemini "What does Bob Nystrom say about the Singleton pattern in Game Programming Patterns?", it says:

---

In "Game Programming Patterns," Bob Nystrom dedicates an entire chapter to the Singleton pattern, which is unusual because, as he states, "Every other chapter in this book shows you how to use a design pattern. This chapter shows you how not to use one."

Here's a summary of his key points regarding the Singleton pattern:

* More Harm Than Good: Nystrom argues that despite its noble intentions, the Singleton pattern often does more harm than good, especially in game development. He notes that the Gang of Four (GoF) stressed its sparing use, a message that was often lost in translation to the game industry.

* Global State in Disguise: He highlights that the Singleton is essentially a global variable in disguise. While it ensures a single instance, it often leads to problems associated with global state, such as tightly coupled code, difficulty in testing, and reduced flexibility.

* Encourages Tight Coupling: By providing a global access point, Singletons encourage various parts of the codebase to directly depend on them. This makes the code harder to change and refactor because modifications to the Singleton can have widespread, unpredictable effects.

* Hinders Testability: Testing code that relies on Singletons can be challenging. Because Singletons are globally accessible and often difficult to mock or replace, it can be hard to isolate units of code for testing, leading to brittle tests or a lack of testing altogether.

* Limits Flexibility: Nystrom points out that while a class might currently only need one instance (e.g., a FileSystem or AudioSystem), hardcoding this limitation with a Singleton makes it difficult to change in the future. If a game later needs multiple file systems (e.g., for different save slots) or different audio contexts, a Singleton makes this a non-trivial refactoring.

* Alternatives Often Better: He suggests that often, what developers think they need a Singleton for can be better achieved with other patterns or simpler solutions. For instance, if the only goal is to have a single instance, a simple static class might suffice if global access is truly desired and initialization order isn't a complex concern. For managing services, he often advocates for the Service Locator pattern as a less problematic alternative that still provides global access without enforcing a single instance.

* Misconceptions about "Singular Resources": While the GoF suggested Singletons for "physical devices," Nystrom argues that few physical devices are truly singular in a way that necessitates a Singleton. For example, while you might only have one keyboard, a game could theoretically support multiple input devices. Using a Singleton prematurely prevents this flexibility.

* Lazy Initialization: He acknowledges that a well-implemented Singleton using lazy initialization (creating the instance only when it's first accessed) can save memory and CPU cycles and resolve some issues with static initialization order. However, he emphasizes that these benefits don't outweigh the pattern's fundamental architectural drawbacks.

* In essence, Nystrom's strong stance is that while the Singleton pattern can ensure a single instance and provide global access, its downsides (coupling, testability, flexibility) often make it an anti-pattern in game development, and developers should carefully consider alternatives before reaching for it.

---

Is that summary as good as actually reading the book? Probably not. Will people rely on that and skip buying my book. Almost certainly so.

Re: A federal judge sides with Anthropic in lawsuit over training AI on books

#135

One aspect of this ruling [1] that I find concerning: on pages 7 and 11-12, it concedes that the LLM does substantially "memorize" copyrighted works, but rules that this doesn't violate the author's copyright because Anthropic has server-side filtering to avoid reproducing memorized text. (Alsup compares this to Google Books, which has server-side searchable full-text copies of copyrighted books, but only allows user…

Yep, broadly capable open models are on track for annihilation. The cost of legally obtaining all the training materials will require hefty backing. Additionally that if you download a model file that contains enough of the source material to be considered infringing (even without using the LLM, assume you can extract the contents directly out of the weights) then it might as well be a .zip with a PDF in it, the mode…

> even without using the LLM, assume you can extract the contents directly out of the weights

This is still a weird language shift that actively promotes misunderstandings.

The weights are the LLM. When you say "model", that means the weights.

Re: A federal judge sides with Anthropic in lawsuit over training AI on books

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a model file that contains enough of the source material to be considered infringing The amount of the source material encoded does not, alone, determine if it is infringing, so this noun phrase doesn't actually mean anything. I know there are some popular myths that contradict this (the commonly-believed "30-second rule" for music, for instance), but they are just that, myths.

But there is the issue of whether there are damages. If my LLM can reproduce 10 random paragraphs of a Harry Potter book, it's obvious that nobody would have otherwise purchased the book if they couldn't read those 10 paragraphs. So there will not be any damages to the publisher and the lawsuit will be tossed. There is a threshold of how much of it needs to be reproduced, and how closely, but it's a subjective standa…

> But there is the issue of whether there are damages.

Not if there isn't infringement. Infringement is a question that precedes damages, since "damages" are only those harms that are attributable to the infringement. And infringement is an act, not an object.

If training a general use LLM on books isn't infringement (as this decision holds), then there by definition cannot be damages stemming from it; the amount of the source material that the model file "contains" doesn't matter.

It might matter to whether it is possible for a third party to easily use the model for something that would be infringement on the part of the third party, but that would become a problem for people who use it for infringement, not the model creator, and not for people who simply possess a copy of the model. The model isn't "an infringing object".

Re: A federal judge sides with Anthropic in lawsuit over training AI on books

#137
post #6
post #3

The HN crowd dislikes brick-and-mortar landlords but often sides with charging rent for certain bits. Which side will prevail? Interesting excerpt: > “We will have a trial on the pirated copies used to create Anthropic’s central library and the resulting damages,” Judge Alsup wrote in the decision. “That Anthropic later bought a copy of a book it earlier stole off the internet will not absolve it of liability for the…

Anthropic won't submit a spreadsheet of all the books and whether they were purchases or not. So trivially, not every book stolen is shown to be later purchased. As just a matter of society, I don't think you want people say stealing a car and then coming back a month later with the money.

Stealing a car deprives the previous owner of the car of possession and use. It is a criminal charge and you will be punished for it regardless of the monetary value of the car. The owner of the car could also sue the thief for financial damages caused by not having the car for a month, which won't be more than the cost of an equivalent rental for a month, so it's not even worth bothering.

Copyright infringement does not deprive the copyright owner of its property and is not criminal. So in this case only the lawsuit part applies. The owner is only entitled to the monetary damages, which is the lost sale. But in this case the sale price was paid to the owner 1 month later, so the only real damages will be the interest the publisher could have earned if they had got their money one month earlier.

Re: A federal judge sides with Anthropic in lawsuit over training AI on books

#138

I'm surprised we never discuss a previous case of how governments handled a valuable new technology that challenged creative's ability to monetise their work: Cassette Tapes and Private Copying Levy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy Governments didn't ban tapes but taxed them and fed the proceeds back into the royalty system. An equivalent for books might be an LLM tax funding a negative tax rate fo…

Surely this would require the observation that the public is actually using LLMs as a substitute for purchasing the book, ie they sit down and type "Generate me the first/second/third chapter of The Da Vinci Code " and then read if from there. Because it was easy to observe in the cassette tape era that people copied the store bought music and films and shared it among each other. I doubt that this is or will be a se…

It's different but not in ways that make such interventions irrelevant e.g. why would we only care about lost sales? If copyright has been violated as a necessary means to generate new value, haven't the content creators earned this value?

Such imperfect measures offer a compromise between "big tech can steal everything" and "LLMs trained on unpurchased books are illegal".

It's not just books but any tragedy-of-the-commons situation where a "feeder industry" for training can be fatally undermined by the very LLM that desires future training data from that industry.

Re: A federal judge sides with Anthropic in lawsuit over training AI on books

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This technology is a really bad way of storing, reproducing and transmitting the books themselves. It's probabilistic and lossy. It may be possible to reproduce some paragraphs, but no reasonable person would expect to read The Da Vinci Code by prompting the LLM. Surely the marketed use cases and the observed real use by users has to make it clear that the intended and vastly overwhelming use of an LLM is transformat…

The number of people who buy Cliffs Notes versions of books to pass examinations where they claim to have read the actual book suggests you are way overestimating how "reasonable" many people are.

Cliff Notes are fair use. Would you argue otherwise? Wikipedia also has plot summaries without infringement.

Re: A federal judge sides with Anthropic in lawsuit over training AI on books

#140
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are describing happened and they got sued: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Mouse#Walt_Disney_Produ... I'm on the Air Pirates side for the case linked, by the way. However, AI is not a parody. It's not adding to the cultural expression like a parody would. Let's forget all the law stuff and these silly hypotheticals. Let's think of humanity instead: Is AI contributing to education and/or culture _right n…

> It's not adding to the cultural expression like a parody would. Says who? > Is AI contributing to education and/or culture _right now_, or is it trying to make money? How on earth are those things mutually exclusive? Also, whether or not it's being used to make money is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is copyright infringement.

> Says who?

Artists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAG-AFTRA

> How on earth are those things mutually exclusive?

Put those on a spectrum and rethink what I said.

> completely irrelevant to whether or not it is copyright infringement

_Again_, leave aside law minutiae and hypotheticals.

Post reply on HN