181–190 of 325 posts
OpenAI and Anthropic will probably now resort to save this server side, instead of relying on encription to be able to keep state on the client.
OpenAI and Anthropic will probably now resort to save this server side, instead of relying on encription to be able to keep state on the client.
That's not a trivial thing to do for them because they offer zero data retention environments to enterprise clients.
"Stealing" something you already paid for (tokens), but that you can't have access to(!). And trained on the sum of human knowledge. Training on other model outputs ought to be business as usual, stop using morally charged terms made up by future monopolists: https://thomasdullien.github.io/posts/2026-06-15-rl-economic...
> stop using morally charged terms made up by future monopolists Lets not gloss over this claim. Being: “Stealing is a morally charged term made up by future monopolists.” I strongly disagree. Stealing is not a made up term and property rights are foundational for any society. Your take is at least sensationalist if not malicious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> stop using morally charged terms made up by future monopolists Lets not gloss over this claim. Being: “Stealing is a morally charged term made up by future monopolists.” I strongly disagree. Stealing is not a made up term and property rights are foundational for any society. Your take is at least sensationalist if not malicious.
They definitely stole the data to make the models, but they do not say that they stole the data to make the models, but they do say that others using their outputs for unauthorized purposes is stealing. Do you see the point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But the real question is: Is it okay to steal By definition it cannot be stealing since you're paying for the tokens. It may be against their ToS, depending on what you end up doing with those tokens, but it cannot be stealing. If they charge by the token, all your tokens are belong to you :) I also find it very strange that everyone sort of accepts their ToS like no big deal. Imagine MS using the same terms for th…
I hesitate to nitpick with regard to something legal, given your username, but what makes this different from hiring a consultant with the agreement that their final output belongs to you, but you don't get access to their internal processes, tooling, notes, etc? Or a photographer where you get final edited prints, but you don't get the raw photos?
Buy the Neiman Marcus cookies and feel entitled to the recipe?
Lots of secret sauce in the world.
"Stealing" something you already paid for (tokens), but that you can't have access to(!). And trained on the sum of human knowledge. Training on other model outputs ought to be business as usual, stop using morally charged terms made up by future monopolists: https://thomasdullien.github.io/posts/2026-06-15-rl-economic...
> stop using morally charged terms made up by future monopolists Lets not gloss over this claim. Being: “Stealing is a morally charged term made up by future monopolists.” I strongly disagree. Stealing is not a made up term and property rights are foundational for any society. Your take is at least sensationalist if not malicious.
- This is about me
- I created this
- Neither of the above, but according to some story I get to control who sees it
Maybe some of those ideas are worth building into our society, but let's not pretend that The Code of Hammurabi gave a damn about intellectual property. IP was invented by the church so they could censor editions of the bible they didn't like and has been used to justify similar kinds of censorship ever since.
The foundational thing about property is that when it gets stolen, somebody else has it, and you don't.
We can hold the AI companies responsible for their actions without contributing to notions about property that encourage censorship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is the issue, you just rephrased it to sound softer (public knowledge isn't a legal term). Fair use law isn't supposed to apply to commercial activity. So it is absolutely about using copyrighted work for LLM training.
>Fair use law isn't supposed to apply to commercial activity. No, otherwise there would be a straightforward "non-commercial" clause. Instead there's a 4 part test, which takes usage (commercial or not) into account, but doesn't hinge solely on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
"Stealing" something you already paid for (tokens), but that you can't have access to(!). And trained on the sum of human knowledge. Training on other model outputs ought to be business as usual, stop using morally charged terms made up by future monopolists: https://thomasdullien.github.io/posts/2026-06-15-rl-economic...
> stop using morally charged terms made up by future monopolists Lets not gloss over this claim. Being: “Stealing is a morally charged term made up by future monopolists.” I strongly disagree. Stealing is not a made up term and property rights are foundational for any society. Your take is at least sensationalist if not malicious.
If you broke into a data center, pulled a hard drive and drive off with it - that’s stealing. If you accessed a copy of some information - that’s infringement, unauthorized access, or some other violation. But that’s not “stealing”, which fundamentally requires a loss or otherwise depriving original owner of the property that was stolen.
You cannot steal what is not owned. At least in the EU there is no copyright for LLM outputs, so I guess all they might do is violate the terms of service.
If I hire you for a consulting project, do I own the screen recording of your computer while you completed it?