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

Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 761 posts

Re: Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors

#631

Post by [deleted] »

silisili wrote: post #512
33MHz-i486 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i dont know that its such a great thing in the end. Uber/Lyft is 50-100% more expensive now than taxis were before. Theyre entrenched in different ways.

Uber did a great job convincing lay people that taxis were ripoffs and they were a good deal. For some time that was probably true. Now, I see people at the airport walk over to the pickup lot, joining a crowd of others furiously messing with their phones while scanning the area for presumably their driver. All the while the taxis waiting immediately outside the exit door were $2 more expensive, last time I checked.

[deleted]

Re: Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors

#632

Post by woooooo »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #601
woooooo wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the classical economic sense, Lyft/Uber should be competing to drive prices down to razor thin margins for the facilitator service. Is that happening? Or are they pocketing fat margins? And it wasn't much of a cartel in NYC before, anyways. Most subways stops in Brooklyn had a black car nearby if you knew how to look for them.

Last time I checked, neither Uber nor Lyft were profitable (at all!) before the 2023-2024 time period.

True but if they need 25-50 percent to be unprofitable.. why are we so mad at the previous cartel again? I thought this was progress?

Re: Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors

#633

Post by ptsneves »

spwa4 wrote: post #574
Macha wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only speak in EU terms in any more detail here, but the EU laws are based on "dominant market position". Monopoly is one route to that but it's not the only route and there is no minimum market share required, as e.g. Qualcomm found out ( https://www.cliffordchance.com/insights/resources/blogs/talk... )

Which EU country reacted against Uber's predatory pricing when it was actually happening? Ie. which EU government refused investor money flowing into their economy? The only examples I can find are a few cities, and some of those are in the US. No EU state did, unless I'm missing something. Sure now that it costs them money, they're reacting, making things worse for literally everyone: the taxi drivers, who've been v…

For what it is worth what Wikipedia says about the document you mention is not what this comment mentions. Personally I found that comment spreading disinformation.

No country gave guarantees only assurances and it is even highlighted that the US senate would have never voted for it favourably, and thus it never was a treaty.

On the other hand breaking this assurances will guarantee no other country will ever give up their nuclear arsenal, of course a non consolation price for Ukraine. Guarantees in nato which is indeed a treaty and ratified, covering Poland and Latvia and Estonia would be stronger but of course, I would not put all my eggs on it.

Re: Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors

#634

Post by davey48016 »

silisili wrote: post #512
33MHz-i486 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i dont know that its such a great thing in the end. Uber/Lyft is 50-100% more expensive now than taxis were before. Theyre entrenched in different ways.

Uber did a great job convincing lay people that taxis were ripoffs and they were a good deal. For some time that was probably true. Now, I see people at the airport walk over to the pickup lot, joining a crowd of others furiously messing with their phones while scanning the area for presumably their driver. All the while the taxis waiting immediately outside the exit door were $2 more expensive, last time I checked.

Where I am, the taxi from the airport is about $5 more expensive during off peak, but it can be $20 cheaper during peak hours. I always take the taxi since it's right there, but I usually check the price on Lyft or Uber just to compare.

Re: Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors

#637

Post by scotty79 »

thfuran wrote: post #621
scotty79 wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a sign of rent seeking economy in decline. Rising economies never respect IPs.

IP protections are in the US Constitution. Has the US been in decline since the late 1700s?

Yes. Great recession was its death throes. It would have fallen by now if it wasn't the only economy not damaged by Second World War and as a result economy that put its currency as currency of global trade. Since then it's mostly sustained by selling freshly printed paper and bullying everyone around with IP laws.

Re: Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors

#639

Post by arduanika »

arduanika wrote: post #603
pennomi wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think that copyright is related to safety at all. Copyright is something that doesn’t really exist, except as a social agreement, while safety is something that exists whether or not society believes it does.

We are gods, we are very smart, we make our own rules, says the cult. We define what safety is, not you. Safety is protecting you from imagined monsters for your own good, not protecting you from getting robbed by us. And anyways, property rights are just made up, man, a social construct. But investors, please give us billions of dollars worth of that imaginary social agreement. We need it so that we can build the in…

"Laws against infiltrating the IRS don't really exist, except as a social agreement, while Lord Xenu is someone who exists whether or not society believes he does."

That's what you sound like, to people not in the safety cult.

Re: Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors

#640

Post by arduanika »

bigmadshoe wrote: post #173
florbnit wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Buying used copies of books, scanning them, and training on it is fine. Buying used copies of books, scanning them, and printing them and selling them: not fair use Buying used copies of books, scanning them, and making merchandise and selling it: not fair use The idea that training models is considered fair use just because you bought the work is naive. Fair use is not a law to leave open usage as long as it doesn…

Buying used copies of books, scanning them, training an employee with the scans: fair use. Unless legislation changes, model training is pretty much analogous to that. Now of course if the employee in question - or the LLM - regurgitates a copyrighted piece verbatim, that is a violation and would be treated accordingly in either case.

Computers aren't people. And analogies aren't laws.
Post reply on HN