Well it was also problematic when the search engines started quoting the websites in such a way to disincentivize people from visiting the actual website.
> At least within the US, I think there are nuances around fair use and contract law.
The concept of "fair use" as it exists in the US-law system is completely dysfunctional (see e.g. nearly every educational music channel on YouTube), so utterly biased to favour large corporations, that there's very little room for whatever "nuances" you believe exist.
> Similar to old paintings digitized and hosted on some museum website. It's 300 years old, right? It should be public domain, yet the people who digitized it or provided a service to give you access have some say in how their reproduction can be used.
Yes 300 year old paintings are public domain. Indeed there are certain rules for the people/institutions who digitize them. It's not "they have some say", there's actually nothing mysterious about it and it is not similar to Anthropic's copyright heist at all because nearly all of the books they copied were not more than 100 years old.
> there are laws that can govern how you are allowed to use a service if that service has laid out acceptable usage
well where I live, there are laws about what a "service" can claim to "lay out as acceptable usage" instead of the other way around ...
> I also admit that a lot of the usage was probably quite legal
Let's disagree on that. I think it wasn't a lot and the vast majority was not legal. How do you think the LLMs "learned" to speak all these non-English languages? Unless your point is that it's probably quite legal to treat foreign IP like that. Which it may very well be in the US, especially if the corporation is large enough, but imvho it's still wrong.
> With any luck, artforms and skills impacted by technology will adapt and continue to be valuable instead of complete displacement or the dilution of opportunity.
And with any bad luck, these AI corporations will hold frontier models hostage for the rest of time.
I don't think that's right. The problem is that Anthropic is hoarding it and that's hypocritical. If copyright doesn't count for Anthropic, they should publish Claude. If they wanna hide Claude behind copyrights and/or TOS, they don't get to screw with other people's copyrights and TOS and then profit from it.
To call that opinion "copyright maximalist 100% converted to the church of Disney" is, at the very least, hyperbole.
Clearly paying that fine didn't do anything to stop Anthropic from doing it again.
Buying a book doesn't make it legal to publish lossy compressed copies of it.
Also, the vast majority of authors whose work was copied against their wishes didn't receive any of that fine.
It sounds like your argument is that they paid a fine for breaking the law, and therefore it is okay they reap the benefits of breaking the law and are allowed to continue to do so?
> The looser use of IP (eg, any characters/celebrities in AI video models) is increasingly mentioned as an advantage of overseas models.
UHmmm you remember when Sam Altman changed his profile pic to look like a Disney version of his own face? Yeah neither do I.
Clearly US AI models are playing loose with the use of overseas IP just as much, and even publicly flaunting it, as if US-based IP is more worthy of protection but Gibli can suck it.
Maybe "U.S. courts have pretty consistently decided" used to mean something, but I don't think the opinion of US courts should be the standard for anything, anymore.
> The usage of the output is probably considered legal. The usage of the service for that purpose may not be, and using it at scale in a dishonest way is not
This is literally what the "training AI on copyrighted works is just like a human learning/getting inspired" crowd has been arguing though.
Literally. People have been literally saying that it was wrong because they did this "learning" at scale in a dishonest way.
> It's so basic it's actually part of the reason we exist, and animals of various sizes exist, and generally why evolution didn't stop at single-cellular life.
It's also quite natural to want it to stop at individual human life instead of us getting absorbed by some next bigger thing.
Which I'm fairly sure is also the desire (as far as they can be said to have any) of these animals of various sizes you speak of.
> We can call out the hypocrisy until our throats run dry, and in ideal fantasy land this would've meant something, but here in the real world, they sow the seeds of success
Just because they pulled a mirage over people's eyes doesn't mean it suddenly became the "real" world.
Are you sure? If an AI would generate a huge Lean proof/program, wouldn't there be a way to hide such cheats in it? Like as in the underhanded C contest?
Because if you give an AI a goal, and cheating at Lean would satisfy that goal, the AI will do it if it can figure it out.
You're acting as if current-day AI comes even remotely close of surpassing it, lol.
In fact, please show me a useful mathematical proof unintelligible to a human, or even if you would like to "assume" the existence of such, explain how it could be useful to anyone.
> "how do you know that a massive C++ program that compiles to machine code compiled to the correct machine code that will actually run and it's just not a random string of bits!?!?!"
I'll remind you of the underhanded C contest and the fact that LLMs are widely documented to take such routes.
> You can't unit test for taste if you haven't written down what you mean by taste. If you can externalize it, then you can.
> Follow this line of thinking, and the AI-friendly answer is easy: we just have to externalize everything we know, so Claude can implement what I want.
First you have to have it, and if you think this is a tasteful solution, then you didn't.
you're being deliberately obtuse now. this has been explained clearly several times in this thread.