tripzilch

It's a perfectly sensible interpretation of international copyright law.

I'm not sure if you're serious with the suggestion I could sue them. These are both US corporations, that justice system is pretty much in shambles in particular when it concerns corporations as big as these AI ones. You can dig your heels in the sand to defend that system, but you will also have to dig your head in the sand about why Sam Altman doesn't have a Disney "influenced" avatar, but one "inspired by" Studio Gibli.

And I'm not sure if you're familiar with the concept of "fair use" in the US as it "works" in practice, it's almost insulting, ask any music education youtuber.

Also even if it would work (which it very much doesn't), whether it "hurts the original publisher" is actually literally one of the criteria for considering something fair use or not. Look it up.

the "codec" is not really the point.

playing an MP3 at a venue, streaming it or distributing it is a copyrighted act because, despite not being a verbatim copy of the original material, it is capable of producing a nearly-verbatim version of that intellectual property well enough that most people won't be able to notice the difference.

similarly, as has been shown (by numerous publishers and authors), LLMs are capable of producing nearly-verbatim versions of the texts they have been trained on, to a well enough quality that most people won't be able to notice the difference.

the fact that an MP3 cannot "paraphrase" or "summarize" the audio data is not what makes it copyrighted, and neither does the ability of an LLM to "paraphrase" or "summarize" the textual data it's been trained on, make it any less intellectual property theft

the motivation for the audio case is the sense that the listener will not care whether the DJ plays an MP3 (they didn't pay for) or plays the original record (they would have paid for).

similarly for the lossily compressed text engine aka LLM's case, many people will not care whether they get this textual information paraphrased or nearly verbatim from an LLM trained on pirated books, or the original books.

the fact that an LLM also has the ability to paraphrase or summarize the pirated textual information it's been trained on, doesn't really matter if it's also capable of producing nearly verbatim copies of (parts of) those texts.

to underline this point even more, we know that MP3s (and more modern and much more efficient codecs like OPUS, after that) have been psycho-acoustically optimized to store exactly the least amount of data that will get "the point" of that music across to the listener, to the extent that they do not need the original recording any more. this is the stated goal of lossy compressed audio, after all. well, it also happens to be the (pretty much stated) goal of LLM companies, to store exactly the least amount of data that will get the point of that text to the reader. and it does tend to cause the readers to not really care about the original book any more.

having said all that, I don't mean to argue to lock it all up. I actually mean to argue that we should demand that Anthropic and Open AI release their weights data, and if anyone were to happen to break into them and steal that data, I would have exactly zero pity for that. because fair is fair.

There's also a difference between an MP3 and a FLAC. Again, ask DJs how well they're getting away on that distinction.

Uhuh so it seems that you weren't, in fact, asking a "Real question", but came here for an argument.

More anecdata: When I just tried Qwen 3.6 27B (Q6_K_XL) it (ultimately, after a lot of going back and forth) claimed it was not a counterexample and claimed the Jacobian wasn't constant (which I'm guessing is incorrect). It also mentioned a whole bunch of names it attributed the example to, in its thinking trace.

And a hand written apology note

I feel like I've played under human DMs like this :)

"For what it's worth" ? Yeah for what it's worth to you, you mean.

You submitted and expected people to read an article that you say you would have been stupid to write yourself, that's quite condescending, and just because you got something worth your while out of that doesn't really make it okay.

Sorry if I made it seem I think the human side of AI-use is without effort, because it's not and can take a lot of time (and effort/energy).

It is, however, my experience that even the people who spend a lot of time and effort generating something with AI, tend to shrug when you ask a deeper question about the project, and often point to the AI generated documentation, which is, let me be subtle and say, "not really a joy to read", and especially pales in comparison to having a conversation with a human who spent their effort on learning how to do the thing it did, instead of prompting an AI.

I'm also not saying there aren't any exceptions to this. But I've found them rare.

Like I said, even if the human doesn't quite understand what they generated, even then it would be preferable to read a human written article about how it was generated, using what tools and harnesses, etc.

I come to this website to learn stuff and converse with other people, not just to go "ooh aah" at what somebody generated with AI (if that is all they can offer).

Hope that makes sense.

But if you didn't care enough to write the docs yourself, why are you submitting it for discussion?

Are you seriously expecting humans to spend their time and effort and discuss your AI written docs that you literally admit you'd be "stupid" to have spent effort on yourself?

That's really condescending of you.

I had to hunt for it that's not clear at all, and if you don't care to spend the effort of writing it, why would anyone want to spend the effort of reading it.

I stand by it

That's cute, but seriously who cares if you stand by any of "your" words, if you care so little about them to have them be generated by an LLM.

people could do this, but they don't. and if they did spend that effort, it would be better. but as it is now, the vast majority of AI written text, especially "documentation" of software projects, has this style signifying communication was outsourced to an AI.

we are not at the point where "we can't tell", and if we actually couldn't tell we wouldn't be complaining about it

But you wouldn't have called it "allergy" or a "status" problem when considering the audience's response to human written posts of a similar low quality level.

It's always been the case that the HN audience has been "allergic" to low effort slop (including human generated).

The OP (and my) point was trying to point out how the AI generated stuff might masquerade as something "interesting" if it had been human written, but actually is much of a nothing burger when there's no human behind it:

if a human made a strange, weird, or even sub-optimal design decision, that's something to possibly have an interesting discussion about.

if an AI does the same, first of, I don't care and don't wanna guess why its weights did the thing it did, it's just not as interesting as human motivations, UNLESS the main meat of the article/link is in fact about (again the human experience of) "how I made this thing, using AI, what prompts, harness, models, etc".

I hope it makes sense and allows you to no longer dismiss this as an "allergy" (aka the audience's problem), but as something that is actually a quality problem with the post.

This exactly. Whenever someone shows me their (or someone else's) AI-assisted-coded (vibe coded) thing, I can only ever engage with it on a very superficial level, saying "oh cool".

You can't have a discussion about it, how it was done, because for 80% of cases it's "the AI did it".

I don't think this is that interesting or useful for HN, because indeed it's a discussion site.

It would be different if the vibe coded thing didn't come as a "look what it made and its vibe written README" but instead as a human written blog article about "how I made this thing using AI, what models, prompts and harnesses, how the experience was etc etc etc" --- again that would be something interesting to have a discussion about.

But otherwise what is there to say except "yeah cool that's cool that the AI made you that thing"

it’s impossible to know whether misconceptions or gaps are because the author doesn’t understand the material deeply enough or the author does but the AI doesn’t and the author’s not proofreading carefully enough. Or if a surprising idea is raised — is it the authors insight, can they elaborate on it, where did it come from, etc?

It's going to turn into slop, exponentially fast, any moment now.

No but seriously it could imply grinding to a halt, turning into a laughing stock of slop, or, imho much less likely given the current state of AI (barring huge technological breakthrough and a couple of other assumptions) you were probably implying an intelligence explosion.

So why diss on someone for following the license terms?

you're being deliberately obtuse now. this has been explained clearly several times in this thread.

Imagine if companies were run that way

oh no, won't someone think of the companies

I don't get disappeared for licking the US government's taint.

ftfy

also maybe look up the history of the word "hysteria", that you seem to like so much

You are out of your mind if you're lumping the US together with other western nations when it comes to human rights.

What if ... it was sloppy because it wasn't the people at Anthropic, but the AI that is writing a large percentage of their code?

Like maybe some "goal" they set for their AI caused it to decide that putting stego in the requests was the best way to achieve something or other.

(to be clear: I'm not saying this is right, I'm saying this is stupid)

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 honestly don't want to put that up to "luck".

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.

It was also a violation of the terms of service of those books (aka copyright)

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.

Do you think software should be regulated as a utility?

I do think that AI models that were trained using the biggest intellectual property heist in human history should be a utility for all, yes.

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.

But there is. Human cognition is unrivaled.

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.