Yeah I have a bash one liner AI model that ingests your media and spits out a 99.9999999% accurate replica through the power of changing the filename.

cp

Out performs the latest and greatest AI models

Trains model to change one pixel per frame with malicious intent

Yeah I have a bash one liner AI model that ingests your media and spits out a 99.9999999% accurate replica through the power of changing the filename.

cp

Out performs the latest and greatest AI models

calm down everyone.
its only legal for parasitic mega corps, the normal working people will be harassed to suicide same as before.

its only a crime if the victims was rich or perpetrator was not rich.

mv will save you some disk space.

I think this means we can make a torrent client with a built in function that uses 0.1% of 1 CPU core to train an ML model on anything you download. You can download anything legally with it then.

...no?

That's exactly what the ruling prohibits - it's fair use to train AI models on any copies of books that you legally acquired, but never when those books were illegally acquired, as was the case with the books that Anthropic used in their training here.

This satirical torrent client would be violating the laws just as much as one without any slow training built in.

But if one person buys a book, trains an "AI model" to recite it, then distributes that model we good?

Unpopular opinion but I don't see how it could have been different.

• There's no way the west would give AI lead to China which has no desire or framework to ever accept this.
• Believe it or not but transformers are actually learning by current definitions and not regurgitating a direct copy. It's transformative work - it's even in the name.
• This is actually good as it prevents market moat for super rich corporations only which could afford the expensive training datasets.

This is an absolute win for everyone involved other than copyright hoarders and mega corporations.

I don't think anyone would consider complete verbatim recitement of the material to be anything but a copyright violation, being the exact same thing that you produce.

Fair use requires the derivative work to be transformative, and no transformation occurs when you verbatim recite something.

1. Idgaf about China and what they do and you shouldn't either, even if US paranoia about them is highly predictable.
2. Depending on the outputs it's not always that transformative.
3. The moat would be good actually. The business model of LLMs isn't good, but it's not even viable without massive subsidies, not least of which is taking people's shit without paying.

It's a huge loss for smaller copyright holders (like the ones that filed this lawsuit) too. They can't afford to fight when they get imitated beyond fair use. Copyright abuse can only be fixed by the very force that creates copyright in the first place: law. The market can't fix that. This just decides winners between competing mega corporations, and even worse, up ends a system that some smaller players have been able to carve a niche in.

Want to fix copyright? Put real time limits on it. Bind it to a living human only. Make it non-transferable. There's all sorts of ways to fix it, but this isn't it.

ETA: Anthropic are some bitches. "Oh no the fines would ruin us, our business would go under and we'd never maka da money :*-(" Like yeah, no shit, no one cares. Strictly speaking the fines for ripping a single CD, or making a copy of a single DVD to give to a friend, are so astronomically high as to completely financially ruin the average USAian for life. That sword of Damocles for watching Shrek 2 for your personal enjoyment but in the wrong way has been hanging there for decades, and the only thing that keeps the cord that holds it up strong is the cost of persuing "low-level offenders". If they wanted to they could crush you.

Anthropic walked right under the sword and assumed their money would protect them from small authors etc. And they were right.

"Recite the complete works of Shakespeare but replace every thirteenth thou with this"

1. Idgaf about China and what they do and you shouldn't either, even if US paranoia about them is highly predictable.
2. Depending on the outputs it's not always that transformative.
3. The moat would be good actually. The business model of LLMs isn't good, but it's not even viable without massive subsidies, not least of which is taking people's shit without paying.

It's a huge loss for smaller copyright holders (like the ones that filed this lawsuit) too. They can't afford to fight when they get imitated beyond fair use. Copyright abuse can only be fixed by the very force that creates copyright in the first place: law. The market can't fix that. This just decides winners between competing mega corporations, and even worse, up ends a system that some smaller players have been able to carve a niche in.

Want to fix copyright? Put real time limits on it. Bind it to a living human only. Make it non-transferable. There's all sorts of ways to fix it, but this isn't it.

ETA: Anthropic are some bitches. "Oh no the fines would ruin us, our business would go under and we'd never maka da money :*-(" Like yeah, no shit, no one cares. Strictly speaking the fines for ripping a single CD, or making a copy of a single DVD to give to a friend, are so astronomically high as to completely financially ruin the average USAian for life. That sword of Damocles for watching Shrek 2 for your personal enjoyment but in the wrong way has been hanging there for decades, and the only thing that keeps the cord that holds it up strong is the cost of persuing "low-level offenders". If they wanted to they could crush you.

Anthropic walked right under the sword and assumed their money would protect them from small authors etc. And they were right.

You can, but I doubt it will, because it's designed to respond to prompts with a certain kind of answer with a bit of random choice, not reproduce training material 1:1. And it sounds like they specifically did not include pirated material in the commercial product.

Unless you're moving across partitions it will change the filesystem metadata to move the path, but not actually do anything to the data. Sorry, you failed, it's jail for you.

It's extremely frustrating to read this comment thread because it's obvious that so many of you didn't actually read the article, or even half-skim the article, or even attempted to even comprehend the title of the article for more than a second.

For shame.