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

So authors must declare legally "this book must not be used for AI training unless a license is agreed on" as a clause in the book purchase.

Sounds like natural personhood for AI is coming

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.

From dark gray to slightly darker gray.

I call this legally distinct, this is legal advice.

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.

Right. Where's the punishment for Meta who admitted to pirating books?

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.

...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.

This 240TB JBOD full of books? Oh heavens forbid, we didn’t pirate it. It uhh… fell of a truck, yes, fell off a truck.

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.

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

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"

I'll be honest with you - I genuinely sympathize with the cause but I don't see how this could ever be solved with the methods you suggested. The world is not coming together to hold hands and koombayah out of this one. Trade deals are incredibly hard and even harder to enforce so free market is clearly the only path forward here.

I'd be impressed with any model that succeeds with that, but assuming one does, the complete works of Shakespeare are not copyright protected - they have fallen into the public domain since a very long time ago.

For any works still under copyright protection, it would probably be a case of a trial to determine whether a certain work is transformative enough to be considered fair use. I'd imagine that this would not clear that bar.

Maybe something could be hacked together to fix copyright, but further complication there is just going to make accurate enforcement even harder. And we already have Google (in YouTube) already doing a shitty job of it and that's.... One of the largest companies on earth.

We should just kill copyright. Yes, it'll disrupt Hollywood. Yes it'll disrupt the music industry. Yes it'll make it even harder to be successful or wealthy as an author. But this is going to happen one way or the other so long as AI can be trained on copyrighted works (and maybe even if not). We might as well get started on the transition early.