←back to thread

Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge

(www.businessinsider.com)
393 points pyman | 1 comments | 07 Jul 25 09:20 UTC | HN request time: 0.214s | source
Show context
platunit10 ◴[07 Jul 25 17:33 UTC] No.44492696[source]▶
Every time an article like this surfaces, it always seems like the majority of tech folks believe that training AI on copyrighted material is NOT fair use, but the legal industry disagrees.

Which of the following are true?

(a) the legal industry is susceptible to influence and corruption

(b) engineers don't understand how to legally interpret legal text

(c) AI tech is new, and judges aren't technically qualified to decide these scenarios

Most likely option is C, as we've seen this pattern many times before.

replies(9): >>44492721 #>>44492755 #>>44492782 #>>44492783 #>>44492932 #>>44493290 #>>44493664 #>>44494318 #>>44494973 #
1. CaptainFever ◴[07 Jul 25 17:40 UTC] No.44492782[source]▶
> Every time an article like this surfaces, it always seems like the majority of tech folks believe that training AI on copyrighted material is NOT fair use

Where are you getting your data from? My conclusions are the exact opposite.

(Also, aren't judges by definition the only ones qualified to declare if it is actually fair use? You could make a case that it shouldn't be fair use, but that's different from it being not fair use.)