←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: 0.217s | source
Show context
codedokode ◴[07 Jul 25 16:49 UTC] No.44492195[source]▶
If AI companies are allowed to use pirated material to create their products, does it mean that everyone can use pirated software to create products? Where is the line?

Also please don't use word "learning", use "creating software using copyrighted materials".

Also let's think together how can we prevent AI companies from using our work using technical measures if the law doesn't work?

replies(5): >>44492257 #>>44492400 #>>44492975 #>>44493804 #>>44493829 #
redcobra762 ◴[07 Jul 25 17:06 UTC] No.44492400[source]▶
It's abusive and wrong to try and prevent AI companies from using your works at all.

The whole point of copyright is to ensure you're paid for your work. AI companies shouldn't pirate, but if they pay for your work, they should be able to use it however they please, including training an LLM on it.

If that LLM reproduces your work, then the AI company is violating copyright, but if the LLM doesn't reproduce your work, then you have not been harmed. Trying to claim harm when you haven't been due to some philosophical difference in opinion with the AI company is an abuse of the courts.

replies(4): >>44492530 #>>44492615 #>>44492908 #>>44492935 #
1. 827a ◴[07 Jul 25 17:51 UTC] No.44492908[source]▶
Current copyright law is not remotely sophisticated enough to make determinations on AI fair use. Whether the courts say current AI use is fair is irrelevant to the discussion most people on this side would agree with: That we need new laws. The work the AI companies stole to train on was created under a copyright regime where the expectation was that, eh, a few people would learn from and be inspired from your work, and that feels great because you're empowering other humans. Scale does not amplify Good. The regime has changed. The expectations under what kinds of use copyright protects against has fundamentally changed. The AI companies invented New Horrors that no one could have predicted, Vader altered the deal, no reasonable artist except the most forward-thinking sci-fi authors would have remotely guessed what their work would be used for, and thus could never have conciously and fairly agreed to this exchange. Very few would have agreed to it.