Comment

Comment by legitster

Here's my understanding, someone correct me if I'm wrong:

- Anthropic et al basically grabbed whatever content they could to scan and train the model.

- The vast majority of what they scanned were books they bought at wholesale in big lots. Stuff being weeded out from Goodwills or libraries and (mostly) bound for destruction anyway.

- They didn't copy the texts per-se, they studied the relationships between words to build a statistical/predictive model of natural language.

- Whether this a fair or illegal use of copyrighted text already seems like an adorably obsolete question. Regardless, the damage is basically done - they can neither prove one way or another how much any single text influenced their model and they cannot unscramble the egg without starting over.

- Rather than get stuck in court for decades splitting the hairs about copyright law, they wrote massive checks to the publishing industry and agreed to a bunch of restrictions around copyrights.

- For the foreseeable future, every independent copyright holder now has grounds to take grievances to Anthropic and get some form of compensation.

parent legitster 4 days ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton