kenmacd

I think it's a significant distinction. The original title implies that the training was illegal when the court actually found that the training was fair use. It implies that Anthropic was required to ask the professors for permission to train on their books.

What the actual ruling found was that the professors should have been paid some tens of dollars for 1 copy of their book.

(Whether you agree with it or not is another matter)

The title is (I believe intentionally) inaccurate. Better would be:

Anthropic trained on illegally acquired Stanford professors' books

The article does not say the training was illegal (although does discuss the professors push for a licensing model).

How would those tool calls work? Would it say what it wants and another model/system act on that and 'read aloud' the document to it?

I guess that's somewhat how we do it, so maybe it would work.

I hear you, but as I said, I hope that buying from Deepseek gets more Deepseek. Maybe they get the same amount (or more) from a Canadian provider, and if so I might reconsider.

The 'clean power' would factor in a well, but I haven't really looked in to it. I know China is installing a ton of renewable and has a carbon market while Canada's building a new pipeline and building Alberta data centres running on natural gas, so I'm not willing to take on faith that switching is cleaner.

> The economic sovereignty of any nation, but especially smaller ones like canada and denmark, is harmed by sending our money out of the country when there are options available in country.

I respectfully disagree. I subscribe to the comparative advantage economic principle, so I'm fine with international trade.

I figure (hope) buying from DeepSeek directly benefits them the most so they can release even more improvements and open-weight models.

Plus only one country has threatened to annex mine and it wasn't China.

We (most of the world) also have to deal with well funded external government organisations constantly pumping out propaganda attempting to make sure we don't work together or have empathy/understanding of each other's views.

Push that through a media filter that optimizes for engagement and it's no wonder these things are happening.

If this is the issue you actually care about then you're in the minority. Most seem to be using it as a proxy for complaining about how the LLM uses the content, not that they didn't pay $10 for the content to start with.

Would you be happy if they bought exactly one copy of each book? That might be a dozen sales between the AI labs, some tens of dollars to the author. Is this really what you're so upset over?

And the solution to avoid this piracy has been to buy up rare editions of old books, cut them up and scan them. Better?

In the Anthropic court case it was determined not to, ie that training was transformative.

It's like if you read a plumbing book and then made YouTube videos on how to fix a sink.

Have you run your numbers recently because a 20+ year break-even isn't common? I wonder if you have some highly subsidized power or something because most places would be under 10.

The writing is so AI-y as to make the otherwise interesting content nearly unreadable.