Comment by Bratmon
1 month ago
I like this comment because its argument only makes sense if you assume that the entire world's output of books and art did not require a huge amount of resources and expertise to make, nor did it add any value.
It's the most CS-major take ever!
If turning other peoples copyrighted work into a model is transformative enough to be protected then so is distilling that model into a different, better, model.
The models were built using copyrighted works, so why can't models be built using other models?
They do seem to be paying for it (as per the 1.5Bil lawsuit yesterday and them now purchasing books and licensing from media companies).
Whether we think they're paying enough is another question, but "I'm paying for content so can protect it" doesn't seem inconsistent.
We may decide that giving models away for free means they don't have to license content (judging by HN comments), but currently that doesn't seem to be the case as Meta is facing lawsuits for its open models.
(Obligatory stratechery piece: https://stratechery.com/2026/whos-afraid-of-chinese-models/ )
8 replies →
Because model output is probably far closer to software or a licensed work which possibly has greater protections than it is to copyright. There is far less possibility of fair use, it might be protected by patents, license or reverse engineering laws.
In any case the laws are being written now, but I doubt these will have worse protection than software does, which has far better protections than copyright
11 replies →
there is a major god complex here.
MBAs and non technical managers = inept Catbert-type charlatans.
Software engineers, devs, etc = geniuses capable of mastering any domain, innate ability to be right on any topic.
I don't think that's what it's saying at all. It's saying that there's a level of creativity in model creation that isn't present in distillation.
Maybe, but it's not like their AI is likely to repeat it back verbatim so it's unlikely to be a copyright violation. It seems like at most, they would be breaking Anthropic's terms of service?
Or maybe they're going through an intermediary "transfer station" that's breaking terms of service:
https://www.chinatalk.media/p/how-to-buy-cheap-claude-tokens...
Yes, it's just a ToS violation at present. Those are legally binding though, despite the common adage. What that really translates to here though, anyone's guess.
Anthropic's own copyright infringement could apparently be forgiven for 1.5B USD after all, so maybe there's a price that breaking the distillation clause for is acceptable too. Or some other arrangement.
4 replies →
>a level of creativity in model creation that isn't present in distillation.
the same argument - a level of creativity in the world knowledge creation that ins't present in the model training on that knowledge.
Or in other words - model creation and training is just a distilling of the world knowledge.
I don't disagree. I'm not sure why that's a relevant reply though.
If you think that the addition of a less creative process (model creation) to a more creative corpus ("art") is problematic, then it follows that you should think the addition of a less creative process (distillation) to a more creative corpus (a model) is also problematic.
1 reply →
Yes, this is what I was getting at.
There is an even higher level of creativity in creating books, songs and all sorts of art used in model training though. That's your apparent blindspot.
There is no world in which me vacuuming the entirety of human knowledge to make a genai model is ok but hoovering my model answers is not. The hypocrisy is stunning and risible.
Now if you go and make a model based on purely synthetic data and not a single work made by humans, you would have a valid point.
4 replies →
No? They outright say the opposite!
Like look, I'm not a native speaker, sure. But I think when someone says "value add", that means there was value there (which you claim they're rhetorically erasing), and then that was added to. Under no interpretation of this phrase do I get an erasure of prior value.
So certainly, as long as words mean anything, no, they absolutely did not say or suggest what you claim they did, and what you extract a thus unreasonable amount of obnoxious schadenfreude from, while throwing in a cheap insult for funsies at the end.
It's the second time I feel compelled to reach for this just today: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/659/979/108...
This is a misrepresentation though.
The LLM output, is not the same as the input - there is value add.
Of course works used as raw inputs to LLMs required work and are reasonably subject to IP concerns - but they are different.
It's possible that the LLM makers 'owe' the content creators that created the content they used to make their products - it's an interesting but separate question.
We could very well end up where content IP is protected, LLM output is not and visa versa with reasonable legal founding, doubtful but plausible.
Lossly storing IP in LLM itself, and using IP for training (so it’s lossly stored in LLM), without licensing these works or otherwise following license agreements (eg GPL) is infringement. Using then this product for commercial activity is a smoking gun.
"Lossly storing IP in LLM itself, a" - that part I'm inclined to agree with.
But it's debatable if that's the case.
Google stores copyrighted content and produces in in their product.
Also - it's fair game to use snippets of things here and there, if the derived work is novel, which I think it is for LLMs, mostly.
I do agree though, that we ought to draw the line somehow.
> but they are different.
How, and why?
> We could very well end up where content IP is protected, LLM output is not and visa versa with reasonable legal founding, doubtful but plausible.
That is the current state of legal rulings - LLM output is public domain, not copyrightable.
This misstates the small number of legal opinions and orders on this topic, none of which form binding precedent outside the districts where the cases happened. So even if a court had found that “LLM output is public domain” (none did) that wouldn’t make it “the law” until it went up the appellate system and was upheld.
Our current laws simply weren’t built for this and I expect the legal status of LLM output is not going to be resolved until Congress actually legislates on this topic.
"> but they are different.
How, and why?"
How are they even remotely the same?
They're not even used the same way.
One is raw data input, the other is training content - designed to train LLMs.
One is a set of IP derived for other purposes entirely, and has esablished IP law - how you can use someone else's creative work or not ... for LLM outputs, less clear.