Comment by skybrian
1 month ago
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.
But surely at least one of the websites Anthropic scraped to make Claude had a ToS forbidding automatic access?
Why is Anthropic's ToS any more binding than that of a rabidly-anti-ai literature blog with 50 readers?
One reason is that they might not have scraped it themselves, so if there was a ToS, it was someone else who broke it. For example, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pile_(dataset)
Another reason is that if you can download a web page without agreeing to a ToS, I'm not sure that counts as one?
> Why is Anthropic's ToS any more binding than that of a rabidly-anti-ai literature blog with 50 readers?
I mean i know you know the answer: anthropic is a corporation with lawyers on retainer, and that's really all that matters
Do feel free to read the court documents to find out and let us know.
> Why is Anthropic's ToS any more binding than that of a rabidly-anti-ai literature blog with 50 readers?
Although I will say, this whole comparison stuff really doesn't seem to be your thing; might impede your analysis quite a lot: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49013148
Maybe ask Claude?