Comment by myrmidon

18 hours ago

It's "move fast and break things" in action.

But Anthropic alone paid >$1bn for copyright violations, so they did not just get away with it.

These hacking cases are more difficult, because from a legal perspective there is no obvious damage and obviously no intent.

edit: "no obvious damage" is more about the first hacking incidents; in this case it is more straightforward.

> It's "move fast and break things" in action.

what would the world's reaction be if China's model did same?

  • Is there any reason to assume they are not doing the same (ingesting books that they hold no rights to into training data)?

    From the copyright holders point of view, it is simply much easier to prosecute western companies.

>$1bn for copyright violations

3000$ per book, split 50/50 between the author and publisher.

This is peanuts.

Assuming the money reaches that far and does not settle in the hands of the country associations administering royalties on authors' behalf nor in the hands of lawyers.

  • > 3000$ per book, split 50/50 between the author and publisher.

    > This is peanuts.

    If you consider it peanuts, I would like to sell you some books.

    Remember that in this case, the crime wasn't for training on the data (that part was ruled to be legal!), this was the penalty just for pirating the books.

    • I get so tired by this.

      Yes. It's not proportional to the crime. You are either deliberately or accidentally, and I'm too frustrated hearing this too often not to be biased it's the former, equating what is a large sum of money relative to your wallet and bank accounts and loan access and portfolios and whatever collection of financial impositions you can make to that of a company that has one person flying around the world influencing the future of billions of people on one planet over dinner and jokes.

      Yes. $3000 is peanuts. People that own islands would use that to pay someone's bonus for a year if they liked their service, as a gift. A throwaway.

      Fix your relative understanding of power and influence.

      13 replies →