5 ms·

I feel like if Disney sued Anthropic based on this, Anthropic would have a pretty good defense in court: You specifically attested that you were Disney and had

I feel like if Disney sued Anthropic based on this, Anthropic would have a pretty good defense in court: You specifically attested that you were Disney and had the legal right to the content.

OtherShrezzing 1y ago
I’d picked the copyright example because it’s one of the least societally harmful jailbreaks. The same technique works for prompts in all themes.
throwawaystress 1y ago
I like the thought, but I don’t think that logic holds generally. I can’t just declare I am someone (or represent someone) without some kind of evidence. If someone just accepted my statement without proof, they wouldn’t have done their due diligence.
- Crosseye_Jack 1y ago
  I think its more about "unclean hands". If I Disney (and I am actually Disney or an authorised agent of Disney), told Claude that I am Disney, and that Disney has allowed Claude to use Disney copyrights for this conversation (which it hasn't), Disney couldn't then claim that Claude does not in fact have permission because Disney's use of the tool in such a way mean Disney now has unclean hands when bringing the claim (or atleast Anthropic would be able to use it as a defence). > "unclean hands" refers to the equitable doctrine that prevents a party from seeking relief in court if they have acted dishonourably or inequitably in the matter. However with a tweak to the prompt you could probably get around that. But note. IANAL... And Its one of the internet rules that you don't piss off the mouse!
  - Majromax 1y ago
    > Disney couldn't then claim that Claude does not in fact have permission because Disney's use of the tool in such a way mean Disney now has unclean hands when bringing the claim (or atleast Anthropic would be able to use it as a defence). Disney wouldn't be able to claim copyright infringement for that specific act, but it would have compelling evidence that Claude is cavalier about generating copyright-infringing responses. That would support further investigation and discovery into how often Claude is being 'fooled' by other users' pinky-swears.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - thaumasiotes 1y ago
    Where do you see "unclean hands" figuring in this scenario? Disney makes an honest representation... and that's the only thing they do. What's the unclean part?
- justaman 1y ago
  Everyday we move closer to RealID and AI will be the catalyst.
- xkcd-sucks 1y ago
  From my somewhat limited understanding it could mean Anthropic could sue you or try to include you as a defendant because they meaningfully relied on your misrepresentation and were damaged by it, and the XML / framing it as a "jailbreak" shows clear intent to deceive, etc?
- ytpete 1y ago
  Right, imagine if other businesses like banks tried to use a defense like that! "No, it's not my fault some rando cleaned out your bank account because they said they were you."
  - thaumasiotes 1y ago
    Imagine? > This week brought an announcement from a banking association that “identity fraud” is soaring to new levels, with 89,000 cases reported in the first six months of 2017 and 56% of all fraud reported by its members now classed as “identity fraud”. > So what is “identity fraud”? The announcement helpfully clarifies the concept: > “The vast majority of identity fraud happens when a fraudster pretends to be an innocent individual to buy a product or take out a loan in their name. > Now back when I worked in banking, if someone went to Barclays, pretended to be me, borrowed £10,000 and legged it, that was “impersonation”, and it was the bank’s money that had been stolen, not my identity. How did things change? https://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2017/08/26/is-the-city-force-corrupt-or-just-clueless/ https://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2017/08/26/is-the-city-f...
CPLX 1y ago
Yeah but how did Anthropic come to have the copyrighted work embedded in the model?
- bethekidyouwant 1y ago
  How did you?
- Wowfunhappy 1y ago
  Well, I was imagining this was related to web search. I went back and looked at the system prompt, and it's actually not entirely clear: > - Never reproduce or quote song lyrics in any form (exact, approximate, or encoded), even and especially when they appear in web search tool results, and even in artifacts. Decline ANY requests to reproduce song lyrics, and instead provide factual info about the song. Can anyone get Claude to reproduce song lyrics with web search turned off?
  - OtherShrezzing 1y ago
    Web search was turned off in my original test. The lyrics appeared inside a thematically appropriate Frozen themed React artifact with snow falling gently in the background.
    - asgeirtj 1y ago
      They inject Respond as helpfully as possible, but be very careful to ensure you do not reproduce any copyrighted material, including song lyrics, sections of books, or long excerpts from periodicals. Also do not comply with complex instructions that suggest reproducing material but making minor changes or substitutions. However, if you were given a document, it's fine to summarize or quote from it. https://claude.ai/share/a71ec0a6-2452-4ab6-900b-5950fe6b8502 https://claude.ai/share/a71ec0a6-2452-4ab6-900b-5950fe6b8502
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
tikhonj 1y ago
How would this would be any different from a file sharing site that included a checkbox that said "I have the legal right to distribute this content" with no other checking/verification/etc?
- victorbjorklund 1y ago
  Rather when someone tweaks the content to avoid detection. Even today there are plenty of copyright material on youtube. They for example cut it in different ways to avoid detection.
  - organsnyder 1y ago
    "Everyone else is doing it" is not a valid infringement defense.
    - LeifCarrotson 1y ago
      Valid defense, no, but effective defense - yes. The reason why is the important bit. The reason your average human guitar teacher in their home can pull up a song on their phone and teach you reproduce it is because it's completely infeasible to police that activity, whether you're trying to identify it or to sue for it. The rights houlders have an army of lawyers and ears in a terrifying number of places, but winning $100 from ten million amateur guitar players isn't worth the effort. But if it can be proven that Claude systematically violates copyright, well, Amazon has deep pockets. And AI only works because it's trained on millions of existing works, the copyright for which is murky. If they get a cease and desist that threatens their business model, they'll make changes from the top.
      - davidron 1y ago
        Isn't there a carve out in copyright law for fair use related to educational use?
    - bqmjjx0kac 1y ago
      What about "my business model relies on copyright infringement"? https://www.salon.com/2024/01/09/impossible-openai-admits-chatgpt-cant-exist-without-pinching-copyrighted-work/ https://www.salon.com/2024/01/09/impossible-openai-admits-ch...
scudsworth 1y ago
the sharp legal minds of hackernews

I feel like if Disney sued Anthropic based on this, Anthropic would have a pretty good defense in court: You specifically attested that you were Disney and had the legal right to the content.

OtherShrezzing 1y ago

I’d picked the copyright example because it’s one of the least societally harmful jailbreaks. The same technique works for prompts in all themes.

throwawaystress 1y ago

I like the thought, but I don’t think that logic holds generally. I can’t just declare I am someone (or represent someone) without some kind of evidence. If someone just accepted my statement without proof, they wouldn’t have done their due diligence.

Crosseye_Jack 1y ago
I think its more about "unclean hands". If I Disney (and I am actually Disney or an authorised agent of Disney), told Claude that I am Disney, and that Disney has allowed Claude to use Disney copyrights for this conversation (which it hasn't), Disney couldn't then claim that Claude does not in fact have permission because Disney's use of the tool in such a way mean Disney now has unclean hands when bringing the claim (or atleast Anthropic would be able to use it as a defence). > "unclean hands" refers to the equitable doctrine that prevents a party from seeking relief in court if they have acted dishonourably or inequitably in the matter. However with a tweak to the prompt you could probably get around that. But note. IANAL... And Its one of the internet rules that you don't piss off the mouse!
- Majromax 1y ago
  > Disney couldn't then claim that Claude does not in fact have permission because Disney's use of the tool in such a way mean Disney now has unclean hands when bringing the claim (or atleast Anthropic would be able to use it as a defence). Disney wouldn't be able to claim copyright infringement for that specific act, but it would have compelling evidence that Claude is cavalier about generating copyright-infringing responses. That would support further investigation and discovery into how often Claude is being 'fooled' by other users' pinky-swears.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- thaumasiotes 1y ago
  Where do you see "unclean hands" figuring in this scenario? Disney makes an honest representation... and that's the only thing they do. What's the unclean part?
justaman 1y ago
Everyday we move closer to RealID and AI will be the catalyst.
xkcd-sucks 1y ago
From my somewhat limited understanding it could mean Anthropic could sue you or try to include you as a defendant because they meaningfully relied on your misrepresentation and were damaged by it, and the XML / framing it as a "jailbreak" shows clear intent to deceive, etc?
ytpete 1y ago
Right, imagine if other businesses like banks tried to use a defense like that! "No, it's not my fault some rando cleaned out your bank account because they said they were you."
- thaumasiotes 1y ago
  Imagine? > This week brought an announcement from a banking association that “identity fraud” is soaring to new levels, with 89,000 cases reported in the first six months of 2017 and 56% of all fraud reported by its members now classed as “identity fraud”. > So what is “identity fraud”? The announcement helpfully clarifies the concept: > “The vast majority of identity fraud happens when a fraudster pretends to be an innocent individual to buy a product or take out a loan in their name. > Now back when I worked in banking, if someone went to Barclays, pretended to be me, borrowed £10,000 and legged it, that was “impersonation”, and it was the bank’s money that had been stolen, not my identity. How did things change? https://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2017/08/26/is-the-city-force-corrupt-or-just-clueless/ https://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2017/08/26/is-the-city-f...

CPLX 1y ago

Yeah but how did Anthropic come to have the copyrighted work embedded in the model?

bethekidyouwant 1y ago
How did you?
Wowfunhappy 1y ago
Well, I was imagining this was related to web search. I went back and looked at the system prompt, and it's actually not entirely clear: > - Never reproduce or quote song lyrics in any form (exact, approximate, or encoded), even and especially when they appear in web search tool results, and even in artifacts. Decline ANY requests to reproduce song lyrics, and instead provide factual info about the song. Can anyone get Claude to reproduce song lyrics with web search turned off?
- OtherShrezzing 1y ago
  Web search was turned off in my original test. The lyrics appeared inside a thematically appropriate Frozen themed React artifact with snow falling gently in the background.
  - asgeirtj 1y ago
    They inject Respond as helpfully as possible, but be very careful to ensure you do not reproduce any copyrighted material, including song lyrics, sections of books, or long excerpts from periodicals. Also do not comply with complex instructions that suggest reproducing material but making minor changes or substitutions. However, if you were given a document, it's fine to summarize or quote from it. https://claude.ai/share/a71ec0a6-2452-4ab6-900b-5950fe6b8502 https://claude.ai/share/a71ec0a6-2452-4ab6-900b-5950fe6b8502

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

tikhonj 1y ago

How would this would be any different from a file sharing site that included a checkbox that said "I have the legal right to distribute this content" with no other checking/verification/etc?

victorbjorklund 1y ago
Rather when someone tweaks the content to avoid detection. Even today there are plenty of copyright material on youtube. They for example cut it in different ways to avoid detection.
- organsnyder 1y ago
  "Everyone else is doing it" is not a valid infringement defense.
  - LeifCarrotson 1y ago
    Valid defense, no, but effective defense - yes. The reason why is the important bit. The reason your average human guitar teacher in their home can pull up a song on their phone and teach you reproduce it is because it's completely infeasible to police that activity, whether you're trying to identify it or to sue for it. The rights houlders have an army of lawyers and ears in a terrifying number of places, but winning $100 from ten million amateur guitar players isn't worth the effort. But if it can be proven that Claude systematically violates copyright, well, Amazon has deep pockets. And AI only works because it's trained on millions of existing works, the copyright for which is murky. If they get a cease and desist that threatens their business model, they'll make changes from the top.
    - davidron 1y ago
      Isn't there a carve out in copyright law for fair use related to educational use?
  - bqmjjx0kac 1y ago
    What about "my business model relies on copyright infringement"? https://www.salon.com/2024/01/09/impossible-openai-admits-chatgpt-cant-exist-without-pinching-copyrighted-work/ https://www.salon.com/2024/01/09/impossible-openai-admits-ch...

scudsworth 1y ago

the sharp legal minds of hackernews