3 ms·
The real question is why Anthropic was able to use DMCA takedown requests "in good faith" against the Claude leaks when their own CTO claimed it is a 100% slopc
by cookiengineer 5mo ago
The real question is why Anthropic was able to use DMCA takedown requests "in good faith" against the Claude leaks when their own CTO claimed it is a 100% slopcoded codebase, and they themselves argue that all LLM generated code is transformed enough to not be copyrightable. Which they have to state without being able to turn back because they violated millions of book and software licenses during training.
Make it make sense.
- naruhodo 5mo agoTruth, law and consequences (for the capital class) are so last year.
- ashirviskas 5mo agoWhat? Training is not inference. Reading books is not the same as writing.
- cookiengineer 5mo agoMaybe read up on how transformers, their encoders and decoders, and the attention matrix works? https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762 https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762
- tardedmeme 5mo agoYou can lie. You can get away with lying. You can lie to judges. You can get away with lying to judges. You can profit from getting away with lying to judges. A judge isn't involved, anyway. The leaker would have to take you to court and then prove that your request was in bad faith and that they didn't infringe copyright. Competent programmers understand how to tell the computer what needs to happen. Really good programmers understand how the computer executed the code, and take advantage of it - they know about speculative execution and cache prefetching. Competent lawyers know what the law says. Really good lawyers understand how the law is executed, and take advantage of it - they know when it won't be enforced.