4 ms·

> distilling the model with another model is not illegal per se. Just because it is legal, that doesn't mean Anthropic wouldn't reasonably want to prevent that

by filoleg 4mo ago

> distilling the model with another model is not illegal per se. Just because it is legal, that doesn't mean Anthropic wouldn't reasonably want to prevent that from happening (which, from my understanding, isn't illegal either).

bayindirh 4mo ago
I love the asymmetry. When small fish tries to protect itself, big fish hits small fish with "It's not illegal" pole. When small fish points out that what the big fish is crying about is "not illegal", big fish has the right to be above the law to prevent the problem themselves. Having values requires equality. They have lost the right to cry foul when they trained their model with "but it's fair use" card. Life works by reaping what you sow. Now they are at the reaping stage.
- lmz 4mo ago
  "It's not illegal" is only an argument against lawsuits / law enforcement involvement. Those PoW anti-AI things people put on pages aren't illegal either.
  - bayindirh 4mo ago
    No. From my interactions, I have understood that some people use the same argument to wash their consciences from any guilt. What they do is unethical, but not illegal, and they hide under the same argument to drown the ethical angle. In other words, being honest to oneself is important. Anti-scraping measures people utilize are neither unethical nor illegal. That’s the difference.
    - DrewADesign 4mo ago
      I’m still frequently shocked by the entitlement people feel to other people’s work/ideas/data/bandwidth/server load, to feed a multi-trillion dollar industry. I find the totally cynical “well when you’re making an omelet…” types to be a bit pathetic, but I understand their motivation— they’re simply greedy. But I just can’t understand the genuine indignation about people attempting to limit or stop ingestion of their own work, even if it’s just for the bandwidth costs. Go ingest your own shit.
      - windexh8er 4mo ago
        I often wonder what those people are like IRL. I'd surmise they're the people that are easy to hate. Greedy and intolerable yet want to be the focus.
    - epestr 4mo ago
      It's good to agree that some don't have a conscience, and maintaining an appearance matters more. And appearances change based on what's legal or not. They could detect the other AI labs and also silently burn the tokens at a faster rate providing fewer tokens for money, which does sound illegal to me. The comments only further prove that without more regulation around this, big AI wouldn't have a "don't be evil" attitude going forward.
      - Forgeties79 4mo ago
        Anyone who called for regulations/guardrails of any kind were shouted down as Luddites who hate progress. We all knew this was going to be a mess but $$$ so screw it right?
        lossyalgo 4mo ago
        Maybe that's how OpenAI was able to blow $5.73 BILLION dollars on "marketing" i.e. paying politicians and influencers.
- TeMPOraL 4mo ago
  > I love the asymmetry. Much as I hate to defend companies climbing to success and pulling up the ladder afterwards, this asymmetry you note is kind of the whole point a company would want to grow big. Growing an organization has some super-linear costs and generally sucks for most individuals living through it - including the management - but it's still considered worth it, precisely because big entities can do things small entities cannot, and escape the threats from smaller competitors. It's so basic it's actually part of the reason we exist, and animals of various sizes exist, and generally why evolution didn't stop at single-cellular life. > They have lost the right to cry foul when they trained their model with "but it's fair use" card. Life works by reaping what you sow. Now they are at the reaping stage. Yup. Except what they're reaping is insane cashflow and ability to pull stunts like these. We can call out the hypocrisy until our throats run dry, and in ideal fantasy land this would've meant something, but here in the real world, they sow the seeds of success, and now are reaping the right to be hypocritical and continue to get away with it.
  - marcus_holmes 4mo ago
    I disagree with your assessment that large organisations are beneficial. We can see with our current crop of large organisations that they really struggle to create anything new; most of their new products or services were developed by a small organisation and then acquired. A lot of those products are then enshittified and badly managed because large organisation politics screws things up. Large organisations are inefficient (everyone has stories of people in large organisations literally doing nothing all day). They are horrible to work for because of the politics. They mistreat their customers and their employees. Their executives tend to lose touch with reality, surround themselves with yes-folk and descend into authoritarian psychopathy. My personal opinion is that we would be much, much, better off if we had fewer large organisations and more smaller organisations.
    - gwerbin 4mo ago
      They are beneficial for those with an equity stake. That much is clear.
- JoBrad 4mo ago
  Is China the little fish here?
  - bayindirh 4mo ago
    No, the ordinary netizen, who runs their personal web servers, who are hit by crawlers, their content ripped from their hands and their servers chocked during the process.
jonathanstrange 4mo ago
What Anthropic is doing is illegal in many jurisdictions. I don't know about the legal situation for the Chinese domains they mark, but steganographic data extraction without user consent would definitely be illegal in the EU, for example.
- redsocksfan45 4mo ago
  [dead]

by filoleg 4mo ago

bayindirh 4mo ago

I love the asymmetry. When small fish tries to protect itself, big fish hits small fish with "It's not illegal" pole. When small fish points out that what the big fish is crying about is "not illegal", big fish has the right to be above the law to prevent the problem themselves. Having values requires equality. They have lost the right to cry foul when they trained their model with "but it's fair use" card. Life works by reaping what you sow. Now they are at the reaping stage.

lmz 4mo ago
"It's not illegal" is only an argument against lawsuits / law enforcement involvement. Those PoW anti-AI things people put on pages aren't illegal either.
- bayindirh 4mo ago
  No. From my interactions, I have understood that some people use the same argument to wash their consciences from any guilt. What they do is unethical, but not illegal, and they hide under the same argument to drown the ethical angle. In other words, being honest to oneself is important. Anti-scraping measures people utilize are neither unethical nor illegal. That’s the difference.
  - DrewADesign 4mo ago
    I’m still frequently shocked by the entitlement people feel to other people’s work/ideas/data/bandwidth/server load, to feed a multi-trillion dollar industry. I find the totally cynical “well when you’re making an omelet…” types to be a bit pathetic, but I understand their motivation— they’re simply greedy. But I just can’t understand the genuine indignation about people attempting to limit or stop ingestion of their own work, even if it’s just for the bandwidth costs. Go ingest your own shit.
    - windexh8er 4mo ago
      I often wonder what those people are like IRL. I'd surmise they're the people that are easy to hate. Greedy and intolerable yet want to be the focus.
  - epestr 4mo ago
    It's good to agree that some don't have a conscience, and maintaining an appearance matters more. And appearances change based on what's legal or not. They could detect the other AI labs and also silently burn the tokens at a faster rate providing fewer tokens for money, which does sound illegal to me. The comments only further prove that without more regulation around this, big AI wouldn't have a "don't be evil" attitude going forward.
    - Forgeties79 4mo ago
      Anyone who called for regulations/guardrails of any kind were shouted down as Luddites who hate progress. We all knew this was going to be a mess but $$$ so screw it right?
      - lossyalgo 4mo ago
        Maybe that's how OpenAI was able to blow $5.73 BILLION dollars on "marketing" i.e. paying politicians and influencers.
TeMPOraL 4mo ago
> I love the asymmetry. Much as I hate to defend companies climbing to success and pulling up the ladder afterwards, this asymmetry you note is kind of the whole point a company would want to grow big. Growing an organization has some super-linear costs and generally sucks for most individuals living through it - including the management - but it's still considered worth it, precisely because big entities can do things small entities cannot, and escape the threats from smaller competitors. It's so basic it's actually part of the reason we exist, and animals of various sizes exist, and generally why evolution didn't stop at single-cellular life. > They have lost the right to cry foul when they trained their model with "but it's fair use" card. Life works by reaping what you sow. Now they are at the reaping stage. Yup. Except what they're reaping is insane cashflow and ability to pull stunts like these. We can call out the hypocrisy until our throats run dry, and in ideal fantasy land this would've meant something, but here in the real world, they sow the seeds of success, and now are reaping the right to be hypocritical and continue to get away with it.
- marcus_holmes 4mo ago
  I disagree with your assessment that large organisations are beneficial. We can see with our current crop of large organisations that they really struggle to create anything new; most of their new products or services were developed by a small organisation and then acquired. A lot of those products are then enshittified and badly managed because large organisation politics screws things up. Large organisations are inefficient (everyone has stories of people in large organisations literally doing nothing all day). They are horrible to work for because of the politics. They mistreat their customers and their employees. Their executives tend to lose touch with reality, surround themselves with yes-folk and descend into authoritarian psychopathy. My personal opinion is that we would be much, much, better off if we had fewer large organisations and more smaller organisations.
  - gwerbin 4mo ago
    They are beneficial for those with an equity stake. That much is clear.
JoBrad 4mo ago
Is China the little fish here?
- bayindirh 4mo ago
  No, the ordinary netizen, who runs their personal web servers, who are hit by crawlers, their content ripped from their hands and their servers chocked during the process.

jonathanstrange 4mo ago

What Anthropic is doing is illegal in many jurisdictions. I don't know about the legal situation for the Chinese domains they mark, but steganographic data extraction without user consent would definitely be illegal in the EU, for example.

redsocksfan45 4mo ago
[dead]