7 ms·

[flagged]

by p0w3n3d 3mo ago

[flagged]

short_sells_poo 3mo ago
The corollary is that there are no morals once the stakes are in the $ billions, let alone hundreds of billions. This isn't even about a single person or personality. Very few people in such position could stand fast by their moral code. In any case, an environment that favors profit above everything will naturally select for individuals who are unencumbered by such hindrances. There might've been 100s of Altmans and Amodeis who had a strong moral code but we don't know about them because they dropped out of the "race" because of said moral hurdles.
- rlpb 3mo ago
  Copyright law is an artificial legal construct, not a moral code. I think appropriate attribution is a moral code, but I am not able to attribute every idea I have to all those who helped me develop the general intelligence that I use to develop such ideas.
  - raxxorraxor 3mo ago
    I think this behaviour has shown that there are no morals involved. Pirate if you want to, just don't get caught if you don't have a giant backing.
- spinningslate 3mo ago
  > an environment that favors profit above everything will naturally select for individuals who are unencumbered by such hindrances. Exactly. Dairy farms optimise for milk production so favour cows that produce the most milk. The market economy optimises for profit so favours those most willing/able to generate it. Zuckerberg, Musk, Thiel, Andreesen and co are products of the system.
- rkachowski 3mo ago
  > The corollary is that there are no morals once the stakes are in the $ billions, let alone hundreds of billions. terrifying
matheusmoreira 3mo ago
Remember how Kim Dotcom got destroyed for criminal copyright infringement? One would think the big tech CEOs would face the same fate, that police officers would rappel down helicopters, storm their mansions and bring them out in cuffs. Instead the AI companies reached these absurd settlements with publishers that made a mockery out of all the previous copyright enforcement victims.
- xienze 3mo ago
  Remember how people used to justify their own personal software piracy with arguments like "information wants to be free", "no one stole anything, you still have the data", "I was never going to buy it anyway", and "copyright should be abolished?" > Instead the AI companies reached these absurd settlements with publishers that made a mockery out of all the previous copyright enforcement victims. Isn't that at least something? How many people pirating software ever settled with the companies they "victimized?"
  - matheusmoreira 3mo ago
    > Remember how people used to justify their own personal software piracy A courtesy. There was never any need to justify it. > Isn't that at least something? Yes, it's a joke. Why do they get to infringe copyrights with impunity while normal people get destroyed? Either go after them like the copyright industry always does and punish them properly, or abolish copyright straight up. This "rules for thee but not for me" nonsense is straight up disgusting. > How many people pirating software ever settled with the companies they "victimized?" Too many to list. Also, nobody is victimizing billion dollar corporations.
    - phoghed 3mo ago
      So you don’t actually care, you just want them punished out of spite because some other guy was for doing something similar but not the same?
      - matheusmoreira 3mo ago
TZubiri 3mo ago
I never get tired of posting this answer because everyone on the internet is adopting this hot take: If you look at it with your eyes crossed, Anthropic and the chinese are doing the same thing. If you look at it with nuance 1 the chinese are doing way worse stuff, and 2 stealing from a thief would still be stealing 1. The chinese are making multiple accounts (at least 49,000)[1][2], using proxies/VPNs, possibly using residential computers and infected computers (unless you think the chinese are doing due diligence to ensure their purchased IPs are kosher). All accounts need to be created with a real name, and especially so if the paid models need to be accessed and paid with a credit card. So this is beyond IP theft and getting closer to fraud. These are all techniques that are well studied because they are used by criminals and cybercriminals, textbook stuff. Consider if that was not sufficient, that China is banned from using the product, so they need to use identities and locations not just to avoid relating the accounts between themselves, but merely to allow account creation. What identities are they using to create accounts. Compare this to Anthropic which reads notes made a deal in an IP theft case paying billions because they bought books and scanned them but buying the books wasn't sufficient retribution for the authors. Or that they gasp scanned the internet, like Google. Not having nuance to see the difference between the two companies is something I expect of the twitter echo chamber copying hot takes for upvotes, not hacker news. [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/06/anthropic-claims-alibaba-defied-trump-to-attack-claude-and-steal-capabilities/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/06/anthropic-claims... [2] https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-distillation-attacks https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dist...
- bildung 3mo ago
  What seems to be missing from that take is that a) Alibaba paid for the access b) there is no IP theft because LLM output is not copyrightable. Anthropic seems to want to both own and eat its stolen cake.
  - Obscurity4340 3mo ago
    Would be an interesting exercise to have the frontier models calculate their civil liabillity or the extent of the liabillity the can impose on fellow pay-it-forward theives
yubblegum 3mo ago
Whatever happened to honor among theives? What is this world coming to..
zobzu 3mo ago
[flagged]

[flagged]

by p0w3n3d 3mo ago

[flagged]

The corollary is that there are no morals once the stakes are in the $ billions, let alone hundreds of billions. This isn't even about a single person or personality. Very few people in such position could stand fast by their moral code. In any case, an environment that favors profit above everything will naturally select for individuals who are unencumbered by such hindrances. There might've been 100s of Altmans and Amodeis who had a strong moral code but we don't know about them because they dropped out of the "race" because of said moral hurdles.

rlpb 3mo ago
Copyright law is an artificial legal construct, not a moral code. I think appropriate attribution is a moral code, but I am not able to attribute every idea I have to all those who helped me develop the general intelligence that I use to develop such ideas.
- raxxorraxor 3mo ago
  I think this behaviour has shown that there are no morals involved. Pirate if you want to, just don't get caught if you don't have a giant backing.
spinningslate 3mo ago
> an environment that favors profit above everything will naturally select for individuals who are unencumbered by such hindrances. Exactly. Dairy farms optimise for milk production so favour cows that produce the most milk. The market economy optimises for profit so favours those most willing/able to generate it. Zuckerberg, Musk, Thiel, Andreesen and co are products of the system.
rkachowski 3mo ago
> The corollary is that there are no morals once the stakes are in the $ billions, let alone hundreds of billions. terrifying

matheusmoreira 3mo ago

Remember how Kim Dotcom got destroyed for criminal copyright infringement? One would think the big tech CEOs would face the same fate, that police officers would rappel down helicopters, storm their mansions and bring them out in cuffs. Instead the AI companies reached these absurd settlements with publishers that made a mockery out of all the previous copyright enforcement victims.

xienze 3mo ago
Remember how people used to justify their own personal software piracy with arguments like "information wants to be free", "no one stole anything, you still have the data", "I was never going to buy it anyway", and "copyright should be abolished?" > Instead the AI companies reached these absurd settlements with publishers that made a mockery out of all the previous copyright enforcement victims. Isn't that at least something? How many people pirating software ever settled with the companies they "victimized?"
- matheusmoreira 3mo ago
  > Remember how people used to justify their own personal software piracy A courtesy. There was never any need to justify it. > Isn't that at least something? Yes, it's a joke. Why do they get to infringe copyrights with impunity while normal people get destroyed? Either go after them like the copyright industry always does and punish them properly, or abolish copyright straight up. This "rules for thee but not for me" nonsense is straight up disgusting. > How many people pirating software ever settled with the companies they "victimized?" Too many to list. Also, nobody is victimizing billion dollar corporations.
  - phoghed 3mo ago
    So you don’t actually care, you just want them punished out of spite because some other guy was for doing something similar but not the same?
    - matheusmoreira 3mo ago

TZubiri 3mo ago

I never get tired of posting this answer because everyone on the internet is adopting this hot take: If you look at it with your eyes crossed, Anthropic and the chinese are doing the same thing. If you look at it with nuance 1 the chinese are doing way worse stuff, and 2 stealing from a thief would still be stealing 1. The chinese are making multiple accounts (at least 49,000)[1][2], using proxies/VPNs, possibly using residential computers and infected computers (unless you think the chinese are doing due diligence to ensure their purchased IPs are kosher). All accounts need to be created with a real name, and especially so if the paid models need to be accessed and paid with a credit card. So this is beyond IP theft and getting closer to fraud. These are all techniques that are well studied because they are used by criminals and cybercriminals, textbook stuff. Consider if that was not sufficient, that China is banned from using the product, so they need to use identities and locations not just to avoid relating the accounts between themselves, but merely to allow account creation. What identities are they using to create accounts. Compare this to Anthropic which reads notes made a deal in an IP theft case paying billions because they bought books and scanned them but buying the books wasn't sufficient retribution for the authors. Or that they gasp scanned the internet, like Google. Not having nuance to see the difference between the two companies is something I expect of the twitter echo chamber copying hot takes for upvotes, not hacker news. [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/06/anthropic-claims-alibaba-defied-trump-to-attack-claude-and-steal-capabilities/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/06/anthropic-claims... [2] https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-distillation-attacks https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dist...

bildung 3mo ago
What seems to be missing from that take is that a) Alibaba paid for the access b) there is no IP theft because LLM output is not copyrightable. Anthropic seems to want to both own and eat its stolen cake.
- Obscurity4340 3mo ago
  Would be an interesting exercise to have the frontier models calculate their civil liabillity or the extent of the liabillity the can impose on fellow pay-it-forward theives

yubblegum 3mo ago

Whatever happened to honor among theives? What is this world coming to..

zobzu 3mo ago

[flagged]