5 ms·

Anthropic clearly doesn't respect other people's IP, it's real rich that they now insist on theirs being worthy of protection. Fwiw, I think the concept of IP

• breppp 4mo ago
  It's more complicated than that because Google has been legally displaying other people copyrighted material for years. In any case there's still a difference between publicly available copyrighted data and whether you can use it for model training, and the innovation around model training, RLHF, etc which you presumably have some interest as a country to allow companies to invest in with some legal protections (like the diff between patent law vs copyright law)
  • platinumrad 4mo ago
    So you're saying it's more important to safeguard slop outputs than the original work of human beings.
    • breppp 4mo ago
      No, I am saying that there is a good chance that for the good of humanity, society decides that for miracle AGI we collectively forfeit copyright in LLM training yet IP protections for model development is still kept. There are many cases in the early 2000s were copyright protections were relaxed for tech advancements
      • Barbing 4mo ago
        Does this match the kind of eminent domain case we might see where the country needs a highway more than it needs one particular citizen's house? When they bulldoze the house to pave the highway, they toss the homeowner a few bucks. If you take an author’s books do you owe him a share of OpenAI?
      • close04 4mo ago
        What are you forfeiting for the good of humanity? Would you give up a big chunk of your income? What happens when this batch of “innovators” don’t deliver AGI and only enrich themselves? What happens if they do deliver AGI and (hypothetically) still keep it to themselves? You come with the selfless proposal that everyone give to the poor $tn companies”for the good of humanity”. I’ll assume this is just hopelessly naive but you post so insistently that it makes me wonder.
      • jdgoesmarching 4mo ago
        “For the good of humanity we must protect what I’m working on at the expense of others because it’s super important.” As frustrating as the anti-AI crowd can be, I see why they end up that way when the valley is full of opinions like this.
      • vrganj 4mo ago
        Have you at tried asking society how they feel about you acting "for their good"? Because popular sentiment seems pretty opposed to AI.
  • wqaatwt 4mo ago
    LLM output is not copyrightable, though? So effectively if you pay for it you can do whatever you want from it. That seems perfectly fair and reasonable.
• kataklasm 4mo ago
  The practical implementation of IP? Sure, that's debatable. But the concept of IP is rooted in favoring progress. The thought process being, that if one's intellectual work can be copied and reused and modified and what not without issues, why should anyone invent things anymore? Just wait for the next person to do it and then copy their work, that's way less effort than inventing things yourself. IP aims to protect progress by making sure inventors have actual incentive to invent stuff. They way it's implemented is fundamentalst flawed, I agree, but the concept itself? I'm not so clear on that
  • vrganj 4mo ago
    The Soviet Union, for all it's faults, had a fair bunch of scientific and technological breakthroughs without relying on IP. Sure, one person gets rewarded more with the IP system. But at the same time, that breakthrough then can't be built upon by others. Overall, I think it does more harm than good because of how it monopolizes technologies and ossifies development. I think free sharing of knowledge will always beat intellectual stinginess.
    • wqaatwt 4mo ago
      > fair bunch of scientific and technological breakthroughs Outside of military technologies they had massively fallen behind the west by the 80s. Without the western tech they licensed or copied they were permanently stuck in the 50s. Even their crappy cars were licensed copies of cheap European cars from the 60s. When it comes to consumer electronics, vehicles and a bunch of other things they were comically behind. So it’s really not a good example.. > monopolizes technologies and ossifies development. As bad as it might be empirical evidence shows that historically a superior system has never existed (it might be feasible but everything that was tried underperformed).
  • shimman 4mo ago
    What absolute bollocks. Human ingenuity and innovation is only limited by the greed of elites, not due to something as damaging as "IP." Good grief. All one has to do is look at how humanity has consistently progressed due iterating on what has existed is how we progress, not whether some corporation that wants to rat fuck us all for a few pts in share value.
• wqaatwt 4mo ago
  > in general is counter to human progress. Historically most evidence seems to point to the contrary. Amongst other things after the printing press was created it was impossible for anyone who was an author to survive from their work unless they were independently wealthy or had rich patrons.