4 ms·

Same company that OCRed millions of books, the irony. I feel Anthropic is destroying itself with all these restriction. They got away because their models were

by Oras 2mo ago

Same company that OCRed millions of books, the irony. I feel Anthropic is destroying itself with all these restriction. They got away because their models were the best for coding, but that is not an advantage anymore as OpenAI and other open source are already better.

usef- 2mo ago
They were criticised/sued early on when people could reproduce copyright things. I dont think in this case it's something they'd prefer to do?
- SyneRyder 2mo ago
  Yep, my understanding is that many guardrails like this are actually the result of government legislation (eg the Fable bans) or terms of settling copyright lawsuits over reproducing copyrighted text and lyrics. I mentioned it in a sibling reply, but here's Anthropic's support document about not using Claude to reproduce content verbatim that already exists, regardless of copyright. https://privacy.claude.com/en/articles/10023638-why-am-i-receiving-an-output-blocked-by-content-filtering-policy-error https://privacy.claude.com/en/articles/10023638-why-am-i-rec...
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
sscaryterry 2mo ago
It is why they're pushing for regulatory capture. Let us do the bad stuff, make the money, then we'll regulate everybody else out of the market.
bonoboTP 2mo ago
Claude refuses to translate lyrics of songs even if it's just for your own understanding. ChatGPT allows it. Also, Suno is so restrictive that it won't make songs of public domain 19th century poems because someone else already made a song and the lyrics are in their song database. And it won't do covers of your own uploaded humming of a novel melody because it matches "humming in an empty room" to some song fingerprint in the database. They are all trying to avoid these lawsuits by being ridiculously overly cautious. "Your honor, look how much we went above and beyond, even when it made the product worse for legitimate use cases"

by Oras 2mo ago

usef- 2mo ago

They were criticised/sued early on when people could reproduce copyright things. I dont think in this case it's something they'd prefer to do?

SyneRyder 2mo ago
Yep, my understanding is that many guardrails like this are actually the result of government legislation (eg the Fable bans) or terms of settling copyright lawsuits over reproducing copyrighted text and lyrics. I mentioned it in a sibling reply, but here's Anthropic's support document about not using Claude to reproduce content verbatim that already exists, regardless of copyright. https://privacy.claude.com/en/articles/10023638-why-am-i-receiving-an-output-blocked-by-content-filtering-policy-error https://privacy.claude.com/en/articles/10023638-why-am-i-rec...
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]

sscaryterry 2mo ago

It is why they're pushing for regulatory capture. Let us do the bad stuff, make the money, then we'll regulate everybody else out of the market.

bonoboTP 2mo ago

Claude refuses to translate lyrics of songs even if it's just for your own understanding. ChatGPT allows it. Also, Suno is so restrictive that it won't make songs of public domain 19th century poems because someone else already made a song and the lyrics are in their song database. And it won't do covers of your own uploaded humming of a novel melody because it matches "humming in an empty room" to some song fingerprint in the database. They are all trying to avoid these lawsuits by being ridiculously overly cautious. "Your honor, look how much we went above and beyond, even when it made the product worse for legitimate use cases"