No one has even sued them in these rogue agent cases, have they? If not, they must be infinitely far from criminal liability. Why would we want criminal liability anyway if actual victims are made whole? Proof of it has far higher standard. The HN chatter in the matter seems infinitely remote from reality

> No one has even sued them in these rogue agent cases, have they? If not, they must be infinitely far from criminal liability.

If you go out and kick a random dude in the nuts, then give him a million dollars, he probably won't sue you. That doesn't mean you're "infinitely far from criminal liability", even if according to the victim you've "made them whole".

If you or I hacked Hugging Face in the way OpenAI's agents did, we'd be up on CFAA charges promptly with zero regard for whether we did the hack on our own or agents running on our home systems got out of control.

So I guess the defense here is roughly "too big to break the law", somewhat like "too big to fail"?

When the Fed ‘creates money’ or as we say ‘prints money’ it is by buying Federal bonds from banks, no? Then the bank’s account is credited and it has more reserves. It is when total accounts at Federal reserve expand that base money has expanded. Similarly it contracts when the Fed sells bonds to banks. It is always tied to bonds from which returns are expected.

Nothing in the world is comparable to Fable. You presumably have a narrow specialized use case like programming.

It’s one of the only countries that reliably follows treaties. Unfortunately they are very hard to pass, which is why the agreements falsely called treaties are so easy to reverse - they are all personal executive orders like JCPOA (alas)

The topic was training. You cropped text to change it. Maybe consider integrity.

Which part from the cropped text do you think changes anything?

When you talk about this part:

>I’m definitely not allowed to scan it and post its pages online and upload them to an archive of scanned PDFs without the authors’ and publishers’ permission.

That's explicitly not what they are doing. They are scanning it and then training on the scan. They are allowed to do this in much the same way you are: format shifting for personal use is also allowed (much as the DMCA likes to get in the way with DRM'd media).

I didn't realize Anthropic is a person and doing all of this for his/her/their personal use that is never shared with anyone else, and even more never for financial gain. What a fun hobby. /s

It might still be allowed for other reasons, but "personal use" isn't what they claim in court.

I am not allowed to read a book many times until I memorize it, and later record an audiobook of one of its chapters for money.

Cool, but that's also not what they're doing. They are claiming the same rights you have, the main inequality is the resources to defend it in court.

Intended to be publicly accessible internet content, I have no problem with.

But are you ignoring the literal scanning (and 'burning down' of books) that Anthropic has been found guilty of? Or the torrenting of pirated content en-masse by Meta that there is an active lawsuit over to name just 2 recent examples?

Look at the image and audio/video models especially - they can reproduce everything from Mickey Mouse (the copyrighted one) to making entire Seinfeld episodes with the real cast (both visual likeness and even the actor's voices).

The scanning you are talking about is a direct response to court rulings on exactly these matters. The action m is legitimate and above legal criticism. Dismal as it might be it is the fruit of legal criticism. In a word, it’s your fault.

Kimi K3 isn’t cheaper.

Then don't take my comment as directed toward that example. Charitable interpretation for the win.

It stuns the mind that anyone can compose such a sophism.

It is amusing to see those trapped in extreme HAAD, the source and whole content of religious illusion, pretend that it is their opponents who are in a state of religious fantasia.

HAAD?

Hyperactive attention-detection. It's a reference to the idea that the origin of religious beliefs might be an inbuilt propensity to think of other bits of the world as conscious agents paying attention to us, because it's much more costly not to notice the tiger hiding in the bushes that might want to eat you than it is to imagine a tiger hiding in the bushes when there isn't actually one. On a scale larger than "is there something in that patch of undergrowth looking at me?" this might produce the idea that (e.g.) storms are the result of some powerful entity being angry with us.

(Of course questions like "whyever do people believe in gods?" will feel less like questions that need such answers to those who themselves believe in gods, because "duh, because there actually are such beings and sometimes people interact with them and sometimes we notice that" is a good answer if its premise is true.)

The living feeling thinking beings in question would have to be … data centers — not to put too fine a point in it. But these aren’t even analogous, as can seen by direct inspection.