HN

Comments (91)

• Menu

  piltdownman
  And I presume the Anthropic CEO will be indicted on 13 felony counts under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and for wire fraud. Like Aaron Swartz, right?Right?N.B. JSTOR explicitly settled with Swartz, suffered no financial harm, and begged the federal government to drop the case. The government refused and prosecuted Swartz anyway. Anthropic settled for $1.5 billion primarily because of the theft and storage of the files, but this was somehow a Civil issue...
• Menu

  awakeasleep
  That professor saying that the use of work he already produced amounts to "slave labor"... copyright infringement is substantially different than slavery.
• Menu

  kenmacd
  The title is (I believe intentionally) inaccurate. Better would be:Anthropic trained on illegally acquired Stanford professors' booksThe article does not say the training was illegal (although does discuss the professors push for a licensing model).
• Menu

  xlayn
  Training on the book being fair use for something whose whole deal is to take those ideas and exercise them is the steal of our time...So you come with this amazing idea regarding anything... how to build a chip, how to write software... and you write a book on how to...Then a model eat it... spit it for free (they could get an advantage from being able to exercise that logic) and it's fair use...Then... why torrent it, can't they sent someone to buy the book and scan it or buy it in pdf?
• Menu

  CPUHall
  Title is misleading. The ruling said training on books is fair use. What got them in trouble was grabbing the books from LibGen instead of just buying them, which is a pretty dumb way to lose $1.5B. If I torrented half a million books I'd be getting a lot more than a $3k-per-book settlement.
• Menu

  Sha1rholder
  Humanity is suffering from large scale distillation attack from Anthropic.
• lioeters
  The title change from "illegally trained" to "illegally obtained" implies that training on illegally obtained books is legal. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case. Surely Anthropic has a legal team that signed off on it.
• ceroxylon
  If a permanent injunction is granted in the Wolff case, does that mean Anthropic would have to re-train all of their available models, but explicitly exclude those books from the dataset?
• NelsonMinar
  I'm willing to bet the vast majority of students and professors at Stanford have consulted an "illegally obtained" textbook at some point. Either directly from Anna or second hand.
• pier25
  Of course they did. AI companies have pirated and stolen all sorts of content. What we know of is probably only the tip of the iceberg.As for the training being fair use, this is still disputed:https://www.courthousenews.com/ai-training-of-copyrighted-ma...
• hollowonepl
  I’m fine with it as long as Anthropic is fine we can distill their models to create own without burning all that energy (vide DeepSeek case)
• mkw5053
  Of course they did, same with almost every other bit of training material that isn't synthetic (and still indirectly created with illegally obtained training data)
• Menu

  whywhywhywhy
  They did the same with literally everyone's data. Is it supposed to matter more because a "Stanford professor's" work was included?
• lokar
  I think pushing ahead to a jury trial is a smart move. In the current climate you have a good chance of a very favorable jury pool.
• lenerdenator
  There's a certain element of irony to all of this, what, with it being Stanford, the home of "forgiveness is easier to get than permission" and anti-regulation sentiment in the tech industry.
• neutronicus
  Well. At least I can ask an LLM about the contents of papers I can't access!
• bushido
  They should get Opus or one of the latest models to be the morality judge of what goes into training.I had an issue recently where I asked claude code to log into a developer user on Chrome on my local host for a system which is fully local and part of the code base the agent was developing and it refused to do it, like flat out refused, I did it on multiple sessions and I could not get Claude to budge on entering the credentials - it required me to manually sign in.Would be amazing if they used that same level of training for their intake exercises.
• j45
  It would be funny to ask the profs if they are allowed, by law, to read 3 textbooks on a subject and then write a 4th themselves.After a 1.5 billion settlement, the professor/authors are saying it's not enough.The judge had an interesting summary of AI:"He compared AI training to how humans can read, internalize and remember a book’s themes and style. “Like any reader aspiring to be a writer, Anthropic’s LLMs trained upon works not to race ahead and replicate or supplant them — but to turn a hard corner and create something different,” he wrote."
• nba456_
  Good!
• j45
  Ability to pay might influence this outcome.
• Menu

  linuxftw
  Does copyright over knowledge-based works really have any legitimate position in today's society? We're entering a new age of how information is created, used, and distributed.
• Menu

  iamleppert
  Good! Information wants to be free, not locked up in some ivory tower. This is a great time upon us, when academics and ivy league elites can no longer gate keep knowledge and hoard it for their ego. Knowledge should benefit humanity as broadly as possible, not just the rich and their academic ilk.
• correlatequint
  well duh
• pessimizer
  This violates the RICO statute; the entire organization was aware of and relied on the widespread and organized violation of copyright laws as the basis of their entire business. It is a criminal organization, should be seized, and everyone in the chain of command that was aware of or executed on this plan should be tried criminally.I do not think training an AI model is Fair Use, because LLM "training" is being used as a metaphor for building a matrix with a computer. Only people and animals train and learn; computers run statistical problems over input, which in this case was illegal input acquired by humans.But it does not matter whether training LLMs is Fair Use, "Fair Use" is a strange and arbitrary legal term that can be expanded to include AI if we wish. This was organized crime whether or not LLM training on copyrighted materials is fair use. It was organized crime whether or not they planned to use them for AI at all.AI is irrelevant. They could have trained it on GPL'd or MIT code (as long as they then distributed according to the terms of the licenses), and works in the public domain. They could have gotten what they were doing explicitly declared to be fair use by the Library of Congress, and then purchased the materials, like they are belatedly doing now. It wasn't necessary to violate copyright law to prove the technology. They could have proved the technology, then asked for copyright law to be clarified, and licensed huge volumes of works from the very few publishers we have left. Becoming a criminal organization was an explicit choice they made, and they discussed its illegality, and even the risk that it would be discussed on HN, which might inspire prosecution.The reason they are not being prosecuted is because the rich are beyond the law; prosecutors will not prosecute them. The RICO statute is clear, and explicitly mentions copyright violation.We can sentence the executives harshly, but go easy on the lower level people, because they are intelligent and valuable to advance the technology. The executives aren't necessary for anything. They're currently running finance scams that are extremely dangerous for the economy. They belong in prison to protect the public.This is an option that people (real people, with names) have, and are not taking. When they say that they care about law and order, and are worried about the behavior of these companies, they are lying. Trump could literally nationalize them for what they've done. They're vulnerable to any state's attorney who has any author in their state whose book was downloaded. Libgen/Annas-archive would have been the most important honeypot in history.
• thenatureboy
  [dead]
• Menu

  blamestross
  The primary value of a LLM is automated intellectual property laundering.
• pluc
  Didn't it train Claude on illegally obtained everything?