Or maybe they're going through an intermediary "transfer station" that's breaking terms of service:
https://www.chinatalk.media/p/how-to-buy-cheap-claude-tokens...
Anthropic's own copyright infringement could apparently be forgiven for 1.5B USD after all, so maybe there's a price that breaking the distillation clause for is acceptable too. Or some other arrangement.
There is no world in which me vacuuming the entirety of human knowledge to make a genai model is ok but hoovering my model answers is not. The hypocrisy is stunning and risible.
Now if you go and make a model based on purely synthetic data and not a single work made by humans, you would have a valid point.
Like look, I'm not a native speaker, sure. But I think when someone says "value add", that means there was value there (which you claim they're rhetorically erasing), and then that was added to. Under no interpretation of this phrase do I get an erasure of prior value.
So certainly, as long as words mean anything, no, they absolutely did not say or suggest what you claim they did, and what you extract a thus unreasonable amount of obnoxious schadenfreude from, while throwing in an insult for funsies at the end.
It's the second time I feel compelled to reach for this just today: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/659/979/108...
The LLM output, is not the same as the input - there is value add.
Of course works used as raw inputs to LLMs required work and are reasonably subject to IP concerns - but they are different.
It's possible that the LLM makers 'owe' the content creators that created the content they used to make their products - it's an interesting but separate question.
We could very well end up where content IP is protected, LLM output is not and visa versa with reasonable legal founding, doubtful but plausible.
But it's debatable if that's the case.
Google stores copyrighted content and produces in in their product.
Also - it's fair game to use snippets of things here and there, if the derived work is novel, which I think it is for LLMs, mostly.
I do agree though, that we ought to draw the line somehow.
How, and why?
> We could very well end up where content IP is protected, LLM output is not and visa versa with reasonable legal founding, doubtful but plausible.
That is the current state of legal rulings - LLM output is public domain, not copyrightable.
Our current laws simply weren’t built for this and I expect the legal status of LLM output is not going to be resolved until Congress actually legislates on this topic.
How, and why?"
How are they even remotely the same?
They're not even used the same way.
One is raw data input, the other is training content - designed to train LLMs.
One is a set of IP derived for other purposes entirely, and has esablished IP law - how you can use someone else's creative work or not ... for LLM outputs, less clear.