Search engines for example historically ignored copyright law by copying excerpts or serving other site images, it doesn't mean someone copying Google's code has some moral frepass

▲

messe 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Copyright law and IP law is not the same although everyone seem to conflate the two.

> Search engines for example historically ignored copyright law by copying excerpts or serving other site images

Excerpts are often considered fair use, but it depends on country.

> it doesn't mean someone copying Google's code has some moral frepass

Nobody copied Anthropic's code. They used it's output to train another model. At most they violated some terms of service.

Did they maybe abuse Anthropic's subsidised pricing? Sure. But that's what happens in a free market if you sell below cost.

▲

breppp 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> Excerpts are often considered fair use, but it depends on country.

That had happened progressively, thumbnails for example were ruled as fair use later on, DMCA safe harbor was a huge gift for tech companies because otherwise it would curtail the ability to create platforms (relaxing copyright protections in exchange of innovation)

> Nobody copied Anthropic's code. They used it's output to train another model. At most they violated some terms of service

Distilling a model is a method that can push the entire market to low margins and prevent companies from making money off such research. It also copies the Anthropic special parts (RLHF and other specific methods) rather than the "copy of the entire web" part

This is similar to what happened with Chinese reverse engineering of American manufacturing or PC clones killing IBM PCs.

Is it in the interest of the USA, probably no, that's why I assume this will be backed by law eventually

▲

messe 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> Distilling a model is a method that can push the entire market to low margins and prevent companies from making money off such research

Then it's on Anthropic to actually price their models accordingly so that distilling isn't profitable. Why does this need a legal remedy when market forces could easily resolve this?

> Is it in the interest of the USA, probably no

Good. The world needs to diversify away from dependence on US technology.

▲

breppp 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> Good. The world needs to diversify away from dependence on US technology.

In my opinion further strengthening the CCP is a disaster for the world. A government that killed millions of its own citizens to stay in power is not who I would entrust super intelligence with. But apparently we are not going to agree on that

▲

vrganj 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

When did the CCP kill millions of its own citizens to stay in power?

▲

breppp 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution are two such examples

Generally Communist nations historically favored technological development to human life in the scale of millions, keep that in mind when we enter a new economic revolution

▲

vrganj 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The Great Leap Forward wasn't "killing" people, which implies intent. It was just good old economic mismanagement.

On a related note, around 300k people die in the US every year due to causes directly attributable to poverty. [0]

In other words, ~a million every three years.

Now what?

[0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10111231/

▲

breppp an hour ago | parent [-]

> The Great Leap Forward wasn't "killing" people, which implies intent. It was just good old economic mismanagement.

If both the USSR and the CCP had millions killed in the process of modernization, without stopping when knowing the death toll, maybe there's intent after all?

How would you describe the cultural revolution then? another case of economic mismanagement?

	▲	vrganj an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I noticed you haven't addressed my main point at all. What are the millions dying of poverty every few years in the US (in a country with like a quarter of the population!), a death toll that still hasn't been stopped? Is there intent there as well?

▲

tw1984 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

40 years ago, when the CCP was leading its people making toys and socks for the US, people like you who never made any change to the world were talking such ideological nonsense.

40 years on, when the CCP is leading its people making AI, robotics, drones, EVs, space station and moon rovers to compete with the US, people like you how never made any change to the world are talking such ideological nonsense.

you live in a history museum or something like that?

	▲	breppp 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't know about me effecting change to the world but I am sure the tens of millions that died due to the Great Leap Forward were happy to effect change to the world so others could produce those socks

▲

realusername 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Search engines for example historically ignored copyright law by copying excerpts or serving other site images, it doesn't mean someone copying Google's code has some moral frepass

Not sure that's the best example as they lost that battle and had to pay, eventually it's been codified in law in most countries.