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.
> There is an even higher level of creativity in creating books, songs and all sorts of art used in model training though.
He claimed there was more creativity in model training than in model distillation. That makes no claim about the relationship between the creativity in model creation and art. Why are you continuing to attack a claim that was never made, after a sub thread very explicitly clarifying that that claim was not made?
>Perhaps even more importantly, the current frontier LLM models are self-admittedly the product of enormous quantities of copyright infringement and even less savory inputs, so calling them out for distilling the fruit of that tainted tree reads as highly hypocritical at best.
Context is important. And in this context, their argument only mentions creativity when it belongs to an AI lab. That omission is the blind spot I pointed out. Bottom line is whether or not Anthropic are being hypocritical and yes, they most definitely are, regardless of any attempted sophistry.
There is a reason courts want you to tell "The whole truth" and not just "the truth".
No argument here, I completely agree.
> 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.
I disagree with this though. Clearly LLMs owe a huge debt to everything that has come before, but surely you'd agree that the models that are produced are something substantial and new and novel which didn't exist before and have lots of value in their own right. Let's be a bit reductive and pretend Moonshot had just outright stolen the weights from Fable somehow, clearly that wouldn't be contributing anything really new or novel. Now of course they've distilled rather than stolen, but the point is similar: how much value have they added along the way?
It's ok for me to use your source code for free as long as I then let others also use my source code for free.
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.
Why is Anthropic's ToS any more binding than that of a rabidly-anti-ai literature blog with 50 readers?
> Why is Anthropic's ToS any more binding than that of a rabidly-anti-ai literature blog with 50 readers?
Although I will say, this whole comparison stuff really doesn't seem to be your thing; might impede your analysis quite a lot: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49013148
Maybe ask Claude?
I mean i know you know the answer: anthropic is a corporation with lawyers on retainer, and that's really all that matters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pile_(dataset)
Another reason is that if you can download a web page without agreeing to a ToS, I'm not sure that counts as one?
the same argument - a level of creativity in the world knowledge creation that ins't present in the model training on that knowledge.
Or in other words - model creation and training is just a distilling of the world knowledge.
If you think that the addition of a less creative process (model creation) to a more creative corpus ("art") is problematic, then it follows that you should think the addition of a less creative process (distillation) to a more creative corpus (a model) is also problematic.