Re:“We have information that Moonshot distilled Fable for th...
by InsideOutSanta on Wednesday July 22, 2026 @04:34PM
(#49013048)
If you re-read your comment, you will find that your second paragraph is not evidence for the claim you make in your first paragraph. In fact, your first paragraph is just false.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:“We have information that Moonshot distilled Fable for th...
by petilon on Wednesday July 22, 2026 @04:58PM
(#49013329)
Let me explain it this way: If it is legal for a human to learn from a book, then disseminate the knowledge, then it is legal for a machine to do so. You may think this is not right because a machine does it at a much larger scale, but if so laws need to be updated. As it stands now there is no law that says if a human does X it is not a copyright violation but if a machine does the same X it is copyright violation.
Re:“We have information that Moonshot distilled Fable for th...
by worik on Wednesday July 22, 2026 @05:14PM
(#49013518)
> If it is legal for a human to learn from a book...
True, if the human's access to the book was legal
A great deal of training was on the open web, no one should complain.
But at least Meta and Anthropic were caught red handed taking copyrighted works, illegally, for training
I think international IP laws are too strick and onerous, but they were broken to train these models