[go: up one dir, main page]
  • Wispy2891English
    9411·
    4 days ago

    I did not fully understand what he meant in the toot so I asked an explanation directly to the source

    Claude against anthropic

    Surprised it described itself as a war crime and didn’t try to justify that

    • LogiEnglish
      561·
      4 days ago

      Grazie.

      Surprised it described itself as a war crime and didn’t try to justify that.

      It is not sentient. It has no sense of self or guilt or any of that. It’s just writing back the most likely next word given the question and whatever context it has. It seems to have the leaked code in context? Or it could be bullshitting.

      • dustyDataEnglish
        241·
        4 days ago

        It’s probably just plagiarizing an article that used the turn of phrase to refer to spaghetti code. Or, just as likely, copying directly an article about the code leak.

        • jj4211English
          2·
          3 days ago

          I find the conundrum of the ‘Claw Code’ scenario amusing.

          LLM companies have argued they should get to ignore all copyright, and now that one of their code leaked, suddenly they care greatly about copyright.

          But fine, their argument is that LLM digest of copyright infringements are ‘fair use’, so now that’s been turned against them, using an LLM to launder their copyrighted material in precisely the way they declared doesn’t count. So either they let it ride or undermine their own argument…

          • GamingChairModelEnglish
            1·
            2 days ago

            LLM companies have argued they should get to ignore all copyright, and now that one of their code leaked, suddenly they care greatly about copyright.

            Anthropic itself has argued that digitizing and using the digitized copies to train models is fair use, so long as:

            • They don’t redistribute the physical copies they bought
            • They don’t allow an end user to retrieve the contents of any one specific work at the user interface (if you ask Claude to spit out the entire text of a copyrighted work used to train it, it is designed to resist copying too much out of a single work)

            So they don’t argue that copyright doesn’t count, exactly. They argue that copyright doesn’t prevent model training from ingesting an entire copyrighted work, as long as it’s done with so many other copyrighted works that any given original isn’t a huge contributor to the model or its outputs.

            There’s tension in their positions, but not so much that it would totally fall apart.

          • ErmahgherdDavid@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            41·
            3 days ago

            Or, and in my view the most likely option, they will get away with ripping off the little guy AND claiming “but bruh mah copyright” because they have very well paid lawyers and most western countries but especially the US have a two tiered legal system designed to protect the rich and punish the poor.

  • okwhateverdudeEnglish
    541·
    4 days ago

    There is never a more permanent fix than the temporary kludge, duct taped in just to get the release out the door. That code is now a permanent, load bearing fixture that can never change.

  • merc@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    301·
    4 days ago

    It seems like at first the people behind these AI companies were deluded enough to believe that they were really on the verge of creating AGI. When they realized that wasn’t the case they changed plans and now they instead are building a house of cards as fast as possible and hoping that they can go public before it all collapses.