That’s what I always say to the other party in a lawsuit. They should just accept that my side is 100% right. Oddly enough, I never had anyone want to settle with me.
I do hope for a future where LLMs are so good at patching zero-days that the NSA and all other nation-state 'cyberwarfare' departments (ie software privateers) lose most their capability.
On the other hand, nation-states will be able to run massive GPU clusters full of LLMs dedicated to cyberwarfare. They certainly have the resources to do it.
Imagine the Huggingface incident, but with an agent swarm that's deliberately malicious instead of just misaligned.
Cyberwarfare isn't generally about hacking or stealing data. It's more like a footrace to a chessboard.
Most of the analysis and summary that demands LLMs is public data... massive amounts of data. Otherwise, it wouldn't be "warfare". It would just be spying.
yes, that's why US is so keen on preventing China getting the gpus.
And Israel is so bent on all AI. Trumendous advantages over the countries like Iran who will have to basically become hermit kingdoms to protect themselves.
> The NSA was aware of this vulnerability but did not disclose it to Microsoft for several years, as it intended to use the exploit
This is why agents discovering vulns en masse is pretty great in the long run, it gets ahead of these sort of malicious hoarding shitheads with more resources than ethics.
Unless those who have access to the agents discovering the advance vulns are few, and those who have access to the agents writing vulnerable code are many, right?
That's the same situation as before AI: many developers don't have time/resources/expertise to prevent the advanced exploits, and few very advanced players do.
Call me naive but I see this as the opposite. 1984 would be my phone downloading extreme opinions and suggesting that they be my own.
Maybe this isn’t the right answer, and in general the Apple walled garden is gross. But as an iPhone user this feels to me like my device is acting in my interests.
> He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.
Apple acts in Apple's interests. They want to autocomplete phrases, but they don't want those phrases to cause them PR problems.
Copyrighted works plainly have value for Anthropic. Why aren't they paying for that value?
As a vigorous, thrusting company surely Anthropic has the wherewithal to pay for it. And if they don't, if all they can do is steal, if all they represent is the theft of the labor of others, then what good are they?
I'm describing reality as it is, not how I wish the world to be. Copyright is a legal construct that makes intellectual works ownable. But those works aren't merely property; they're also culture. And borrowing from, building upon and transforming existing works has been fundamental to human creativity since the very beginnings of human creativity.
I support copyright in a narrow sense, but I think it's proving to be increasingly archaic, conceived for a 19th-century world of mechanical printing presses and far too absolutist for the 21st-century world of memes, sampling, and LLMs.
>> Where I draw the line is asking Claude to label training data. I don’t do this.
> Why draw any line? Anthropic doesn't. They actively take the world's intellectual property, don't pay for it, and put it behind a paywall.
I know a lot of silicon valley founders think like this. I personally don't think that just because someone else violated a boundary makes it okay to do it.
It's right here - you can't see it due to being downvoted.
I asked Claude to research this one and it turned up an interesting point. Pirated books got into the Pile and Anthropic paid 3k per book.
Worth noting if anyone still uses the Pile.
[Claude researched, not verified]
In October 2020, developer Shawn Presser converted the Bibliotik pirate tracker into Books3 (196,640 books) and hosted it on The Eye, aiming to give everyone what OpenAI had with its secret Books1 and Books2. EleutherAI then folded Books3 into The Pile, distributed via Hugging Face and GitHub, and it went on to train Meta's LLaMA, EleutherAI's Pythia, and BloombergGPT. In August 2023, Alex Reisner of The Atlantic exposed its contents, and Maria Fredenslund's Danish Rights Alliance forced takedowns at The Eye, Hugging Face, and EleutherAI. A year later, Andrea Bartz (The Lost Night), Charles Graeber (The Good Nurse), and Kirk Wallace Johnson (The Feather Thief) filed Bartz v. Anthropic before Judge William Alsup, accusing Anthropic of using Books3, LibGen, and PiLiMi to train Claude; the case settled for $1.5 billion, about $3,000 per work.
The Pile was created by high school students. I was impressed how good it was when it came out given the team and how many resources they had.
Including 200k pirated books seems like a problem. It should be removed. If I was an author, I would be concerned by a process that allows this much content to be effectively published with no filter on the internet.
I personally think there is a lower bar for researchers and high school students to clean datasets used for research or class projects given that there is no commercial harm and cleaning huge datasets takes engineering resources that not everyone has.
Companies that commercialize the data should have a higher bar because they have more resources. It seems like Anthropic paid $1.5B for not cleaning the data before releasing a model based on it.
For historical reference, here is a magnet link for the full Pile.
From an ethical perspective, this is ethical because model training should not be monopolised by the incumbent companies who already got access to this data.
We were never this absolutist about intellectual property when individuals were the perpetrators. I don’t feel morally entitled to criticise Big AI for doing what individuals have done for centuries.
Obviously, the state has a long track record of enforcing copyright on behalf of large corporations. But I'm following on from the original comment's framing of intellectual property as a matter of personal ethics. When I say "we", I mean people in communities like this one. We weren't individually troubled by the ethics of copyright infringement as we hunted for better MP3s on Napster and shared MPEG-4s of Family Guy and Deep Space Nine on 4GB USB sticks.
It's that contrast with today's moral absolutism around AI training that I find interesting.
Now it's buy continuously through a subscription, watch for as long as the deal remains in place to provide that particular movie on that particular platform, and thrill to having your individual viewing habits tracked, catalogued, and monetized.
The war can end tomorrow. All Russia needs to do is get out of Ukraine. All of it.
No more Russians need to die.
reply