What a waste.
this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2025
103 points (96.4% liked)
Not the Onion
2801 readers
2 users here now
For true stories that are so ridiculous, that you could have sworn it was an !theonion worthy story.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 27 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Very on brand for AI companies. In a decade they'll be allowed to give AI agents legal personhood and the right to vote, but only if they first euthanize an equal number of orphans.
I FEEL BAD WHEN BUYING PHYSICAL BOOKS BECAUSE IT FEELS WASTEFUL (usually use e-reader) AND THESE FUCKERS DO THIS.....
I mean, using energy to display text on an eReader is wasteful too. Just being alive is wasteful. Everything is wasteful with that mindset. Guess what? The universe doesn’t care either way.
No one should feel guilty about using the amount of energy it takes to power an eReader.
[deleted]
Ultimately, Judge William Alsup ruled that this destructive scanning operation qualified as fair use—but only because Anthropic had legally purchased the books first, destroyed each print copy after scanning, and kept the digital files internally rather than distributing them. The judge compared the process to "conserv[ing] space" through format conversion and found it transformative.
It's literally the process that allows digitized media to be safe to possess. Someone read the FBI warnings before movies on VHS. This is some corporate malicious compliance and what the law looks like when taken to an absurd extreme.
Phrased like it's a technicality, when it's just... your rights. You are explicitly allowed to do this.
This whole article sounds like Jack Valenti shrieking over VCRs. 'They copied a broadcast! For later!!! That's skirting copyright law!'
Copyright law suuucks. It needs vicious reform. And yet! These specific things have always been permitted, as a necessary part of protecting consumers, versus an industry that would love to charge rent for the books on your shelf. Those motherfuckers put DRM in cables. And yet: their laws say this is fine.
It's not that clear cut. Buying a book doesn't generallly give you the right to make copies and sell those.
That depends on whether you consider an LLM to be reading the text, or reproducing it.
Outside of the kind of malfunctions caused by overfitting, like when the same text appears again and again in the training data, it's not difficult to construct an argument that an LLM does the former, not the latter.
It’s rare a person on social media understands they turn the input into predictive weights, and do not selectively copy and paste out of them.
You're saying if I encode a copyrighted work into a JPEG it isn't infringement? It also uses statistics to produce an approximation of the input.
You’re saying save one jpeg with the intent to reproduce exactly that image. I’m saying if you have a million images you have turned into weights, it won’t exactly reproduce anything unless there is very limited training data on what you’re having it predict.
So you just put a million JPEGs into a zip file? How is that not infringement?
Because it's not that.
Isn't it? Both methods just produced a data structure you can query to obtain a statistical approximation of a subset of the input data.
Just because you moved the statistics from the JPEG to the ZIP file? That makes it ok?
Do you think two students writing an essay on the same topic is plagiarism? No? Then congratulations, you understand why a lossy copy is not remotely the same thing as a statistical model.
Really, you just chucked the word "statistical" into a poor description of JPEG, and refused all efforts to explain why that comparison does not work.
How does you think a JPEG works?
Quantization in transformation space. I could explain it in enough detail for you to recreate the codecs I've written, if I thought you were actually listening.
In the next reply, I'm going to print out your entire comment history, clip each word into a hat, and pull them out at random, to see if you still respond with equally nonsensical posturing about JPEG.
In the reply after that, I'm going to copy-paste that posturing, but change a few letters.
Everyone but you can see out the difference in these concepts.
models can and do sometimes produce verbatim copies of individual items in their training data, and more frequently produce outputs that are close enough to them that they would clearly constitute copyright infringement if a human produced them.
the argument that models are not derivative works of their training data is absurd, and the fact that it is being accepted by courts is yet another confirmation that the "justice system" is anything but just and the law simply doesn't apply when there is enough money at stake.