In the filings, Anthropic states, as reported by the Washington Post: “Project Panama is our effort to destructively scan all the books in the world. We don’t want it to be known that we are working on this.”
In the filings, Anthropic states, as reported by the Washington Post: “Project Panama is our effort to destructively scan all the books in the world. We don’t want it to be known that we are working on this.”
You may not have photographic memory, but dozens of flesh and blood humans do. Are they “illegal” to exist? They can read a book then recite it back to you.
Those are human beings not machines. You are comparing a flesh and blood person to a suped up autocorrect program that is fed data and regurgites it back.
Can’t believe I have to point this out to you but machines are not human beings
Point is: some humans can do this without a machine. If a human is assisted by a machine to do something that other humans can do but they cannot - that is illegal?
Believe it or not, but if you wrote down the melody for Bohemia rhapsody (from memory or not) and then sold it, you could be fined for copyright infringement. You can memorise it, you can even cover it, but you can’t just sell it. That part still applies to humans. It’s the redistribution of that information that’s important.
And this is my point: the (super) human and the machine are both capable of infringing copyright - breaking the law. The question is: are they actually doing it?
If you sit the human down with a researcher and they write out: HP5 Goblet of Fire in its entirety 99.9%+ accurately (for the edition they are recalling) - that’s research, fair use. As was done with the AI models by some researchers. Are the AI models out there in the real world also selling copies of their training books in full, or substantial parts, to their users? I haven’t seen demonstration of that, yet.
Yes