The title is (I believe intentionally) inaccurate. Better would be:

Anthropic trained on illegally acquired Stanford professors' books

The article does not say the training was illegal (although does discuss the professors push for a licensing model).

Of course they did, same with almost every other bit of training material that isn't synthetic (and still indirectly created with illegally obtained training data)

Title is misleading. The ruling said training on books is fair use. What got them in trouble was grabbing the books from LibGen instead of just buying them, which is a pretty dumb way to lose $1.5B. If I torrented half a million books I'd be getting a lot more than a $3k-per-book settlement.

Good! Information wants to be free, not locked up in some ivory tower. This is a great time upon us, when academics and ivy league elites can no longer gate keep knowledge and hoard it for their ego. Knowledge should benefit humanity as broadly as possible, not just the rich and their academic ilk.

They did the same with literally everyone's data. Is it supposed to matter more because a "Stanford professor's" work was included?

And I presume the Anthropic CEO will be indicted on 13 felony counts under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and for wire fraud. Like Aaron Swartz, right?

Right?

N.B. JSTOR explicitly settled with Swartz, suffered no financial harm, and begged the federal government to drop the case. The government refused and prosecuted Swartz anyway. Anthropic settled for $1.5 billion primarily because of the theft and storage of the files, but this was somehow a Civil issue...

Does copyright over knowledge-based works really have any legitimate position in today's society? We're entering a new age of how information is created, used, and distributed.

They should get Opus or one of the latest models to be the morality judge of what goes into training.

I had an issue recently where I asked claude code to log into a developer user on Chrome on my local host for a system which is fully local and part of the code base the agent was developing and it refused to do it, like flat out refused, I did it on multiple sessions and I could not get Claude to budge on entering the credentials - it required me to manually sign in.

Would be amazing if they used that same level of training for their intake exercises.

Training on the book being fair use for something whose whole deal is to take those ideas and exercise them is the steal of our time...

So you come with this amazing idea regarding anything... how to build a chip, how to write software... and you write a book on how to...

Then a model eat it... spit it for free (they could get an advantage from being able to exercise that logic) and it's fair use...

Then... why torrent it, can't they sent someone to buy the book and scan it or buy it in pdf?

Of course they did. AI companies have pirated and stolen all sorts of content. What we know of is probably only the tip of the iceberg.

As for the training being fair use, this is still disputed:

https://www.courthousenews.com/ai-training-of-copyrighted-ma...

Good!

That professor saying that the use of work he already produced amounts to "slave labor"... copyright infringement is substantially different than slavery.

I’m fine with it as long as Anthropic is fine we can distill their models to create own without burning all that energy (vide DeepSeek case)

Humanity is suffering from large scale distillation attack from Anthropic.

Didn't it train Claude on illegally obtained everything?