Source appreciated? Was this inside the research paper?

Just noticing: there’s 0 evidence in article that anyone is doing this. I just don’t buy that this is happening enough to matter. Interesting as interpretability research at best

That’s also precedent, and a template for using on institutions to break copyright. Still seems like good news to me.

Precedent is, in effect, new law and it absolutely does change who gets taken to court and the costs of defending your case. So, depending on which arguments the court accepts, I won’t need fancy lawyer. And it won’t require nearly the risk, creativity, or time that it requires of Meta’s legal reps today. Look at civil rights or environmental protections case law; big profile early cases were horrifically costly, and now compliance by company’s is largely by default.

Horrible people and companies can set good precedent, often without intending to. For example, plenty of criminals set and clarified due process law. So we absolutely could all benefit from Meta’s bad intentions.

We benefit from institutions that will be training their own AI, hosting data publicly, and have the resources to mirror a precedent. Care to cite sources that the arguments being accepted are going to carve out Mark Zuckerberg by name as the one person who can ignore copyright? I haven’t read the fillings, but this should be easy.

I read this as setting precedent that others couldn’t. Court cases like this are one way to make it possible for everyone to break an absurd law.

Worth remembering that any group could make a company. They are work, but not particularly class locked.