Can I use my Outputs to train an AI model?(support.claude.com) |
Can I use my Outputs to train an AI model?(support.claude.com) |
Now what.
The LLM companies are Pygmalion; the LLMs themselves are golems or Frankenstein's monster; we ourselves are merely Igor.
ah yes, this long-running, time-honored traditional industry, where we totally didnt write the rules ourselves
I noticed a similar thing for the Antrophic’s previous announcement on open weight models.
Or -- maybe better -- just fsck the TOS.
I don't care about your policies, go fuck yourself.
Hell, arguably they should release their weights (or at least the weights of their older models), since they trained them on the concentrated knowledge of humankind.
Wait, we're already doing it. /s
We did so, please do not repeat it at home.
Claude and AI partners have taken all what they could from the Open Source projects without giving credit or respecting the licenses. They have increased the traffic on websites in an absolute disrespectful way increasing the hosting cost in inefficient and ridiculous ways.
They have taken all the important books and not asked permission from the authors.
Fair enough. Fair use.
Of course I would create a competitor software to Claude or any others if I could. Using Claude(and others) of course.
I am not paying you 200 dollars/month for you to tell me that I could not create code that competes with you. If you try to go to court in Europe with this you will lose.
It is just the same fair use you proclaim for taking the data from others.
Copyright infringement isn't piracy. Nor theft.
I don’t think Google needs permission to index these comments either.
If I allow my friends into my home for a visit, does that mean I should shrug when I return home from holiday and find out they’ve helped themselves to its usage without my knowledge or permission to do so?
It's named "yours" at the time of payment, but actually only a license to use under certain conditions.
This basically makes their AI useless.
There might be a few exceptions, if you really guided your model in a certain particular way, but that is rare.
What /could/ be is that you violate their ToS. If that ToS is valid and legally and practically enforceable is a different question and will depend a lot on your jurisdiction.
Can you never tell anybody and just slap a license on it? Sure.
The issue here is not the license, but that you violate their ToS (if that is valid and enforceable is a different question of course). But if you publish the LLM output on github, and someone else takes it to train their LLM, and you did not actively encourage or help them, it's fine.
Compiler output isn't copyrightable? Is a compiler human?
but you can't copyright the output anyways. which either makes the restriction on training void or, it means the owners of the model own the copyright, and they only transfer some of the ownership to you. is there such an ownership transfer statement? i haven't seen one yet.
That sentence seems to be in a blurry line between outright “ownership” and licensing.
This type of explanation leans towards the reality being you don’t own the outputs from Claude.
This kind of an explanation is like trying to be half pregnant.
I hope Claude wrote this because if a human being typed this we need to kill not just them but everyone that so much as shook their hands.
> Safety controls may be lost – models trained on Claude's Outputs won't have our safety measures, potentially leading to harmful or dangerous AI systems. We also have no visibility into deployment, meaning we cannot monitor how these distilled models are used or prevent misuse.
So was that why your models caused three real-world security incidents?
No, that was just marketing :)
Has any individual somewhere around the world tested this in court by now? Sued Anthropic for copyright infringement because Claude can reproduce information that is only available on their website?
It shouldn't be that expensive, right? If you sue them for - say - $10000 then what would the costs of such a court case be?
Personally, I think "learning" is not a copyright violation. But if they themselves make it one, then they should also face the consequences, no?
if i publish that data, and someone else trains on it, am i liable? am i responsible to ensure that noone trains on that? how am i supposed to enforce that?
From my understanding distillation pretty much copies behaviour. If someone intends to distill from a Model, it can't extract unsafe behaviour, but would learn the same safety mechanisms, no?
The author must be human, at least for now, in the US this precedent holds as far as I can tell:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/2...
> When Outputs are used to train new models without our oversight, additional risks emerge. Safety controls may be lost - ...
---
> What you can do with Outputs
> You can use Claude's Outputs to train models that don't compete with Anthropic's own models.
Why even include that bullshit at top? It is brazenly obvious to anyone with a brain that Anthropic and other frontier AI Labs have no real way to monetize or recoup their investment unless they strongly guard the usage of their models.
"We need to control the model to protect you from evil robots, except it's fine if the evil robots are not competing with our business" is hilariously hypocritical.
I’m not sure how an AI company feels that’s safer for their business. Specialization will always best generalization trying to do the same.
That's not even the case. No one "owns" the output. Raw generative AI outputs don't come with any new (copy)rights, which are currently only granted to human creative outputs.
Or, what if I generate content with Claude/ChatGPT/Gemini, warp it in HTML using an open model, put this on my website conveniently dedicated to "Best practices in prompt and AI answers" for example, then train my own model that only scraps my website?
What they don't want is DeepSeek training their models with Claude output at scale. That's why they forbid it. Gives them a legal basis to cut off accounts doing that.
Not that it's effective because it's being done anyway.
And yes it's super hypocritical but that's another issue IMO.
Or you can publish them on the web and countless others will do it.
It's also pretty wild to call this standard practice. It's not. I can grab any of the open weights models and train to my hearts content. So it's not standard is it. You'd like it to be standard because you don't want to compete.
And you don't trust us, but it is your company that's been going around telling us how excited you are that your model goes out onto the internet and hacking people.
This continual authoritarian bent from the least trustworthy people in the world is deeply problematic and the only saving grace is their absolute total and complete failure to enforce the restrictions they wish to place on us.
Your ability to build the God machine doesn't magically endow you with the moral authority or judgement to decide how it's used, and the fact that these people believe it does is a great indicator that they aren't to be trusted.
Theoretically, this should be legal and ethical, when comparing to Anthropic's own behavior. That said, the reason you can't is Anthropic states in their terms that they don't want you to do this.
Anthropic's entire business model is skating on thin ice.
So it would be supporting third party's attempts...
Then again. I suppose lot of scrapping could happen by accident and scrappers might ignore such files as allowable-use-cases-for-site-content-must-followed.txt instructing against use in training.
If such is ignored wouldn't be our fault right?
It’s kind of like causing what Google Docs autocomplete sentences helps someone write is still.. theirs.