Anyway ... this case is:

Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. 3:24-cv-05417-WHA, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, decided by Judge William Alsup

“the purchased print copy was destroyed and its digital replacement not redistributed, this was a fair use.”

https://copyrightalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Bar...

Obviously this violates precedent, I had an internal LLM (probably a frontend for Claude or ChatGPT) find them (just like the convictions for file sharing in the 2000s required counter-to-the-law reasoning by judges, fair use was almost never accepted as a valid excuse, even when it obviously was, but of course Sony was a billion dollar company and needed to be in the right. In fact that this had to happen was explicitly given as a reason to create the DMCA)

Anyway, some precedents:

Hotaling v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 118 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 1997)

“Although the Church acknowledges that its sole remaining copy is not the one it originally acquired … it maintains that the remaining copy does not infringe Hotaling's copyright because it is a replacement copy…”

(this reasoning was rejected by the court)

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/118...

Atari, Inc. v. JS & A Group, Inc., 597 F. Supp. 5 (N.D. Ill. 1983)

... defendant sold a device for making backup copies of copyrighted Atari cartridges and argued that §117 permitted replacement/archival copying. The court rejected the broad replacement theory.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/5...

This very court has clearly declared that making a copy of a copyrighted work for replacement purposes is illegal, on multiple occasions.

I would like to point out that this isn't Anthropic's only extreme-WTF law violation. When the original judgement against them was made against them, they were forced to admit that using books to train models was illegal if acquired illegally AND THEN WERE ALLOWED TO KEEP DOING IT (thankfully the court never mentioned that part in the judgement so at least they can claim that was never decided when it becomes a huge problem in future cases as it obviously will). But that's not how this works. In my opinion Anthropic and OpenAI and everyone else need to at minimum take training material that was acquired in violation of copyright out of their training data unless and until they have a separate licensing agreement with the copyright holders. As long as Claude knows more about Harry Potter than is said in the promotional summaries it is obviously in violation.

Because of the copyright-filesharing court wars of the 2000s, which were also handled dishonestly by courts (whether we're talking US or EU courts), and the absurd copyright extensions, they had to now make some new excuse, and settled on this very sad, very destructive option. It's not even defensible legally, imho, but of course the biggest wallet must win. I don't understand. It's such a sad joke at this point, and it's not like the courts even still had credibility after the file sharing cases.

I wonder which sad excuse will be forthcoming from the courts when we have someone release a movie made by an AI model that is obviously a direct ripoff from some high-budget studio movie, and Disney needs to be protected from ... say ... "Scorched: Brothers of Aridelle" — In a vast desert kingdom, the royal brothers Elias and Anders grow up together, but Elias secretly possesses dangerous fire magic and isolates himself after accidentally hurting Anders as a child; years later, at Elias’s coronation, Anders announces his engagement to the seemingly charming Princess Hanna, provoking an argument that exposes Elias’s powers and sends him fleeing into the dunes, where he accidentally unleashes an endless heatwave that dries the kingdom’s wells and turns the capital into a furnace ...

No. Here is the list of organizations that have the power to make laws in the EU (and JUST the across-the-EU part of that list, within countries, within states, within provinces, within towns there's another list). This is referred to in legal tradition as the "Hierarchy of norms", because there is also a clear order defined.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/eu-hiera...

“The detection solution may be made available in the Union as one or more of the following: (i) a public, ideally standardised, specification allowing any third party to implement a detection mechanism; (ii) a piece of software (e.g., a standalone executable or library); (iii) a cloud-based service accessible to users in the Union through an API.”

Option 3: "a cloud-based service".

And accessible "to users". NOT to the public.

Note: this is not the actual law, it is the code of practice, ie. guidance for model providers. The start of that document clearly states that you can comply with the law in other ways if you want, you'll just have to justify yourself. So you have a choice to not even do this.

The actual law is here:

https://ai-act-service-desk.ec.europa.eu/en/ai-act/article-5...

As to who decides the law clearly states who decides if someone is legal, like in most EU legislation. It's not the courts, it's "National market surveillance authorities designated by each EU Member State", and there is an EU office as well (and it is explicitly stated that they are not allowed to override each other). So every EU country has the right to provide exceptions to the law, just like they do for the GPDR. You do not have any rights under this legislation as an individual. Only these "National market surveillance authorities" get rights under this legislation.

Secondary: article 7 additionally gives the EU commission the power to declare any code of conduct they want that declares what compliance with the AI act actually means.

(and, of course, this is yet another attempt at declaring math illegal. The only way to actually enforce this legislation is for all models to comply with this, all over the internet. Obviously the EU does not remotely have the power to make that happen)

For government, because it's in law or regulations (ministerial decisions in Europe). For large companies "You agreed to it" (you know, like you agreed to allow Verizon to sell your location data to Palantir)

The other 2 questions I don't understand. My point is that the EU AI directive makes this possible. Makes it possible in ONE direction, while prohibiting the other. AI can be used by government and large companies to spam you and deal with you, and can't be used by you without being 100% up front about that to them (ie. enabling refusal)

1) in things like tax law, registering with city hall, dealings with the DMV, your phone subscription, insurance contract, ... you will find that one of the new fine prints in the contract will be that you're not allowed to use AI to communicate with them.

2) because of how SynthID works (you need the SynthID keys to verify, which are secret. So the only way to find if text is ChatGPT/Google/Anthropic watermarked is to ask ChatGPT/Google/Anthropic), government and large companies can enforce this against you. That is what the watermark is for. To end any insurance claim written by AI with "you're not allowed to submit AI written insurance claims" and refuse it outright there and then.

"Sorry your request was AI watermarked and pursuant to law 234 of 2025/03/11 chapter 3258 paragraph 33 decile 1299 we hereby close it without response"

3) when they reply, however, they use a custom model that also has custom SynthID keys. You will not even be able to tell their responses are AI written, or at least, you won't be able to prove it. You won't be able to enforce any AI-related rights (ie. the right to talk to a human) you have under the law against large companies.

In other words: this is to make sure that all the advantages AI provides are available to deny your unemployment claim, and to Verizon to charge you more, but completely inaccessible TO YOU when you want to change to a cheaper subscription. They can inundate YOU with AI-written requests BUT YOU CAN'T.

Self-hosting helps because it prevents them from verifying if your responses are AI written, because you can generate non-watermarked AI text and so there is a level playing field.

So: nope. Quite the opposite. Feudalism was a very slow increase in rights for normal people over time.

That so many people think like this is the underlying problem.

What it means is that not only is that the government position, but it's got wide support from Irish people. The position being: no support for Ukraine (only loans), Irish jobs and cheap gas are more important.

And this very claim is "simply" the result of a neurotranmitter-moderated Natrium - Potassium ion cascade across a semipermeable membrane.

Nope. Emergent behavior exists and at this point dominates LLM behavior. Most of the stuff LLMs say they never learned (they are, always, imitating many different sources at the same time)

... which imho is exactly what humans do.

You have not been paying attention. China, and every socialist country for that matter, is part of every authoritarian network, serving their own purposes.

I mean, obviously Ukraine won't. Does that need saying? It's insane to think about. Look at the history of WW1 and WW2: Russia will fight until the Russian state collapses and we're, at minimum, years away from that happening. And Ukraine, if they have any sense whatsoever, will do exactly very little for anyone else until that happens. Only a German dictator is stupid enough to answer "What do you do if you're stuck in a land war with Russia?" with "open 3 extra fronts" and we all know what happened to him. Ukraine is fighting from the underdog position and that means: no stupidity. And that means: no fighting China, no defending Taiwan, even despite the fact that China is fighting Ukraine. Sorry.

Europe and Canada utterly depend on China in 1000 different ways. They have chosen not to defend anyone, and will need a decade (minimum) to rearm. And even rearmed ... will they be able to challenge China? At that distance? Other than France none of these countries currently have the ability to project power outside of their borders at all, so they will do exactly nothing, because they've chosen to be utterly powerless (google "the peace dividend")

These countries are actually smug about those decisions, despite how stupid they are. I was recently in Ireland, and in a pub I found that that NOT ONLY Irish people were proud NOT to support Ukraine, but they were "proud" (their words, not mine) that they were still supporting Russia, because that matters to them personally (ie. jobs from Alumia exports and cheap Russian gas for everyone)

You know, people kept screaming the same thing with the USAID cuts. Everyone else will take over and get goodwill from everywhere instead of US. Reality then was that nobody took over, and where they did, it was to support armies, not people (e.g. UAE "helping" Sudan, Russia "helping" Mali, ... of course all of that happened with UN approval or at least silence)

Reality here is that if the US doesn't help defending Taiwan, nobody will. Not even Japan or South Korea. MAYBE Taiwan will get Ukraine-style loans, if that even matters (without US help, China will be able to fully control both sea and air routes into Taiwan in a matter of days. So even if Taiwan has money to spend, delivery of anything they buy will be utterly impossible)

Country Share Cumulative Cumulative (Gt)

China 33% 33% 11.4-13.1

United States 11.7% 44.7% 16.0-18.1

India 8% 52.7% 19.1-21.2

Russia 5.1% 57.8% 21.1-23.2

Japan 2.5% 60.3% 22.1-24.2

UK 0.8% 0.3-0.4 (no cumulative figure)

Note that, first, there really is not much point to doing anything if you don't reduce by at least 52% in 3 years or less (less than that, or more time, will not make the difference between IPCC >2 and <2 scenarios). Hence without drastic reductions from the Chinese government (not promises, not "look at our beautiful new solar field", ONLY we're stopping these HUNDREDS of coal mines WITHIN 2 years) you've pretty much already lost, since a lot of countries lower on the list will definitely be increasing, and have declared it colonization for the west to demand they stop. Oh, by the way, you also must convince many African countries to stop that whole "electricity for our people" thing, otherwise the needed reduction is also a pipedream.

Note that just stopping CO2 output does not matter if it just gets transplanted somewhere else. In other words: the only way to make a difference is to stop first coal and then oil from being dug up in the first place, and let the CO2 emissions "take care of themselves". Otherwise CO2 emission reductions are local, not global, and so without reducing coal mining and oil pumping reductions do not matter and will not make any difference to global warming.

The only countries in the EU that have any influence at all is Norway, and they would have to just give up between 20% and 40% of their national income (France and the Netherlands are rounding errors, and Russia is not EU), and that's a typical figure.

And just so we're clear: reducing GDP by 20% to 40% will require a multiple of that in average wage reductions (so let's say at least 50%), without rents reducing by a single cent. You know, to give some idea what you're actually asking for from Norwegians.

In other words: this will not happen, there is no way in hell the governments involved will agree to even half of what's needed. And the UK, in fact all western governments other than Norway, US, Canada and Mexico have no influence and cannot realistically make a meaningful contributions to stopping climate change. And even those countries that can contribute will have to give up A LOT and it won't matter unless you get China, Russia and Saudi Arabia to follow suit.

Oh and if you do get this going, it'll cause a lot of pain in most of the world.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-08-13/risk-of-...

But first we get to experience (probably) record rainfall in autumn and winter.

This is 100% a one way street for most governments.

Oh wait ...

It's the basic principle behind the ML libs for instance, none of which are made in a lazy language since it buys you nothing but really adds complexity (you can no longer do the trivial reasoning "if I ask for A B C, then A happens, then B, then C", the order is never guaranteed and these are the errors you constantly make in languages like haskell and prolog, or at least that goes for me).

This also means you can no longer explicitly optimize. And if compilers were infinitely more intelligent than me that would be fine ... but of course when it matters I can beat every compiler I've ever seen.

1) it's the only way to get something out of models (or people for that matter) that they don't know yet.

2) it's harder to do with an LLM than without. Not easier.

3) and when you fuck it up, half the time the LLM (or other ML technique) makes a fool out of you and you spent $1000 to find the quickest way to get a robot leg on the ground is just to crash it into the ground.