If Anthropic doesn't like people repeating this point, Anthropic should stop repeating that they are somehow entitled to keep what they have rightfully stolen.
I don't see how the settlement changes the fundamental dynamics.
Anthropic argues that since they paid for the book they use in training, the can now distill as many copies of the book from their AI.
Nevermind what the author wants - anthropic doesn't need a permission to do so, and the author cannot opt-out their books from training. But somehow that is fair use now.
Now some chinese have bought access to anthropics AI, and anthropic is arguing that the Chinese shouldn't be allowed to distill from them, the same way they trained from others without consent..
The problem with this line is that it becomes an argument against me, rather than self education. There are many comments about this on this very post, and it's recent headline news!
The reason I asked in that way was to see if GP actually knew anything about what they had strong opinions about.
On the other I think asking someone for a citation to their rather strong claim isn't incorrect. Digging through unstructured HN comments isn't my idea of a good time and being sent off on a treasure hunt by fellow commentors isn't why I come to this website. Collaboration is how we move forward!