Cute
AnasAbdin
todays bird
hello vonnie

Janaina Medeiros

oozey mess
Cosimo Galluzzi
$LAYYYTER

Love Begins

shark vs the universe
styofa doing anything
Claire Keane
macklin celebrini has autism
YOU ARE THE REASON
Jules of Nature

#extradirty

Kiana Khansmith

Origami Around

No title available

No title available
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Mexico
seen from Türkiye
seen from Ukraine
seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Italy

seen from United States
seen from Sweden
seen from Sweden
seen from Germany

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Canada

seen from Germany
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Italy
@cake4me
Cute
ASHFSKRNROANEF i love them
me: i wanna talk about my ocs
someone: ok tell me about your ocs
me, suddenly convinced that every single thing about my ocs is stupid and cringy and probably offensive: i. have them
Cool sketch
Lembrei que eu sei desenhar :D
Greyscale because my shadows sucks
This is literally what people are talking about when they say AI will be used to mainstream widely held bigotry. LLMs are trained on frequency and probability -> straight relationships are more well represented in the dataset -> straight pronouns and terms become the "correct" normal.
This is a form of backdoor bigotry from both normative facts (there are more straight than gay relationships) and well represented bigoted beliefs (men are superior to women).
Combine this with the mass of people inclined to believe (and being encouraged to believe) that if AI says and does something it must be correct
Unfortunately, it isn't the scraping, and use of copyrighted work that was decided to be illegal, instead the mass amount of piracy committed by Anthropic.
Anthropic won partially, stating that copyrighted books can qualify as fair use under federal law, but it doesn't absolve them of taking pirated material, and buying a licensed addition later doesn't dispute the copyright claim. It remains that the piracy claims are independentally actionable. Anthropic's behaviour during the lawsuit shows that they were actually concerned, too, as they attempted to resolve the claims before trial.
Each section of the process is seperate, and while they may succeed at one step, they can fail at the fair use defense in another.
Essentially, if an AI company takes it legally, either through paying, lawful curation, or licensed database they may be able to use it, however, if it's illegally scraped (like much, if not most was), they cannot legally use it. It is unclear on whether the crime was scraping pre-pirated work, or the unlicensed scraping of data from legitimate sources, as it may considered "free use" and "lawful curation," for the latter.
As the article states, it gives future plaintiff's a roadmap, "if you can show your work was scraped from an illicit repository rather than a licensed database, the fair use shield may not apply." This has left AI companies needing licensed alternatives quickly, as they cannot surely rely on pirated datasets, and deals with publishing houses have been made for training data.
It remains unclear, in the article, whether scraping licensed databases without permission is protected under "fair use," or if permission is needed.
Anthropic is continuing to face trial on the piracy-related claims, despite it relying on the fair use shield.
The payout, collectively, came to £1.5b, and £3,000 per book, which means approximately 500,000 books were pirated.
It using fair use is shaky, though, as fair use states that (in UK laws), it must adhere by certain rules, like purpose of use (like educationally or non-commercially), nature of the work (like using factual work is often more legal than creative), amount used, and effect on market value (if it effects authors, as it has, it's less likely to be considered legal). Anthropic has taken large amounts of creative work, affecting authors negatively as they must compete with poorer, AI generated writing made using their own stolen art; seemingly, the only leg they have to stand on (and it's flimsy at best) is purpose of use, which is what they argued, but as it's being allowed to be used to generate creative writing, which directly harms writers, it doesn't seem to be a strong argument.
While, these findings are sure to have ripple-down effects, the finding of scraping copyrighted work not to be illegal may change depending on country, as in the UK, it may be considered commercial use, and therefore copyright infringement.
weird lesbian witch
LESBIAN TIME :D
Decisions decisions