The last two weeks have provided us with a lot of insight into the GenAI world. Before I get to the “BIG” story, remember that behind all the legal maneuvers is money—lots of money. Michael Smith pointed this out in a Senate committee, and of course, no one disagreed. Of course, the big news was the Anthropic settlement. There are many opinions on this, and by next week, there will be hundreds more. These opinions tend to align with whether you’re a content provider or a user.
A U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism recently held hearings to explore whether GenAI has become Too Big to Prosecute. Among the witnesses was Dr. Michael Smith, a Professor of Information Technology and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz College. The PDF transcript of his comments is only five pages long and presents a secularist perspective on copyright and AI, featuring the now-familiar arguments.
Digital piracy harms creators by reducing their ability to make money.” Yes, the world understands that copyright laws are all about money.
He continues by saying, “Digital piracy harms society by reducing economic incentives.”
But in a curious twist, he also admits that “Gen AI has the potential to benefit industry and society in many ways.” Let’s hope he’s not wrong.
Will the church ever benefit from GenAI in Bible translations, or will it mainly serve pastors, scholars, and religious leaders? Only time will tell.
The ‘Bartz v. Anthropic’ Settlement
The Copyright Alliance crowed that this settlement “is a significant victory not only for book publishers and authors but for all copyright owners,” while admitting that it doesn’t mean the end for Anthropic. With a current valuation of $183 billion, the estimated $1.5 billion settlement might be a smart business move for Anthropic more than anything.
The Wall Street Journal featured Shlomo Klapper, the founder and CEO of Learned Hand AI, an Opinion Page front and center, where he wrote that “Anthropic’s Settlement Unleashes the Russian Winter.” It’s a fascinating take (if you’re a subscriber). His angle is that Anthropic’s response is a strategic move that potentially prevents future lawsuits and traps OpenAI in a situation with math that “will be ruinous to OpenAI . . . It’s OpenAI that now faces a bitter cold.”
Stephanie Schmidt, a Senior Associate at Norton Rose Fulbright US, shared some key insights from the Bartz v. Anthropic: Settlement case.
The settlement halts a trial that might have tested the boundaries of copyright statutory damages.
Whether training LLMs with pirated data is defensible as fair use is hardly a decided issue.
The case signaled that courts are willing to embrace transformative fair use in the AI training context, but not necessarily at the expense of condoning piracy.
Her piece is concise and insightful, providing a quick understanding of the settlement.
If you want to view the ‘Bartz v. Anthropic’ settlement court record to form your own opinion, you can find that document here.
Rest assured, hundreds of articles will be written in the coming weeks from every possible perspective. If you come across one with special insights, pass it along.
Blessings!
Bruce Erickson