In the filings, Anthropic states, as reported by the Washington Post: “Project Panama is our effort to destructively scan all the books in the world. We don’t want it to be known that we are working on this.”
In the filings, Anthropic states, as reported by the Washington Post: “Project Panama is our effort to destructively scan all the books in the world. We don’t want it to be known that we are working on this.”
This doesn’t seem to be working as you’re describing.
That’s what I read in the article - the “researchers” may have had other interfaces they were using. Also, since that “research” came out, I suspect the models have compensated to prevent the appearance of copying…
I’m running the dolphin model locally, it’s an abliterated model which means that it has been fine tuned to not refuse any request and since it is running locally, I also have access to the full output vectors like the researchers used in the experiment.
I replied to another comment, in detail, about the Meta study and how it isn’t remotely close to ‘reproduces a full book when prompted’
In they study they were trying to reproduce 50 token chunks (token is less than a word, so under 50 words) if given the previous 50 tokens. They found that in some sections (around 42% of the ones they tried) they were able to reproduce the next 50 tokens better than 50% of the time.
Reproducing some short sentences from some of a book some of the time is insignificant compared to something like Google Books who will copy the exact snippet of text from their 100% perfect digital copy and show you exact digital copies of book covers, etc.
This research is of interest to the academic study AI in the subfields focused on understanding how models represent data internally. It doesn’t have any significance when talking about copyright.
I agree, but that doesn’t stop journalists from recognizing a hot button topic and hyper-bashing that button as fast and hard and often as they can.