Bullshit misinformation peddler says what?

But I also want to take a moment out of my day to laugh at your logic skills.
I'll find out the hard way if I ever take that "nonsense" into a courtroom?
Your position:
Downloading is legal.
Uploading is illegal.

My position:
Downloading is illegal.
Uploading is illegal.

What fucking scenario can you concoct where your position is in more legal jeopardy than my position?
Fucking dumb people on the internet, man.

General tip- you can't ever ask an LLM if it came up with something on its own. It can't honestly answer that question. It has no fucking idea where it got it from.
The name was the result of a quite huge mathematical function that didn't include training on knowing where that information came from- just the ability to complete it.

I think I agree with you that it probably ingested the actual book, but it's also possible that it simply read many works about it, with the early chapters represented stronger.

Ultimately- the only way to really tell is to see the actual training corpus.

Christ, you are terminally fucking stupid.

Start your education here.

You done, dumbfuck?

You're a moron- do you think the copyright violation stops after the first offender?

Both parties made a copy. This is settled law.
People watching unauthorized streams are not sued because the monetary damages are far less.
Distributing carries what are called statutory damages- which can be as high as $50k per work.
Merely downloading limits you to actual damages, or the base value of what you pirated.

You have no idea what in the fuck you're talking about, and I suggest you go slink away into a hole rather than further spreading legal misinformation.

Possession is not. I never said possession was.
Downloading is, because it indeed requires a copy to be made.
The following quote from you that you are trying to defend:

Is false.
Both parties made a copy.
You are incapable of downloading something without making a copy. It is quite literally, and legally, impossible.

We don't disagree one bit. The problem here, that I see, is that you consider all subsequent copies made for private use to be legal. This is incorrect.

I didn't contradict anything, you're just ignorant or illiterate.

That we're discussing fair use is the proof that the works are still bound by copyright- even for the personal copies.
Current Supreme Court precedent says that the purpose and character of digitization, or format shifting, is what determines its fair use. Fair use is an allowed enhancement of yours rights to use something that is bound by copyright. The Judge and I don't disagree in the slightest.

Incorrect. Public misunderstanding and echo chambers on sites full of morons have corrupted how people think "it's supposed to work".
Unless you have a fair use, or a license, it is illegal for you to download something I own the copyright to, and I can sue you for the value, including statutory damages, of that copy, even if you copied it directly from me.

No. They is not how copyright infringement works.
Anthropic made a copy (from sender, to some local medium, be it RAM or disk) and that is an infringement upon the copyright of the copyright holder for that work.

You seem to be implying that if the copyright holder has their software on their server, and you find a way to take it, no copyright has been infringed upon- but you are wrong.

This is flatly incorrect.
The mere act of download (copying to your disk or RAM) is a copy for copyright purposes.
What you are doing is confusing statutory crimes with liability for the copyright infringement.

If you're distributing copyrighted works, the copyright holder, and the government will come after you.
If you're downloading copyright works, the copyright holder can come after you.

Bingo.

But specifically- copies made for the purpose of training their model.
There are still internal copies that could be made of legitimately acquired stuff that would also not be fair use.

I read more in between the lines than you intended.

The only thing I see them wanting control over is how copies are used, which they are legally entitled to.

For example, you may think you have an unlimited right to format shifting. The fact is- you do not. Your fair use to do so stops when you deprive the copyright holder of revenue.
Every copy you make, even for personal use, is covered by copyright, because it's still a copy.
That copyright is not relinquished upon sale. Ergo, they really do have a say over what you do with the copyrighted work that you "bought", if any copy of it whatsoever is made. In the digital world- that's fairly hard to avoid.

In the context of the LLMs, training a model with copyrighted data is 100% a violation of copyright. However- fair use allows it as an exception, since you're A) not doing this to compete with the copyright holder, B) transforming the work beyond recognition.

Incorrect. Sale does not remove copyright.
i.e., if you buy a picture, you are not granted license to produce additional copies of it.
You have a fairly low UID, I'm a bit surprised this concept is foreign to you.

Not quite that simple. Fair use is a consideration for every copy made, period.

Was your copy made to deprive the owner of money they would have otherwise made? Then no, it's not fair use, any any copy you make for that purpose is illegal.
Was your copy made for a use that's protected under fair use? Then any copy you make for that purpose is legal.

That's because the economy isn't a casino.
Sitting in that casino, the dollars in your pocket do not constantly go down.
In an economy, composed of people who die and retire, it does.

Dude's conclusion is a bit overstated without several asterisks, but on the balance, you're definitely a lot dumber than they are.