FaceDeer

Is it this?

First, Authors argue that using works to train Claude’s underlying LLMs was like using works to train any person to read and write, so Authors should be able to exclude Anthropic from this use (Opp. 16).

That's the judge addressing an argument that the Authors made. If anyone made a "false equivalence" here it's the plaintiffs, the judge is simply saying "okay, let's assume their claim is true." As is the usual case for a preliminary judgment like this.

Did you read the actual order? The detailed conclusions begin on page 9. What specific bits did he get wrong?

Not even slightly, the judge didn't rule anything like that. I'd suggest taking a read through his ruling, his conclusions start on page 9 and they're not that complicated. In a nutshell, it's just saying that the training of an AI doesn't violate the copyright of the training material.

How Anthropic got the training material is a separate matter, that part is going to an actual try. This was a preliminary judgment on just the training part.

Foregoing copyright law because there's too much data is also insane, if that's what's happening.

That's not what's happening. And Citizens United has nothing to do with this. It's about the question of whether training an AI is something that can violate copyright.

The judge isn't saying that they learn or that they're people. He's saying that training falls into the same legal classification as learning.

The word "American" has come to mean "Inhabitant of the United States of America." You should use "North American" instead if you want to include both Americans and Canadians.

Do you think AIs spontaneously generate? They are a tool that people use. I don't want to give the AIs rights, it's about the people who build and use them.

Well, I'm talking about the reality of the law. The judge equated training with learning and stated that there is nothing in copyright that can prohibit it. Go ahead and read the judge's ruling, it's on display at the article linked. His conclusions start on page 9.

Yes, and that part of the case is going to trial. This was a preliminary judgment specifically about the training itself.

How is right to learn even relevant here? An LLM by definition cannot learn.

I literally quoted a relevant part of the judge's decision:

But Authors cannot rightly exclude anyone from using their works for training or learning as such.

You should read the ruling in more detail, the judge explains the reasoning behind why he found the way that he did. For example:

Authors argue that using works to train Claude’s underlying LLMs was like using works to train any person to read and write, so Authors should be able to exclude Anthropic from this use (Opp. 16). But Authors cannot rightly exclude anyone from using their works for training or learning as such. Everyone reads texts, too, then writes new texts. They may need to pay for getting their hands on a text in the first instance. But to make anyone pay specifically for the use of a book each time they read it, each time they recall it from memory, each time they later draw upon it when writing new things in new ways would be unthinkable.

This isn't "oligarch interests and demands," this is affirming a right to learn and that copyright doesn't allow its holder to prohibit people from analyzing the things that they read.

This was a preliminary judgment, he didn't actually rule on the piracy part. That part he deferred to an actual full trial.

The part about training being a copyright violation, though, he ruled against.

My main reasoning behind having a buffer of gasoline stored (I rotate through it, no need for stabilizer) is so that if something absolutely catastrophic happens I can make it to a relative's farm without having to stop for gas along the way. It also happens to be handy for the less-catastrophic-but-still-annoying situation we might be facing now, of a sudden fuel price spike.