Anthropic's position on distillation is hypocritical because they and OpenAI train on all the world's output without creators' consent, yet condemn Chinese models doing the same to their outputs — and they never even called it IP theft in their own blog post.

51:38they could not have been nailed for piracy. they would have been potentially under fair use, which I understand Jal is still being litigated in the courts, but that would have been their defense. So, the reason why they got nailed with this $ 1.5 billion judgment is they wouldn't even buy one copy. It is still Anthropic's position and it's OpenAI's position that they should be able to train on all these books under fair use

52:01if they buy one copy. And that issue has not been resolved yet. Now you should be able to see the total hypocrisy of their point of view relative to the previous issue which is they believe they should be able to train on every creator's output in the world. You know as long as I guess they bought one copy of it against the will of those creators whether those creators like it or not.

52:25They believe it is fair use to train their models and derive their own weights based on fair use. However, they say that the one type of content that you should never be able to train on is their output. That is currently their position. It's completely hypocritical. And actually, if you go back to anthropics blog post in February where they defined this concept of industrial scale dissolation attacks for the first

52:51time, they coined that expression. And this is, you know, I worry that people in the government policy makers don't understand that this is all part of a anthropic op. No one used the terms distillation and attack together until Anthropic wrote that blog post. Distillation was simply an industry standard practice. But then Anthropic coined this idea of industrial scale dissolation attacks. In any event, if you go to that blog post, search for the

53:16words IP theft. It's not in there. Anthropic did not claim even though they were trying to coin this new concept and brand this idea of industrial scale dissolation attacks. They did not have the hutzbah to claim that it was IP theft. >> The coahjones the hypocrisy the kutzbah to claim that it was IP theft. Why? Because they maintain that it is their right to train their models on all the

53:43world's output even if the creators don't want them to. IP for we but not for thee. >> Exactly. So, so Jal, I don't even want to get into whether you're right or not on the fair use question. Maybe you are right. I don't know. Okay. But my point is about the hypocrisy and they themselves never claimed that this was IP theft by the Chinese companies. What they tried to claim was that it was a

54:04national security threat because what would happen is these Chinese companies would distill off them, create their own models, and those models would not have guard rails. So they were making a different kind of of argument. That argument never that argument though never found purchase with policy makers because I think that they could see that yeah look guardrails are important but you know it never really found purchase

54:28until anthropic started claiming oh this is IP theft but they have not been willing to make that argument publicly because they know that it would poison all of their fur use lawsuits that are happening. And Jimoth, like you mentioned, the New York Times is currently suing Open AI for basically a industrial scale distillation attack. I mean, Open AAI went on the New York Times website, used scrapers, slurped up