Allegations of “Large-Scale Theft” in AI Training
A group of authors has filed a lawsuit against AI startup Anthropic, accusing the company of “large-scale theft” in training its chatbot, Claude, using pirated copies of copyrighted books. This marks the first lawsuit of its kind against Anthropic, as similar cases have been primarily directed at its competitor, OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT.
Anthropic’s Claims of Responsibility Challenged
Anthropic, a San Francisco-based company founded by former OpenAI leaders, has promoted itself as a more responsible and safety-focused developer of AI models capable of generating text, summarizing documents, and engaging in natural conversations. However, the lawsuit, filed Monday in a federal court in San Francisco, alleges that Anthropic’s actions contradict its stated goals by utilizing pirated materials to develop its AI technology.
“It is no exaggeration to say that Anthropic’s model seeks to profit from strip-mining the human expression and ingenuity behind each one of those works,” the lawsuit asserts.
Authors Leading the Legal Battle
The lawsuit was brought forward by authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson, who seek to represent a broader class of writers whose works may have been used without permission. While this is the first lawsuit against Anthropic by book authors, the company is already facing legal action from major music publishers, who claim that the Claude chatbot reproduces copyrighted song lyrics.
Legal and Ethical Implications
Anthropic and other tech companies have defended their practices by invoking the “fair use” doctrine under U.S. copyright law, which allows for certain uses of copyrighted materials for purposes such as teaching, research, or transformation of the original work. However, the lawsuit against Anthropic challenges this defense, particularly in light of allegations that the company used a dataset called The Pile, which included a large number of pirated books.
“Humans who learn from books buy lawful copies of them, or borrow them from libraries that buy them, providing at least some measure of compensation to authors and creators,” the lawsuit argues.
As the legal battle unfolds, the outcome could have significant implications for the future of AI development and the rights of content creators in the digital age.
