Hacker News
points by bbor 3 days ago | 0 comments
...thus implying that you'd rather the preeminent safety-focused lab not have used your interpretibility research, as they're technically a for-profit company with various closed-source assets?

I am certainly biased by a passionate distaste for IP law in general, but I am honestly curious to hear the reasoning behind it in this case.

In case it helps: this is a "research prototype", so I'd assume that seeing one or more aspects used in a highly impactful paper would be about the best possible outcome. Is this about publish-or-perish stuff, perhaps (e.g. citation "importance" for the algos)? Or maybe you're okay with this in general, but are regretful because it's Anthropic in particular?

[–] Gud 3 days ago
If they are closed source and for profit, can they really be described as safety focused…
[–] nextaccountic 3 days ago
Why can't Anthropic give credit though?
[–] bbor 3 days ago
I think I misunderstood GPL per a comment above so it's all kinda moot anyway, but my original understanding was that it was a copyleft license, so wishing it was GPL would be equivelant to wishing Anthropic had not used that work at all.

Attribution is certainly polite, and I sorta doubt Anthropic of all groups is intentionally witholding it for h-score or prestige, but that's all a much lower-stakes conversation than potential license violations. AFAIU.

[–] xienze 3 days ago
Who said they didn't? Not sure what "very little" attribution means, but presumably it doesn't mean "none."
[–] SiempreViernes 3 days ago
OP was pretty clear they wanted attribution, so you have hallucinated an entirely novel implicated desite for exclusion.

Seeing as the question posed out of "[honest curiosity]" to someone else is then immediately answered by yourself host without you even pausing to put on a sock, I think your honesty is very questionable.

[–] bbor 3 days ago
Oh sorry, I must have misunderstood! My bad, honestly; I was under the impression that GPL vs. MIT was about copyleft stuff, which would seem to preclude Anthropic's use of that project altogether. Not 100% sure how it relates to attribution still but I'll have to look into it I guess.

I don't really understand what was "answered by [my]self host" nor what a "desite for exclusion" means but it seems beside the point I think. Also not sure what the alternative to curiosity is. Like, I'd be trying to entrap this prestigious researcher in some legal sense...?