Hacker News Reader

Comment by bbor | Hacker News Reader

...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?

View on HN

If they are closed source and for profit, can they really be described as safety focused…

Why can't Anthropic give credit though?

Who said they didn't? Not sure what "very little" attribution means, but presumably it doesn't mean "none."

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.

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.

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...?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com