It's not clear what exactly the "legal action" is based on this github link. My pure speculation is Anthropic's lawyers have come up with a liability story boiling down to OpenCode helping end users violate the Anthropic ToS (i.e. tortious interference with contract).
Doesn't even need to be threatening, a notice of "this thing you're doing is in violation of our terms of service" should be enough... although I suppose that can be construed as threatening already.
Depends if it's existential, like I said. If my whole company depends on X and replacing it is intractable, there's not much other choice. Having looked at the landing page though, seems like they can just go with other models and it will (largely) be fine, yes.
I recently turned my unused Google Pixel 8 into a server for my personal site and various side projects. It's super satisfying to spin things up in a couple hours, point a cloudflare tunnel at it, and share it with the world.
I'm a bit sus that they can bring OpenAI into this given this is just one woman using ChatGPT to generate terrible legal submissions. The ToS will be important here, but one can liken this to trying to bring the car manufacturer into a lawsuit over a car crash.
As far as I'm aware, OpenAI is not selling any legal products.
The largest lawfirms are happy to take on cases like this even if they don’t expect a win. The number of billable hours it will generate for them is very high.
> "Writers win the Pulitzer Prize and sell just [a] few hundred copies."
For anyone else who was intrigued by this statement: The essay links to another Medium essay[0] which links to a book critic's blog[1] which links to a 2014 article from Publisher's Weekly[2]. That article reports, e.g., that in the week after winning the Pulitzer for general nonfiction, "Tom's River by Dan Fagin, went from 10 copies to 162 copies sold (6,266 copies sold to date) on BookScan." The poetry winner that year had sold 353 copies at the time the article was published. It came out about six months earlier.
So perhaps for some poetry books, an author could win a Pulitzer and "sell just a few hundred copies." But that seems like it would be rare.
Anyway, these aren't great numbers, but maybe not as abysmal as the author makes it sound.
I’m all for regulation of AI, but that’s not a serious solution where the problem is the government pressuring private companies to do evil things. Consumer pressure isn’t much, but it’s not nothing.
> We find the LLM to be perfectly formalistic, applying the legally correct outcome in 100% of cases; this was significantly higher than judges, who followed the law a mere 52% of the time.
reply