Hacker News Reader

Comment by stingraycharles | Hacker News Reader

Yes, obviously, you own the output. Training on those outputs is a violation of the service agreement, and that’s separate from who owns the outputs.

View on HN

I hope I see the day I start seeing AI companies suing other AI companies for training their models on GitHub repositories that were written using the AI companies' models. If Anthropic says that I can't train using Claude's output, then surely OpenAI can't train on a repository that's 100% vibecoded with Claude.

I think they care about the reasoning traces and such being used for training, not the effectively final output.

Are they even giving out the reasoning these days?

https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1vlhteb/resear...

Transferring actual and complete ownership of the output doesn’t allow any further interpretations of the use of it.

That sentence seems to be in a blurry line between outright “ownership” and licensing.

This type of explanation leans towards the reality being you don’t own the outputs from Claude.

This kind of an explanation is like trying to be half pregnant.

The only penalty here is being banned for a ToS violation. Maybe they could sue for fraud or something? That doesn't change who owns the data.

The other comments here about this policy being done at scale, or by competitors being different seems to be plausible

But LLMs are being trained on GitHub libraries that leveraged Claude?

Okay so if I own my output I can sell it to my neighbor who then trains on the output?

Presumably the agreement is worded in a way that prohibits that, but considering that lots of model outputs go on the internet just to get trained on anyways Anthropic/OpenAI can fuck right off.

I don't see them as having a leg to stand on with this in court; they can only cut off your access for egregious violations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com