The model ownership question and the output ownership question run on separate legal tracks and the piece focuses on the second deliberately. On the first: the model weights are owned by Anthropic under work-for-hire from their engineers regardless of what the training data contained. Training data copyright infringement is a separate tort claim against Anthropic, not a basis for anyone else to claim ownership of the model. The Bartz settlement resolved the pirated books claim without disturbing Anthropic's ownership of the weights. Owning the training data does not give you ownership of the model trained on it, any more than owning the paint gives you ownership of the painting.
byjus had a toxic internal culture and predatory sales practices.
during pandemic, byjus was a sink hole for edu startups (and killed so many others).
Thank God it imploded.
guess how bad they had to screwup if they had to imploded 'The edu startup of the country' where education is valued so much and education is one of the very few sectors where people here are willing to pay premium for the quality.
I don't blame red tape for this (although it's bad). FWIW, byjus had lot of govt projects (still has)
all VCs failed to see that they didn't have any moat.
Do you think there is demand for such thing?
Can we have some example use cases where we need as those layers and aspects of security/privacy end to end?
It happened. It was a symptom of dictatorship(or whatever you call it).
US courts provided a reasonable platform for justice in that case.
Then, it is followed by democratic reforms in Taiwan. Taiwan have moved towards addressing root cause,
I see now that the Saudis are far from any self-correcting action.
without any hack, one person can be enrolled multiple times if it is done from different zones (mandal/district).
There are brokers who can arrange this (and ofcourse charge upto 5k INR)
I guess the search is only limited to these zones.
