Live data from Hacker News

Anthropic says Alibaba illicitly extracted Claude AI model capabilities

reuters.com

761–770 of 1001 posts

Re: Anthropic says Alibaba illicitly extracted Claude AI model capabilities

#761

There's two basic kinds of distillation: 1) the massive [and dumb] method where you ask a question and use the answer as reinforcement (Black Box), and 2) more targeted distillation where you use one model to directly inform/train/guide another model (RLAIF). The latter is basically fine-tuning the model with direction from another model. Thousands of businesses do this every day to fine-tune. This is almost certainl…

Chinese companies are engaging in anti-competitive practices, as usual. They are rogue actors on the economic scene. If it were feasible, they'd be widely banned, and for good reason.

Re: Anthropic says Alibaba illicitly extracted Claude AI model capabilities

#762

There's two basic kinds of distillation: 1) the massive [and dumb] method where you ask a question and use the answer as reinforcement (Black Box), and 2) more targeted distillation where you use one model to directly inform/train/guide another model (RLAIF). The latter is basically fine-tuning the model with direction from another model. Thousands of businesses do this every day to fine-tune. This is almost certainl…

> These complaints of distillation are inflating the problem to make it sound worse than it is Unfortunately, the Reuters piece itself is complicit in this dramatization. The lede paragraph parrots Anthropic's talking point that distillation is an "attack", without using quotes that would alert the reader that this framing is a corporate talking point. Distillation is NOT an attack.

Distillation may not be an attack, but it is a ToS violation and could be seen as IP theft.

Any reasonable company would be pissed if a competitor, especially at Ali Baba's size, leveraged that company's R&D to compete. It is in this sense, a corporate attack.

If you want to roll your eyes at distillation concerns, you might need to excuse Anthropic for originally using pirated material to train their models.

Re: Anthropic says Alibaba illicitly extracted Claude AI model capabilities

#763

The hypocrisy of Anthropic complaining about "illicitly extracting its Claude AI model capabilities" and supporting the White House's accusation of China "stealing U.S. AI labs' intellectual property on an industrial scale" is hilarious. Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, et al trained their models by ignoring the rights of copyright holders when harvesting whatever content they could. Now one of them is crying fo…

Not really even in the same ballpark as what they did. These other labs are using AI generated content (which has already been ruled un-copyrightable) to train their models. Oh and they are paying for those tokens. So at absolute worst, they are violating the terms of service. The horror. Meanwhile these frontier AI labs pirated and scraped everything they possibly could, paying not a dime to the copyright owners, nor paying anything to the websites they DDoSed.

Re: Anthropic says Alibaba illicitly extracted Claude AI model capabilities

#764
This kind of systematic distillation by a competitor can allow them to fast-follow you and pick up capabilities.

If you've invested in expensive capabilities training, of course you don't want this, so it's in Anthropic's economic interest to hinder it however they can, and that's enough to explain their behaviour here.

Anthropic seems to genuinely care about safety though, which for the rest of us means not having models that enabling easier cyberattacks, targeted scams, and the rarer but more severe risks like people trying to create and release new pathogens. This means walking a tight line, especially as models become more capable, and often wrapping a model in layers of defences against misuse.

If those capabilities transfer to a closed competitor model, all bets are off in terms of whether the competitor will apply the same defences.

If those capabilities transfer to an open weight model, not only will there be no ring of defences around the model, any defences you put into the model itself can easily be stripped away. So although it's nice to have capable open models, it will increasingly bad for us all if open models keep fast-following closed model capabilities as they have been, at least until we have solved the active research problem of keeping them safe.

This is all to say that, however you might feel about Anthropic, we might still prefer that they can deter this kind of distillation for now.

Re: Anthropic says Alibaba illicitly extracted Claude AI model capabilities

#765

This kind of systematic distillation by a competitor can allow them to fast-follow you and pick up capabilities. If you've invested in expensive capabilities training, of course you don't want this, so it's in Anthropic's economic interest to hinder it however they can, and that's enough to explain their behaviour here. Anthropic seems to genuinely care about safety though, which for the rest of us means not having m…

Kimi k2.6/7 running inside Kimi code already kicks the pants of the latest Claude and OpenAI models when it comes to cyber security. I regularly run multi model security reviews and while opus 4.6/7/8 and gpt 5.3/4/5 find a couple of things and declare mission accomplished (running inside pi) kimi k2.6/7 inside pi finds more issues and inside kimi code finds the most.

There are sometimes false positives but when I give Kimi’s report to the frontier models they more often than not confirm they are valid security issues but didn’t find them themselves.

Re: Anthropic says Alibaba illicitly extracted Claude AI model capabilities

#766
post #762

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These complaints of distillation are inflating the problem to make it sound worse than it is Unfortunately, the Reuters piece itself is complicit in this dramatization. The lede paragraph parrots Anthropic's talking point that distillation is an "attack", without using quotes that would alert the reader that this framing is a corporate talking point. Distillation is NOT an attack.

Distillation may not be an attack, but it is a ToS violation and could be seen as IP theft. Any reasonable company would be pissed if a competitor, especially at Ali Baba's size, leveraged that company's R&D to compete. It is in this sense, a corporate attack. If you want to roll your eyes at distillation concerns, you might need to excuse Anthropic for originally using pirated material to train their models.

More the opposite - companies who stole IP for their own benefit have no leg to stand on when others do it back. Personally I couldnt care less if Chinese labs rip off Anthropic. Its what America would do if they wanted to, for whatever reason (they probably do it right back secretly anyway).

Re: Anthropic says Alibaba illicitly extracted Claude AI model capabilities

#767
post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true, some of them are indeed fake, but a lot of them are actually providing real opus at low cost doing what op said.

Genuinely, can you provide a better source here than "trust me bro"?

I read quite a few posts about this on RedNote.

Re: Anthropic says Alibaba illicitly extracted Claude AI model capabilities

#769
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, so is your theory mutually exclusive to Anthropic's claims of "theft of capabilities"?

No, this reseller 中转站 thing is basically a loss leader for certain chinese ai labs to distill claude with verified human input.

How do you gain insights such as this?

Re: Anthropic says Alibaba illicitly extracted Claude AI model capabilities

#770
post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The compute deficit of Chinese Ai companies is real, and it IS THE ONLY competitive advantage that Western companies have. The only way the U.S. keeps that edge is to prevent distillation. The only way Chinese companies can make up for the deficit in compute is to distill. There innovation in great supply on every side of the Ocean. Its about the chips. And in terms of national security, for the U.S., and for China,…

Define compute deficit? They've been bringing out open weight models competitive with frontier models. How could they do that if they had a compute deficit?

If they need to divert inference resources to train models, this counts as a compute deficit to me.

I'm using GLM-5.2 daily for my own stuff, and during Chinese business hours, specially on their afternoon, it's a festival of rate limits.

Post reply on HN