Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anthropic says Alibaba illicitly extracted Claude AI model capabilities

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

801–810 of 1001 posts

Re: Anthropic says Alibaba illicitly extracted Claude AI model capabilities

#801

Post by dahart »

crmd wrote: post #749
crispyambulance wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The standard of neutrality that people here pretend to require from news organizations is not even remotely realistic. It was a timely story from Reuters. They do fast news feeds, like APnews. Could it have been better or more accurate? Sure, they could have gone into why distillation may or may not be seen as "an attack". But then it would have been a more involved story, defeating the purpose of a news feed. The Re…

I don’t want or need fast and “good enough” news and i’m gonna try and make a case that you don’t either. Until very recently, all of modern civilization was built by people who got their news at most once a day. Reputable bureaus like Reuters took that day to get it right. I’m not the national security advisor, so I don’t need a push notification that there was an earthquake in Nepal, or a bullshit rush-job briefing…

The fast part isn’t for your benefit, primarily, and news media would love to go slower and have more time if they could, and still survive. The race to break news first - in order to be the one to tell their audience something “new”, something they hadn’t heard elsewhere - is real and it has been around for all of modern civilization, for hundreds if not thousands of years. A one day turnaround was a thing purely due to daily newspaper print runs being the fastest distribution, it wasn’t because it was long enough to get it right. The reason they had a day is because the competition couldn’t get something out faster than that. Then for a while there were twice daily print runs to be more competitive. Then the internet came along, and now the only way for a site to get attention and be talked about on Hacker News is to report it before any other sites do.

There are some news media that do go slower and take their time, but I think they’re struggling to stay alive. Reuters is still reputable, but they no longer necessarily take a day. The big question is how do we get humanity to prefer slow & correct over fast, and it is even possible? When you hear about an earthquake in Venezuela, how do we stop people from Googling it immediately, and get them to wait for the best most correct story rather than reading whatever’s available now? In the case of natural disasters, I don’t think it’s possible anymore, no matter what case you make. I’m not sure it’s possible with stories like AI distillation either, even if you can absolutely cement the case for slow news. The fact that it’s async/internet now and that first still counts means we (you and I) are still going to give traffic and attention to sites that have the first information on a breaking topic, statistically, despite having a preference for correctness over speed. The one thing we can do is vote with our dollars by subscribing to whatever news media that does a better job than others.

Re: Anthropic says Alibaba illicitly extracted Claude AI model capabilities

#802

Post by zobzu »

buellerbueller wrote: post #757
ALLTaken wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They want to create a monopoly and destroy every competitor, before they got a chance to rival them. Why can't OSS software rival closed source software? It should be an open market, at least "somewhat", what's happening for real? EU providers will also get banned, if they reach or exceed US model capabilties? Closed source providers can close your account at a whim like and destroy your business and then use the dat…

>They want to create a monopoly and destroy every competitor, before they got a chance to rival them. VC/Startup playbook 101.

also why cant i have my own airport, too big to fit in my backyard... you guys lol.

Re: Anthropic says Alibaba illicitly extracted Claude AI model capabilities

#803

Post by VBprogrammer »

w0m wrote: post #785
anon373839 wrote: post #380

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 is NOT an attack. From the article - > 28.8 million exchanges with Claude through almost 25,000 fraudulent accounts wouldn't that be considered an attack? Not sure what I'm missing here.

It's merely a ToS violation.

Re: Anthropic says Alibaba illicitly extracted Claude AI model capabilities

#804

Post by techpression »

stingraycharles wrote: post #788
w0m wrote: post #785

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Distillation is NOT an attack. From the article - > 28.8 million exchanges with Claude through almost 25,000 fraudulent accounts wouldn't that be considered an attack? Not sure what I'm missing here.

Let’s not forget that by the same logic, Anthropic et al are “attacking” copyright holders all around the world by scraping their data unauthorized for training. Pot calling kettle black.

Not only that, daily flooding websites with almost infinite amounts of request for ”web searches”. DDoS-by-VC money.

Re: Anthropic says Alibaba illicitly extracted Claude AI model capabilities

#807

Post by rafram »

onetrickwolf wrote: post #760

“Distillation attack” are we joking here. If anything these models should be compelled to be public since they have been trained off public data. What an absurd overreach to call this an attack. It’s clear they are scapegoating national security and China at this point to build an anti-competitive moat. I generally really like Anthropic’s work and models but stuff like this scares me for the future. We are positionin…

The core of the training data is public, but the part that actually makes these models smart came from (pretty highly-paid) experts via platforms like Mercor. Claude didn't magically learn to write good code by reading all of GitHub - humans trained it in that, more or less manually.

Re: Anthropic says Alibaba illicitly extracted Claude AI model capabilities

#809

Post by coliveira »

onetrickwolf wrote: post #760

“Distillation attack” are we joking here. If anything these models should be compelled to be public since they have been trained off public data. What an absurd overreach to call this an attack. It’s clear they are scapegoating national security and China at this point to build an anti-competitive moat. I generally really like Anthropic’s work and models but stuff like this scares me for the future. We are positionin…

What they're trying to do under the umbrella of "national security" is to legislate how we can use the results we pay for when accessing these models. This way they will control the "intellectual property" that was acquired illegally.

Re: Anthropic says Alibaba illicitly extracted Claude AI model capabilities

#810

Post by dec0dedab0de »

w0m wrote: post #785
anon373839 wrote: post #380

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 is NOT an attack. From the article - > 28.8 million exchanges with Claude through almost 25,000 fraudulent accounts wouldn't that be considered an attack? Not sure what I'm missing here.

That's violating TOS, spamming, possibly a DDOS, but the distillation in and of itself is not an attack it's just using the model.

Like the difference between scraping a site with one or two active connections vs thousands. It's not the scraping that is an attack, it is how they are going about it

Post reply on HN