[flagged]
Smartphones are mostly Chinese now (except for iPhones and Samsung).
https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/
https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/worldw...
261–270 of 742 posts
[flagged]
Smartphones are mostly Chinese now (except for iPhones and Samsung).
https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/
https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/worldw...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, so mass theft is okay as long as American companies are doing it
copyright infringement is not theft, even if right holders often claim it is. part of the definition of theft is that the original owner is deprived of it, which does not apply to copyright infringement. You can only argue with damages from the perspective of potential profits, still not theft though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
I think you're wrong: there is absolutely damage to the authors and publishers from what the AI companies have done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh, what? > Distillation is not illegal by every definition of the word Note that Anthropic (and USG) alleges [0] not only that Kimi was distilled, but that they actively circumvented measures intended to stop distillation. There are multiple ways that's illegal, including: - Civil breach of contract. Anthropic's TOS explicitly say you can't do what Kimi is alleged to have done. - Economic espionage: 18 U.S.C. §1831…
I do agree that two wrongs don't make a right, the terms of service generally gives cooperation the power to sever the contract, but it does not make things illegal in the literal sense. The illegality usually comes from widescale fraud which includes accessing services you are banned from accessing. When I said "Does this matter?" I specially meant that distillation in itself, the data you get from distillation is f…
Agree, and this is exactly what Anthropic is alleging.
> data you get from distillation is first and foremost not owned by anthropic nor is it copyrightable. If a user willingly gives up their anthropic reasoning data/traces that is 100% legal no matter what the "terms of service" say as it's not enforceable and would fall apart in court.
It's important to note this is NOT what happened. Anthropic was able to trace data directly back to employees at the company: "We attributed the campaign through request metadata, which matched the public profiles of senior Moonshot staff."
> none of the quoted laws apply here since no trade information is stolen
There is a lot of work showing Kimi models produce similar outputs to Anthropic models, which constitutes trade information. This is not dissimilar to past and ongoing IP suits against Anthropic and OpenAI by showing the models would recreate images of Mickey Mouse/NYT articles etc.
For the record, I'm a researcher myself and I'm well aware how competent the researchers are at the open-source labs/how much they've contributed. But that's not at issue here, my disagreement with you is specific to your arguments about legality; you're conflating what you think should be legal with what actually is legal.
Does this matter? Distillation is not illegal by every definition of the word. There are millions of samples available on huggingface and models explicitely trained on output produced by fable. There has been no action taken against them. Another example is that it appears that the upper limit of what you can do is ultimately dependent on people working on the model, otherwise grok would be a LOT more competitive pre…
Perhaps even more importantly, the current frontier LLM models are self-admittedly the product of enormous quantities of copyright infringement and even less savory inputs, so calling them out for distilling the fruit of that tainted tree reads as highly hypocritical at best.
ed: to clarify, I totally agree that a huge chunk of the value in LLMs is coming from the source material. My point was just that training an LLM takes more resources and expertise than distilling from an existing LLM so I don't think the equivalence between training and distilling is entirely justified.
Is this a surprise, I think history has proven that the Chinese technology theft is part of their strategy. They let the American tax payer or "The West" shoulder the cost and then steal it. Waiting for the whataboutism....junk away...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Copyright_Act_of...
IP "theft" has been a longstanding part of any developing nation's economy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps even more importantly, the current frontier LLM models are self-admittedly the product of enormous quantities of copyright infringement and even less savory inputs, so calling them out for distilling the fruit of that tainted tree reads as highly hypocritical at best.
This is why I don't give a shit that this is happening. It's actually kind of funny to me.
Does this matter? Distillation is not illegal by every definition of the word. There are millions of samples available on huggingface and models explicitely trained on output produced by fable. There has been no action taken against them. Another example is that it appears that the upper limit of what you can do is ultimately dependent on people working on the model, otherwise grok would be a LOT more competitive pre…
So what is the issue here? Distilling is still fair, on the same level like Anthropic scraped copyright protected material for their training. So here robbers are blaming robbers? These claims are just pointless, everytime
"You are trying to kidnap what I have rightfully stolen!"