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

“We have information that Moonshot distilled Fable for the development of K3”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 742 posts

Re: “We have information that Moonshot distilled Fable for the development of K3”

#481

Post by joshuamorton »

gozucito wrote: post #464
remus wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is what I was getting at.

There is an even higher level of creativity in creating books, songs and all sorts of art used in model training though. That's your apparent blindspot. There is no world in which me vacuuming the entirety of human knowledge to make a genai model is ok but hoovering my model answers is not. The hypocrisy is stunning and risible. Now if you go and make a model based on purely synthetic data and not a single work made…

So, I'm not the person you were responding to. I'd like you to take a moment and suggest where anyone in the thread you're replying to, either me or Remus, has said anything that suggests disagreement with the statement

> There is an even higher level of creativity in creating books, songs and all sorts of art used in model training though.

He claimed there was more creativity in model training than in model distillation. That makes no claim about the relationship between the creativity in model creation and art. Why are you continuing to attack a claim that was never made, after a sub thread very explicitly clarifying that that claim was not made?

Re: “We have information that Moonshot distilled Fable for the development of K3”

#482

Post by preg_match »

linkregister wrote: post #301

Commenters are overlooking the significance of this information and posting emotional reactions based on perceptions of fairness or feelings of schadenfreude. The economic viability of Anthropic and OpenAI rely on their being able to charge more for model access than their R&D and inference costs. If the market price for SOTA model access drops below that level, then these businesses will have to decide whether to co…

I doubt distillation had anything to do with it. They barely had enough time. Can you distill Fable (which involves training!) in literally one week? No!

Re: “We have information that Moonshot distilled Fable for the development of K3”

#484

Post by GTP »

petilon wrote: post #331
butlike wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup if a machine kills a human it's not the machine's fault; it's the human's. Humans doing the exact same thing as machines aren't 1:1.

If it is legal for a human to do something then it is legal for a machine to do it too. Are there any counter examples to that?

The GDPR gives you the right not to be subject to automated decisions, so there are cases where a human can make a decision and a machine cannot.

Re: “We have information that Moonshot distilled Fable for the development of K3”

#485

Post by linkregister »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #420
linkregister wrote: post #301

Commenters are overlooking the significance of this information and posting emotional reactions based on perceptions of fairness or feelings of schadenfreude. The economic viability of Anthropic and OpenAI rely on their being able to charge more for model access than their R&D and inference costs. If the market price for SOTA model access drops below that level, then these businesses will have to decide whether to co…

> The United States government considers US supremacy in "AI" as a national security consideration. And we foreigners consider US supremacy in AI to be an existential threat. Your "national security" is directly harmful to us. I never thought I'd say this but the chinese are starting to look like a beacon of hope for the rest of us.

That's a reasonable viewpoint to have. In a multipolar world we want Mistrals as well as Deepseeks.

Re: “We have information that Moonshot distilled Fable for the development of K3”

#486

Post by breppp »

recursive wrote: post #458
some_random wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Distillation is objectively easier than training a model from scratch, that's why all these Chinese labs are doing it.

Training a model is objectively easier than generating the sum total of human creative output prior to 2020. That's why the big labs are doing it. What's the difference here?

Reverse engineering has stronger protections than merely copyright infringement

Re: “We have information that Moonshot distilled Fable for the development of K3”

#487

Post by make3 »

xcf_seetan wrote: post #231
make3 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about the claim of whether these companies could develop a similarly powerful model without larger companies building their own first, which is an important point, and it's likely not the case. It's also about the larger companies explaining why they can't be as efficient, of course they can't, they're not just ripping the outputs of another model that someone else invested billions to train.

> they're not just ripping the outputs of another model that someone else invested billions to train. If they payed for inference, doesn't they own the output? So if I pay for a model to generate code, isn't that code mine to do with it whatever I want? Just curious.

Not arguing for the morality of it, but if we're going by the law because that's what you're using in your comment ("don't I own" which only matters wrt the law), then you explicitly accepted a Terms of Use which excludes distillation as a use case.

Now of course they themselves trained on the whole Internet for free, etc.

Re: “We have information that Moonshot distilled Fable for the development of K3”

#489

Post by yencabulator »

petilon wrote: post #331
butlike wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup if a machine kills a human it's not the machine's fault; it's the human's. Humans doing the exact same thing as machines aren't 1:1.

If it is legal for a human to do something then it is legal for a machine to do it too. Are there any counter examples to that?

Get elected president?

Re: “We have information that Moonshot distilled Fable for the development of K3”

#490

Post by fooofw »

petilon wrote: post #331
butlike wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup if a machine kills a human it's not the machine's fault; it's the human's. Humans doing the exact same thing as machines aren't 1:1.

If it is legal for a human to do something then it is legal for a machine to do it too. Are there any counter examples to that?

Lethal self defense?
Post reply on HN