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

551–560 of 742 posts

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

#551

Post by TZubiri »

The discussion of

"haha LLM companies stole data and now they have their data stolen so it's the same thing and it's fair." was reductionist when it started, and it's been like 3 months, and every internet user throws it like it's the hottest take ever, have another take please.

Also have nuance, don't jump to hit your HOT_TAKE key in your keyboard, actually read what the chinese are doing, and then you can pass on your judgment on whether it's ok or not.

It's not the same thing if they scrape an openly published dataset and it's an IP dispute. Or if they are using,network and financial pooling mechanisms that are shared with CSAM providers and cybercriminals, mutually providing each other alibies, and using black markets of passport-backed identities to setup thousands of accounts and circumvent bans and detection.

While we are at it, if there's a case that was settled, it's a closed case, it can never invalidate any other disputes. That case is closed, and it was settled by the parties that claimed to be damaged, that's done. If you didn't think so, you wouldn't have taken the settlement, and if you didn't have a say in the settlement, it's because you weren't damaged so who cares, go make a claim where you are the defendant if you believe otherwise. But thankfully in no legal system does the existence of a claim against you prevent you from making claims of your own.

Nuance is a good thing.

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

#552

Post by gozucito »

joshuamorton wrote: post #481
gozucito wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 distilla…

This is the post Nemus was replying to:

>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.

Context is important. And in this context, their argument only mentions creativity when it belongs to an AI lab. That omission is the blind spot I pointed out. Bottom line is whether or not Anthropic are being hypocritical and yes, they most definitely are, regardless of any attempted sophistry.

There is a reason courts want you to tell "The whole truth" and not just "the truth".

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

#553

Post by JumpCrisscross »

tristanj wrote: post #530
TonyZYT2000 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the accusation implies Kimi has gained time travel capability (distilled from fable probably) to have enough time distilling fable. Given they can travel time now, I think it is fair to call them a threat to national security.

No, it's a flawed conclusion. Claude Fable was publicly available for 72 hours early June. Moonshot more than enough time to prepare infrastructure, gather their preferred distillation data from Fable, and complete post-training well K3's mid-July launch.

> Moonshot more than enough time

Genuine question: do you have a source for how long distilling Fable would take with preparation?

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

#554

Post by bigiain »

breppp wrote: post #501
giaour wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I doubt these will have worse protection than software does, which has far better protections than copyright Software is protected by copyright. Some software may also be protected by patents, but last time I checked, AI generated output of any kind was not patentable.

Software is protected by the DMCA, patents, licenses, EULAs, all of those aren't there for books. I doubt new laws won't be written for model outputs. Also, if model output distillation is shown as some form of reverse engineering I assume the DMCA can apply

The C in DMCA stand for Copyright. All (I think?) software licenses are underpinned and made legally enforceable by copyrights. EULAs are underpinned by licenses which are founded on copyright. Patents are the only one of those protections that are not based on copyright, and there are lots of very good arguments against at least most software patents (all software patents of the form "Do {well known and obvious thing} with a computer" should, in my opinion, be immediately revoked and potentially have every company who's enforced payments from such patents investigated for fraud).

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

#556

Post by ux266478 »

rickydroll wrote: post #357
ux266478 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The things you listed are very far downstream of the start of American industry, which is in primary resource extraction and processing. Which is you know, what actually built the country. The media industry has always been materially irrelevant, and what we think of as the tech industry is extremely new. You're right to call out the nasty environment surrounding intellectual property in the US and the exploitation o…

You're right, I didn't include stuff at the beginning, for example, the theft of IP in textile manufacturing in the late 1700s. The US government didn't recognize copyrights on foreign literature which let US publishers reprint things such as Gilbert, Sullivan's operettas and Dickens novels Then there is Alexander Hamilton's advocacy for importing foreign technicians that bring back IP and reproduce it here in the st…

Which is to say they didn't have much of an idea at all, because it really didn't exist in much the same way. In fact, this is still a inaccurate characterization for exactly that reason. On the basis of copyright, take for instance the idea of exclusive rights to print a work. This actually wasn't implemented as a method of protection for the author, but a political reaction to the printing press being "misused" in the eyes of the anglo-colonialist entity controlling the British isles, and so was a means of preventing the mass creation of undesirable literature.

On the basis of patents, it didn't quite have nearly as much of a history of mutation culturally, but did experience massive whiplash in purpose and application following the implementation of globalism. What was once a system to protect technical innovation on an individual level, would find new purpose as a means to provide structure to an increasingly complicated and internationalized dynamic market. Another means of bureaucratic organization. Then, once again, the context and purpose would change when the world developed digital globalism. The entire engine of IP as a legal fiction became a significant geopolitical tool in an increasingly cramped and fragile world, a necessary gimmick holding up the sky.

Unfortunately, not much to do at this point. It'll likely only become even more nonsensically important as time wears on, until the globalist system collapses. It's certainly possible it'll even be the confounding factor that causes the great unraveling, though the problems hardly begin and end with IP. It was just a useful legal fiction in the wrong place at the wrong time.

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

#557

Post by Grimblewald »

And I have evidence that anthropic distills from openai, moonshot, alibaba etc. So unless anthropic holds itself to the standard they're implying should be followed, why should I care others did to them as they do unto others? Seems like a nothing burger. Has the same vibe as a bully crying foul because they got hit back. Also, if distillation is what got K3 to where it is, why is it better in many areas? Also, big fucking kudos to k3 team for putting this together do fast givne how new fable access is, if it is true and had a meaningful impact. The real story there for me becomes one of extreme competence.

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

#559

Post by knollimar »

mrhottakes wrote: post #185
JKCalhoun wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm by no means taking the side of the AI companies, but it's possible that Anthropic "added value" to the data they harvested. Stealing that does seem kind of uncool. Regardless, it was always inevitable—will continue to happen.

So as long as Kimi added value to Fable, it's fine? Sounds good.

Moonshot can prove they added value with their paper. Where's Anthropic's proof?

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

#560

Post by trhway »

usef- wrote: post #534
trhway wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The judge found their use is fair use. They are paying not for their use of the content, they are paying for using illegal copies of the content. The same principle can be applied to distillation - it is a fair use. You just shouldn't use illegal ways to access the models being distilled. To the commenter below: if it is illegal - has the police/FBI report been made? Otherwise it is just a civil court matter.

Fair, but isn't "illegal" access what they're talking about in OP? It does seem to be becoming the norm for AI companies to licence premium content in America, judging by the deals they're making. It doesn't seem to be done by the international distillers. It's a cost that American open models will seem to have to pay but not international.

>It does seem to be becoming the norm for AI companies to licence premium content in America, judging by the deals they're making. It doesn't seem to be done by the international distillers.

International distillers doesn't use that premium content, so they don't pay for it. They do pay for their access to the models they are distilling. Thus providing the revenue stream to those models. Thus those models make profit off the content they used for training. The content they mostly have't paid for.

>It's a cost that American open models will seem to have to pay but not international.

It goes both ways - American companies and their business are protected by American laws and have access to the market protected by those laws, etc.

Post reply on HN