Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

591–600 of 742 posts

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

#591
post #275

One of the replies: > @MehdiKarech > I don't remember letting Anthropic or Open Ai scrapping my GitHub, my research gate and all my online writings L O L https://xcancel.com/MehdiKarech/status/2080000779859939678#m

At least with Github you did. What did you think would happen handing your data to a company owned by Microsoft?

Github wasn't owned by Microsoft when many of us started using it.

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

#592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's only now the issues are coming into the commons in a way that industry / society needs the regulatory clarity. you mean like the regulatory clarity surrounding stealing shit to make the LLMs in the first place? > [There is] extensive litigation on the limits of Fair Use to AI development. Currently, we only have 3 first instance decisions out of the 53 cases being tried. It will likely take a decade before we…

It's hilarious to see how all these HN intellectuals, who on any other day are rabidly against most DRM / IP issues all of a sudden become private property absolutists. It's also sadly hypocritical to see all this rhetoric here on this thread decrying SOTAs for using a variety of content for their inputs as somehow sTeaLINg sTufF! ... ... but Chinese SOTA foundries directly using distillation as fair game. I don't th…

Like most things, i support rights for people, and not companies. Copyright was created for authors, artists, and inventors. Rules for corporations can and should be different.

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

#593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being too charitable to Anthropic, and assuming that the way they are abusing the word "distillation" has some real meaning here. It doesn't. Anthropic's models simply do not give you their reasoning output - they give a sanitized "summary" instead, for this exact reason, so that the output is not useful to anyone who might want to use it for training. You can't distill what you are not given - simple as that.…

I see your 'fine point' but I don't think it holds - 'distillation' is a perfectly reasonable term to describe the process of creating outputs from one model to that expose key training element, to use in another model. I think where the definition may be be invalid, is in the creation of 'unrelated data sets for training' models, for unrelated issues. Creating training sets that mach a models core training, is defin…

No - you can't distill if what you are given doesn't have the thing in it that you want to distill out of it.

I don't know why it's so important to you to use the word "distillation", but it's the wrong word to use.

BTW OpenAI on twitter also said that Kimi 3 "cannot be explained away by distillation or anything like that". The timeline of how long it takes to train a model and when Fable was released don't even line up. This is just Anthropic as usual trying to manipulate the US government into helping them shut down competition.

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

#594
post #501
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

Afaik (and ianal) there's nothing stopping anyone from attaching a EULA to a physical book

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

#595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's just a ToS violation at present. Those are legally binding though, despite the common adage. What that really translates to here though, anyone's guess. Anthropic's own copyright infringement could apparently be forgiven for 1.5B USD after all, so maybe there's a price that breaking the distillation clause for is acceptable too. Or some other arrangement.

But surely at least one of the websites Anthropic scraped to make Claude had a ToS forbidding automatic access? Why is Anthropic's ToS any more binding than that of a rabidly-anti-ai literature blog with 50 readers?

> Why is Anthropic's ToS any more binding than that of a rabidly-anti-ai literature blog with 50 readers?

I mean i know you know the answer: anthropic is a corporation with lawyers on retainer, and that's really all that matters

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

#596
post #581
post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough you don't care, some people might want to know about the Uyghur happy camps, mass organ harvesting and such. In a world where information sources are only going to dwindle, it is not in anyone's interest to empower actors that will use these to manipulate perceptions

And some people might want to know about [insert your favourite beyond-the-pale-in-the-US topic here, we're on a US forum after all]. I think it would be great if those people could turn to Chinese models, while anyone wanting to know about Uyghur camps can ask the US ones.

> beyond-the-pale-in-the-US topic

Can you name one? It's an honest question, first of I'm not American, but also the stuff I do come up with (asking an LLM how to blow up a school or whatever) would also be handled similarly in China, so those would be a wash, and I can't think of any that aren't.

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

#597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's just a ToS violation at present. Those are legally binding though, despite the common adage. What that really translates to here though, anyone's guess. Anthropic's own copyright infringement could apparently be forgiven for 1.5B USD after all, so maybe there's a price that breaking the distillation clause for is acceptable too. Or some other arrangement.

But surely at least one of the websites Anthropic scraped to make Claude had a ToS forbidding automatic access? Why is Anthropic's ToS any more binding than that of a rabidly-anti-ai literature blog with 50 readers?

One reason is that they might not have scraped it themselves, so if there was a ToS, it was someone else who broke it. For example, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pile_(dataset)

Another reason is that if you can download a web page without agreeing to a ToS, I'm not sure that counts as one?

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

#598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you’re from mainland China, you should.

No you should not care unless you are a shareholder in one of these Ai ponzi companies. For the rest of the world Chinese companies matching and open sourcing llm's will keep 100 or so tech oligarchs taking over all the world economic output for themselves as all the idiot politician are unwilling to tax wealth.

Everyone is technically (directly or indirectly) a shareholder of one of these AI or AI affiliated companies.

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

#599
post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Serious question. I'm from the US, and I think it's hilarious.

One example is that a totalitarian government known for erasing historical record of its crimes will control an arbitrator of truth.

The USA?

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

#600
post #581
post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough you don't care, some people might want to know about the Uyghur happy camps, mass organ harvesting and such. In a world where information sources are only going to dwindle, it is not in anyone's interest to empower actors that will use these to manipulate perceptions

And some people might want to know about [insert your favourite beyond-the-pale-in-the-US topic here, we're on a US forum after all]. I think it would be great if those people could turn to Chinese models, while anyone wanting to know about Uyghur camps can ask the US ones.

There aren’t any. The idea that the censorship environment is the same in the US as it is in China is nonsense used to ‘both sides’ away concerns about the CCP.
Post reply on HN