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

631–640 of 742 posts

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

#631

Post by remus »

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…

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

No argument here, I completely agree.

> 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.

I disagree with this though. Clearly LLMs owe a huge debt to everything that has come before, but surely you'd agree that the models that are produced are something substantial and new and novel which didn't exist before and have lots of value in their own right. Let's be a bit reductive and pretend Moonshot had just outright stolen the weights from Fable somehow, clearly that wouldn't be contributing anything really new or novel. Now of course they've distilled rather than stolen, but the point is similar: how much value have they added along the way?

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

#632

Post by stratos123 »

laweijfmvo wrote: post #432

if its that simple, why doesn’t Anthropic just distill its own models and release Fable 5.1, 5.2, ...?

Distillation lets you train a comparable model for a fraction of the cost (it's effectively a way to get a lot of very-high-quality training data). If you're already at the frontier, pushing it requires the ordinary, expensive kind of training.

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

#633

Post by stratos123 »

nmeofthestate wrote: post #246

Weird 'discussion'. Almost entirely single messages with no threads, all with the same anti-Anthropic/AI position.

Yeah, some AI-related posts on HN are strange. It might be real people coming to gloat whenever they see a title they like, but I sure hope somebody is checking whether they are real people.

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

#635

Post by optionalsquid »

smeeth wrote: post #206
Dylan16807 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, when it specifically comes to copying, I don't think it's bad to copy a copier. (And by that I mean Anthropic has no valid complaints against Moonshot. Any valid complaints from anyone in the original corpus are valid against both of them now.) In this way, it is different from literal theft. Stealing money/objects from a thief and keeping them is not justified.

It's a little different in this case, since 1) not all the data Ant used was stolen and 2) they did contribute significantly to the value of the stolen good. An analogy might be a baker stole 20% of the flour used to bake their special bread, which was then stolen. Both thefts are obviously wrong and bad.

The exact same argument could be made in Moonshot's favor.

Being a bit tongue in cheek, one could also argue that by releasing their models, Moonshot is contributing much more value than Anthrophic. Did Prometheus not create an immense amount of value, when he took fire from the hands of the Gods and gave it to humans?

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

#637

Post by sph »

analognoise wrote: post #599
breppp wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The USA?

A KGB spy and a CIA agent meet up in a bar for a friendly drink "I have to admit, I'm always so impressed by Soviet propaganda. You really know how to get people worked up," the CIA agent says.

"Thank you," the KGB says. "We do our best but truly, it's nothing compared to American propaganda. Your people believe everything your state media tells them."

The CIA agent drops his drink in shock and disgust. "Thank you friend, but you must be confused... There's no propaganda in America."

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

#638

Post by cloudie78 »

Okay, and?

We have information that all the big labs used copyrighted works for training.

The big boy labs wanna cry now about distillation? Training an LLM is distillation too.

Or are they crying because they don’t actually have a moat and they want Uncle Sam to step in somehow, lest the entire bubble pops and economy unwinds?

Here’s a lesson from the automotive industry, people want econoboxes not formula 1 cars.

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

#639

Post by boesboes »

tristanj wrote: post #585
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Moonshot more than enough time Genuine question: do you have a source for how long distilling Fable would take with preparation?

Moonshot already has at least several million exchanges distilled from Claude that they obtained over the past year https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dist... . So they have the infrastructure already set up to do this. Re-running their existing distillation suite on the new Fable endpoint would be trivial. Given that Fable was available for 72 hours back in June, I asked GPT-5.6 Sol to estimate…

What do you base that 1-2 million on? Sounds like complete horseshit imo

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

#640

Post by ffsm8 »

hungryhobbit wrote: post #262
ffsm8 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So having tons of AIs quoting various literary works and reproducing knock-offs of them has a positive effect on those books' sales? I think you're wrong: there is absolutely damage to the authors and publishers from what the AI companies have done.

? I literally said that, how am I wrong?

> You can only argue with damages from the perspective of potential profits, still not theft though.

Damages are not deprival of ownership. They're conceptually related but orthogonal

Also there was no moral judgement from my end, I just pointed out that an incorrect word is being applied. It's just not theft - by definition. But language is a fluid concept and definitions change over time. As people keep misusing it, it will eventually lose its original meaning. Which may have already happened for you, but this change hasn't been settled yet as can be seen from looking at the official definitions of the term, which as of today still mention the criteria

Post reply on HN