51–60 of 325 posts
No surprise here but good to have more confirmation that they just put all that in the training data. And based on the "reasoning", the models have some form of index of those problems (or they are HEAVILY trained on them).
The problem with this kind of excellent work is that the response to it is always to say "Fuck the user". For example, when there was a paper that came out showing that having model logprobs makes distillation an order of magnitude easier, the closed LLM providers instantly yanked out support for getting the full logprobs at every time step. You get at most top 10 candidates now and I'm sure even that's on the choppi…
Is this how the eastern labs "distill" SOTA models? If you can play it right, you don't even need to send suspicious prompts to the frontier models. Just use them for regular tasks, extract the encrypted COT blocks and replay it to a cheaper model to get the plain text COT. But the real question is: Is it okay to steal from a thief's hoard?
The reasoning blocks are not stolen/mined from the internet at large directly. They’re the result of a lot of research, time, money, and expertise into creating a reasoning model. To me the answer is quite clearly no, especially when the encrypted blocks demonstrate they want to protect it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, this storage would be growing exponentially making the disk space and latency problems harder (add the disaster recovery/backups). I think the choice of using client side is not too bad if you ensure that its secured properly. Also the company can excuse itself from the liability of storing sensitive data on its servers, thats a big deal in itself to be compliant for enterprise audits 1. The down side is that it…
Having thought about this a little more, it's clear that server-side storage is not compatible with Zero Data Retention (ZDR). However, in non-ZDR settings, it seems likely that the providers are capturing all that data anyway? > a per user key would have solved this issue for sure It would have helped with PII leakage, but not with plain-text trace extraction attacks, right?
The compliance rules at times are outdated and people skirt around them by following the worded rule instead of the intent.
Is this how the eastern labs "distill" SOTA models? If you can play it right, you don't even need to send suspicious prompts to the frontier models. Just use them for regular tasks, extract the encrypted COT blocks and replay it to a cheaper model to get the plain text COT. But the real question is: Is it okay to steal from a thief's hoard?
> For some AIME problems Opus 4.8 sometimes states the answer before deriving it. We find that the API summary does not always preserve this distinction, and can instead make the reasoning appear like a clean derivation. No surprise here but good to have more confirmation that they just put all that in the training data. And based on the "reasoning", the models have some form of index of those problems (or they are H…
At least in the EU there is no copyright for LLM outputs, so I guess all they might do is violate the terms of service.
Is this how the eastern labs "distill" SOTA models? If you can play it right, you don't even need to send suspicious prompts to the frontier models. Just use them for regular tasks, extract the encrypted COT blocks and replay it to a cheaper model to get the plain text COT. But the real question is: Is it okay to steal from a thief's hoard?
> But the real question is: Is it okay to steal By definition it cannot be stealing since you're paying for the tokens. It may be against their ToS, depending on what you end up doing with those tokens, but it cannot be stealing. If they charge by the token, all your tokens are belong to you :) I also find it very strange that everyone sort of accepts their ToS like no big deal. Imagine MS using the same terms for th…