"Recovery" would be a more apt (although less catchy name). The stealing is on the provider side for not giving you access to tokens you already paid for.
Stealing Reasoning Traces from Proprietary LLM APIs
121–130 of 325 posts
Re: Stealing Reasoning Traces from Proprietary LLM APIs
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any word can be applied to any concept with any meaning thanks to the fluidity of vernacular. Language is all just sounds and markings. Anything can be redefined to mean anything, and anyone can decide to aggressively assert their preferred definition of a word.
Words can change meaning, but whether or not they actually do is a social function of how they are observably used. Words can also have multiple meanings concurrently. When it comes to the word "steal" in these discussions, people generally are arguing past each other in regards to the single definition they're thinking of. Of course, you can assert that the meaning of "steal" only applies to physical items. You are…
> people generally are arguing past each other in regards to the single definition they're thinking of.
It's more than that. By claiming that copyright infringement isn't stealing, they're usually doing so to justify such behavior: if the original thing remains with the owner, it couldn't have harmed him, could it?
Re: Stealing Reasoning Traces from Proprietary LLM APIs
#123TIL it actually sends the traces. I had assumed this is entirely server side
Re: Stealing Reasoning Traces from Proprietary LLM APIs
#124I can’t believe they don’t validate a decrypted signature belongs to the user or use a unique encryption key per user/session.
Re: Stealing Reasoning Traces from Proprietary LLM APIs
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
Words can change meaning, but whether or not they actually do is a social function of how they are observably used. Words can also have multiple meanings concurrently. When it comes to the word "steal" in these discussions, people generally are arguing past each other in regards to the single definition they're thinking of. Of course, you can assert that the meaning of "steal" only applies to physical items. You are…
> people generally are arguing past each other in regards to the single definition they're thinking of. It's more than that. By claiming that copyright infringement isn't stealing, they're usually doing so to justify such behavior: if the original thing remains with the owner, it couldn't have harmed him, could it?
Maybe but I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially when the argument at face value is factually incorrect.
Re: Stealing Reasoning Traces from Proprietary LLM APIs
#126> 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…
All LLM benchmarks have an expiration date once they're released to the public. They get spread so far and wide across the internet and GitHub that you have to assume they're in the training data for every LLM with a cutoff date after their release.
The real question is whether or not the training was directed to optimize for those benchmarks.
The technique doesn't guarantee that the reasoning is returned verbatim because it relies on the weaker model transcribing it accurately. Looking at the charts, there are a lot of dots that aren't in the 1:1 line that suggests that the output is exactly what was provided.
Re: Stealing Reasoning Traces from Proprietary LLM APIs
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even copyrighted information can never be "stolen". It can only copied without authorization.
Stealing is not a word that applies only to physical objects.
Please provide an example of an action legally considered "stealing" that does not involve stealing physical objects.
Re: Stealing Reasoning Traces from Proprietary LLM APIs
#128I really like this website
Re: Stealing Reasoning Traces from Proprietary LLM APIs
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
Words can change meaning, but whether or not they actually do is a social function of how they are observably used. Words can also have multiple meanings concurrently. When it comes to the word "steal" in these discussions, people generally are arguing past each other in regards to the single definition they're thinking of. Of course, you can assert that the meaning of "steal" only applies to physical items. You are…
> people generally are arguing past each other in regards to the single definition they're thinking of. It's more than that. By claiming that copyright infringement isn't stealing, they're usually doing so to justify such behavior: if the original thing remains with the owner, it couldn't have harmed him, could it?
By conflating unauthorized copying with stealing, they're usually doing so to justify excessive punishment. If the owner lost what they had, they were obviously harmed, right?
Re: Stealing Reasoning Traces from Proprietary LLM APIs
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
> people generally are arguing past each other in regards to the single definition they're thinking of. It's more than that. By claiming that copyright infringement isn't stealing, they're usually doing so to justify such behavior: if the original thing remains with the owner, it couldn't have harmed him, could it?
By conflating unauthorized copying with stealing, they're usually doing so to justify excessive punishment. If the owner lost what they had, they were obviously harmed, right?
Property rights are about control, not about physical objects. Never has been. By committing copyright infringement, trespassing, or, yes, stealing, you're asserting for yourself the privilege to take something that doesn't belong to you (exclusive control) from someone else.