271–280 of 325 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also have made a big deal about how what they did to build their models is not stealing. And we all know that's bullshit.
No, we actually don’t all know that.
Apparently you can do the same by simply running it without reasoning, while giving it a thinking tool... >guys you do know you can just disable thinking, and instead give it a "deep_think" tool, and it will call it with internal CoT reasoning format right? >gl fixing that https://x.com/_can1357/status/2087228354399265125?s=20
The model is finetuned to enter/leave its thinking mode using special token separators. there's no reason to assume the tool calls induce the same token distribution or produce the model's actual native reasoning trace
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but the current one is charged per token in & token out. Not per completion / task / hour / whatever. You can't charge per token and then say "you stole that token". Again, they can unilaterally decide not to sell you tokens anymore, at any time, for any (legal) reason. But as it stands right now, it can't be stealing.
Read the TOS. It can absolutely be stealing. Are you a lawyer?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn’t the concern of the LLM. Regardless of where the encryption/decryption is happening, the issue is that the LLM needs to access the raw CoT.
Again I don’t think you’re really getting at what I am asking. Sorry. My whole point was why does the LLM have access of decrypting. It should happen outside of the LLM layer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read it in the context. The “made up” wasn’t a general statement. No one argues stealing doesn’t exist at all. My friend’s bike was stolen. What’s made up is application of this word to situations that are incompatible with what stealing is supposed to mean. Compare this to “the smell of soup and the sound of money” type “theft”.
"copying is not theft/ stealing a thing leaves one less left/ copying it makes one thing more/ that's what copying's for"
Copy vs move is IMHO accurate semantics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suppose you hired a consulting firm to write a report, and they delivered the report but not the internal conversations they had when developing it. You exploit a vulnerability in their phone system to get those conversations. You can argue over semantics of whether “theft” is what you did, maybe the right word is “espionage” or “spying”, but that either way we probably agree you are guilty of something? Paying for t…
I think a more fair comparison would be that you hired a consulting firm to create a report and give you a summary of it, but you’re charged for the report itself separately from the summary, and you are not allowed to access the unsummarized report.
> but you’re charged for the report itself separately from the summary, and you are not allowed to access the unsummarized report
This analogy works if the LLM provider promises you access to the reasoning tokens, and fails if they don’t.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They definitely stole the data to make the models, but they do not say that they stole the data to make the models, but they do say that others using their outputs for unauthorized purposes is stealing. Do you see the point?
Crawling the internet and dumping it to disk is not "stealing".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also have made a big deal about how what they did to build their models is not stealing. And we all know that's bullshit.
No, we actually don’t all know that.
"Stealing" something you already paid for (tokens), but that you can't have access to(!). And trained on the sum of human knowledge. Training on other model outputs ought to be business as usual, stop using morally charged terms made up by future monopolists: https://thomasdullien.github.io/posts/2026-06-15-rl-economic...
No, you paid for the end result. The thought process is a step in between, a function. Think about it, who should get charged if the answer you received comes from a cache? Thinking tokens are the complexity-of-the-problem cost. I mean, you may not agree but both are valid points of view.