Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Moonshot serves Claude instead of Kimi and collects exchanges for model training

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 74 posts

Re: Moonshot serves Claude instead of Kimi and collects exchanges for model training

#31

Post by nacs »

applicative wrote: post #26
nacs wrote: post #5

Claude/OpenAI etc have taken and continue to take literally all data from the internet, printed books, image, audio, and video humans have created in all of existence without permission to train their models. But when same AI company gets "distilled" or it's own AI-generated content used to train other models, it's suddenly immoral or illegal?

If you put text ‘on the internet’ you do indeed actively permit others to get it. Why lie? Were you burning down archive.org in years past? Then why lie? It is moreover established that training weights on basically anything is legitimate use. Why repeat lie after lie like this? I don’t like LLM mania either but after reading the ten millionth mind-numbing insult to HN intelligence like this I have to think my mother…

Intended to be publicly accessible internet content, I have no problem with.

But are you ignoring the literal scanning (and 'burning down' of books) that Anthropic has been found guilty of? Or the torrenting of pirated content en-masse by Meta that there is an active lawsuit over to name just 2 recent examples?

Look at the image and audio/video models especially - they can reproduce everything from Mickey Mouse (the copyrighted one) to making entire Seinfeld episodes with the real cast (both visual likeness and even the actor's voices).

Re: Moonshot serves Claude instead of Kimi and collects exchanges for model training

#32

Post by gpt5 »

wongarsu wrote: post #29
nacs wrote: post #5

Claude/OpenAI etc have taken and continue to take literally all data from the internet, printed books, image, audio, and video humans have created in all of existence without permission to train their models. But when same AI company gets "distilled" or it's own AI-generated content used to train other models, it's suddenly immoral or illegal?

If Moonshot offered a "mystery model" tier with a note that my requests might reach whomever, I would have zero qualms about this Pretending to customers like they are serving Kimi while actually proxying Claude is however a bad thing to do, bordering on fraud. I can see at least three issues - data privacy. I might not want Anthropic to have my data. Even agreeing to Moonshot training on the data is not the same as…

If this was a regular topic on an American company so blatantly violating user data and lying, people would be pissed.

Unfortunately, hacker news is being so heavily astroturfed that I counted dozens of comments just justifying this behavior appearing very quickly as this post appeared on the front page, together with its position being clearly suppressed.

Re: Moonshot serves Claude instead of Kimi and collects exchanges for model training

#33

Post by applicative »

rsstack wrote: post #15
mrngld wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People keep saying this without attribution. Meta and others got caught, and brought into court, over using torrented files. But those models trained on that data have long since been retired and replaced with new models based on new from-scratch training runs. OpenAI, Anthropic, etc all pay studios, newspapers, Reddit and others for access to data for training. They scrape the open web, but if that's illegal a court…

> they seem to be buying physical copies and scanning. Seems legit, that's what a human would do to learn from a book There’s still the open question on learn vs copy/mimic/repeat. As a human, I can read a book I bought. I’m definitely not allowed to scan it and post its pages online and upload them to an archive of scanned PDFs without the authors’ and publishers’ permission. IIRC the Meta legal case wasn’t even abo…

The topic was training. You cropped text to change it. Maybe consider integrity.

Re: Moonshot serves Claude instead of Kimi and collects exchanges for model training

#34

Post by cyberpunk »

wat10000 wrote: post #25
cyberpunk wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you can buy a book, scan it, and upload the counts of every letter, distribution of apostophies, use it as the input to some convoluted process to produce weights or a search index though. They got slapped for illegally obtaining the files, not for producing derivative works of them. distilling another llm is a clear tos violation but no one really knows how much teeth those have. financially probably none all they c…

Not sure what part of my comment this is meant to address. I explicitly acknowledged that the law seems to consider this to be legal. My point is that if it's legal to feed random web sites into the training system, why would it not also be legal to feed competitors' model outputs into it?

Because it’s TOS violation. Anthropic have no agreed tos with the websites they’re scraping. The accounts being used to distill Anthropic’s models are all bound by their terms

Re: Moonshot serves Claude instead of Kimi and collects exchanges for model training

#35

Post by Dlemlo »

nacs wrote: post #5

Claude/OpenAI etc have taken and continue to take literally all data from the internet, printed books, image, audio, and video humans have created in all of existence without permission to train their models. But when same AI company gets "distilled" or it's own AI-generated content used to train other models, it's suddenly immoral or illegal?

Its a tweet of someone who got rich at meta. Their moral compas is between their paycheck and the next paycheck.

Re: Moonshot serves Claude instead of Kimi and collects exchanges for model training

#36

Post by ratelimitsteve »

nacs wrote: post #5

Claude/OpenAI etc have taken and continue to take literally all data from the internet, printed books, image, audio, and video humans have created in all of existence without permission to train their models. But when same AI company gets "distilled" or it's own AI-generated content used to train other models, it's suddenly immoral or illegal?

no matter how shitty OpenAI is I don't want to be lied to. Completely separate issues.

Re: Moonshot serves Claude instead of Kimi and collects exchanges for model training

#37

Post by rsstack »

applicative wrote: post #33
rsstack wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they seem to be buying physical copies and scanning. Seems legit, that's what a human would do to learn from a book There’s still the open question on learn vs copy/mimic/repeat. As a human, I can read a book I bought. I’m definitely not allowed to scan it and post its pages online and upload them to an archive of scanned PDFs without the authors’ and publishers’ permission. IIRC the Meta legal case wasn’t even abo…

The topic was training. You cropped text to change it. Maybe consider integrity.

Which part from the cropped text do you think changes anything?

Re: Moonshot serves Claude instead of Kimi and collects exchanges for model training

#38

Post by applicative »

nacs wrote: post #31
applicative wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you put text ‘on the internet’ you do indeed actively permit others to get it. Why lie? Were you burning down archive.org in years past? Then why lie? It is moreover established that training weights on basically anything is legitimate use. Why repeat lie after lie like this? I don’t like LLM mania either but after reading the ten millionth mind-numbing insult to HN intelligence like this I have to think my mother…

Intended to be publicly accessible internet content, I have no problem with. But are you ignoring the literal scanning (and 'burning down' of books) that Anthropic has been found guilty of? Or the torrenting of pirated content en-masse by Meta that there is an active lawsuit over to name just 2 recent examples? Look at the image and audio/video models especially - they can reproduce everything from Mickey Mouse (the…

The scanning you are talking about is a direct response to court rulings on exactly these matters. The action m is legitimate and above legal criticism. Dismal as it might be it is the fruit of legal criticism. In a word, it’s your fault.

Re: Moonshot serves Claude instead of Kimi and collects exchanges for model training

#39

Post by villish »

esafak wrote: post #22
mrngld wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People keep saying this without attribution. Meta and others got caught, and brought into court, over using torrented files. But those models trained on that data have long since been retired and replaced with new models based on new from-scratch training runs. OpenAI, Anthropic, etc all pay studios, newspapers, Reddit and others for access to data for training. They scrape the open web, but if that's illegal a court…

If American AI labs can learn from the open web why can't Chinese AI labs learn from American ones?? The argument is that learning and distillation are transformative and legal, is it not?? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Except they use thousands of stolen credentials which is definitely not legal. They also don’t notify users they send data to US labs which can include sensitive information.

EU labs like mistral cannot legally do any of these things. So people cheerleading China for it is strange.

Re: Moonshot serves Claude instead of Kimi and collects exchanges for model training

#40

Post by tomasphan »

gpt5 wrote: post #32
wongarsu wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Moonshot offered a "mystery model" tier with a note that my requests might reach whomever, I would have zero qualms about this Pretending to customers like they are serving Kimi while actually proxying Claude is however a bad thing to do, bordering on fraud. I can see at least three issues - data privacy. I might not want Anthropic to have my data. Even agreeing to Moonshot training on the data is not the same as…

If this was a regular topic on an American company so blatantly violating user data and lying, people would be pissed. Unfortunately, hacker news is being so heavily astroturfed that I counted dozens of comments just justifying this behavior appearing very quickly as this post appeared on the front page, together with its position being clearly suppressed.

I agree with you, but suggesting Astroturf is apparently against the rules here. I like it because it needs less water for football fields.
Post reply on HN