Anthropic says Alibaba illicitly extracted Claude AI model capabilities

Post by AdieuToLogic » Thu, Jun 25, 2026, 4:02 AM UTC

ninefathom wrote: post #6

drillsteps5 wrote: post #3

I'm looking forward to the trial where Anthropic will have to disclose sources of their training data, and then explain why they are entitled to charging customers for using regurgitated training data but Alibaba which trains their models on Anthropic's models are not. Should be fun. Edit: clarification

While I love the sentiment, I feel like the odds of this actually ever reaching a trial are low, given the international positioning of the parties, and the... um... complex relationships involved. Anthropic's actions seem performative. Others have already speculated on the likely audience(s).

  In June 2025, Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District 
  Court for the Northern District of California ruled on 
  summary judgment that using books without permission to 
  train AI was fair use if they were acquired legally, but he 
  denied Anthropic’s request for summary judgment related to 
  piracy—finding that the piracy was not fair use.[1]

Post by MagicMoonlight » Thu, Jun 25, 2026, 4:02 AM UTC

reasonableklout wrote: post #241

guybedo wrote: post #139

This is a bit ironic, Anthropic complaining about a competitor using claude data to build its own product when Anthropic basically used all of human knowledge production to build claude, i don't think they paid every magazine, author, journalist, etc ... This is almost standard practice in any competitive industry anyways. Disassemble your competitor's product, study it and try to reproduce / improve.

Anthropic did pay $1.5B to authors. But yes, it would be much better if they paid everyone on the internet dividends from every Claude chat. Or released Claude as an open model. In practice, the former isn't very realistic, while the latter is politically dead as this is becoming a national security issue.

Post by LtWorf » Thu, Jun 25, 2026, 4:04 AM UTC

andsoitis wrote: post #215

roenxi wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the vague impression that this was written in a sarcastic way, but it has a straightforwardly true literal read because yes, this is what the free market is about and Anthropic will have to compete with the Chinese if they want a big share of the market. Chinese models are cheap and good; even without reselling Anthropic's services they're competitive. Which reading did you intend? And, gotta say, the idea that…

> the idea that the Chinese are better at selling US models than the Americans is hilarious This is not the right deduction. China blocks foreign AI from operating there.

Post by majormajor » Thu, Jun 25, 2026, 4:05 AM UTC

XenophileJKO wrote: post #188

Mistletoe wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI was always going to be a race to the bottom and low margins. It’s why I’m extremely bearish on AI as an investment. It’s framed as some high margin business when it’s really going to end up like your toilet paper at Costco. You will use whatever is cheapest and gets the job done.

I used to think this.. but I think my opinion is changing. The reason is that the leaders likely will be able to accelerate faster. So what you see is the market "stretching".. the bottom getting cheaper and the top end running away and getting more expensive. At some point the top end may be too valuable to even sell access to.

Post by LtWorf » Thu, Jun 25, 2026, 4:09 AM UTC

skybrian wrote: post #126

gaiagraphia wrote: post #115

This is great for competition! Chinese vendors offering a cheaper solution = what economics told me the free market was all about. I also learnt that Anthropic should get better at what they do if they want to compete. If not, somebody else will win. Or does this not apply to huge US corporations any more?

I guess you missed the fraud part.