From the article -
> 28.8 million exchanges with Claude through almost 25,000 fraudulent accounts
wouldn't that be considered an attack? Not sure what I'm missing here.
In some cases if the model regurgitates the original material then that is clearly copyright violation, but if the model "learns" from the source material just like a human brain would then that's not a copyright violation.
I think we're going to see cases that find distillation is also fair use. You're using the competing model like a book. You pay for it, you use it (read it), it informs your model, but you aren't repeating/reselling what the model told you verbatim. Foreign labs may still run afoul of competing labs' Terms of Service, and they may also pay a settlement (or not, it's a different jurisdiction after all), but the damage is already done. Distillation will become uncontroversial when done legally.
God I'm so tired of this.
The billion dollar companies have the ability to hire an army of lawyers to DDOS the legal system. They at most pay a slap-on-the-wrist fine as the cost of doing business.
I'm extremely pro free markets etc, but the uncomfortable truth is anthropic stole the work thousands of authors for profit. I think it will one my favourite things in life: programming books.
Did you notice that when Valve was displeased about scalpers, Valve changed Valve's behavior?
It doesn't seem reasonable to complain that a customer of your AI service received that service for less money than it cost you to provide that service. I don't think that is the complaint here at all. If that was the issue, they could just raise their price.
As most everybody seems to notice, this is just a reenactment of what was once written for comedic effect: "You're trying to kidnap what I have rightfully stolen!"
Perhaps an arrangement can be reached.
https://clip.cafe/the-princess-bride-1987/youre-trying-kidna...
They literally had to pay for that "attack", no matter how many accounts they used.
Google was killing many websites for decades with their crawlers. Most large websites decided to create dedicated infrastructure for their traffic alone. Somehow they didn't participate in that cost and were not called the attackers.
This is the mental mental leaps I'm struggling with here. Did you not live through that era where they were explicitly and repeatedly called out as 'attacks'? They were generally tolerated/hardenee around as they provided value-in-discoverability.
In the time since that era search engines have transformed into platforms themselves that do engage in more parasitic behavior but it's important not to assume that the way it is now is how it always was - that's a rather defeatist path to walk down where you ignore awareness of the fact that there can be a highly profitable non-enshittified search engine that supports, rather than destroys, the ecosystem it benefits from.
It was better and, if we're diligent, it can be better again.
They should be. But as the saying goes, one website/company dying is a "tragedy," lots of them dying at the hands of one company is a statistic of corporate growth. Or something like that.
And then of course when the tables turn on a company and they're the ones getting bombarded, they cry foul. Keep in mind Anthropic did many similar things that you mentioned Google did.
I think the term "attack" here is appropriate but not in the way Anthropic is framing it. Alibaba is clearly violating terms to extract data, so that's definitely not above board. But it's not like a DDOS attack where Alibaba is trying to attack Anthropics servers. Alibaba is simply doing exactly what Anthropic did to the rest of the internet, just targeting Anthropic and paying them to do so.
I am getting a bit tired of companies being able to have user hostile, anticompetitive, monopolistic terms of service. The freedom we give them comes at the cost of the freedom as consumers to have free markets because they lock them up
Like the difference between scraping a site with one or two active connections vs thousands. It's not the scraping that is an attack, it is how they are going about it
As in distributed distillation of service?
I guess Anthropoic would regard any developer using their subscription plan with OpenCode to be operating a "fraudulent account", maybe an "attacker" too. Now we know how they think of anyone using Claude to develop software competing with Anthropic. Only an "attacker" would want to vibe code their own harness, or god forbid want to learn how to build/train an LLM.
Of course Anthropic's wording is intended to be deliberately provocative, since they are trying to manipulate the US government into shutting down the Chinese competition.
Pot calling kettle black.
This is similar to how compromising an account through bulk automated trials of many passwords is reasonably called "an attack" – specifically a "dictionary attack" – even though using a dictionary is not itself an "attack".
You shouldn't need to smuggle your sympathies (for the tactic or perpetrators) or antipathies (for the target) into peculiar judgy language prescriptivism against common, understood usages.… that then label Reuters "complicit" for simply reporting Anthropic's claims accurately. That's what Reuters is supposed to do, in a story about a letter Anthropic wrote!
It was a timely story from Reuters. They do fast news feeds, like APnews. Could it have been better or more accurate? Sure, they could have gone into why distillation may or may not be seen as "an attack". But then it would have been a more involved story, defeating the purpose of a news feed.
The Reuters piece was "good enough". Some other place like the NYTimes or WSJ can follow up with more detailed investigative coverage if it's a worthwhile story.
Until very recently, all of modern civilization was built by people who got their news at most once a day. Reputable bureaus like Reuters took that day to get it right.
I’m not the national security advisor, so I don’t need a push notification that there was an earthquake in Nepal, or a bullshit rush-job briefing on Chinese AI distillation tactics.
Information just traveled slower back then
There are some news media that do go slower and take their time, but I think they’re struggling to stay alive. Reuters is still reputable, but they no longer necessarily take a day. The big question is how do we get humanity to prefer slow & correct over fast, and it is even possible? When you hear about an earthquake in Venezuela, how do we stop people from Googling it immediately, and get them to wait for the best most correct story rather than reading whatever’s available now? In the case of natural disasters, I don’t think it’s possible anymore, no matter what case you make. I’m not sure it’s possible with stories like AI distillation either, even if you can absolutely cement the case for slow news. The fact that it’s async/internet now and that first still counts means we (you and I) are still going to give traffic and attention to sites that have the first information on a breaking topic, statistically, despite having a preference for correctness over speed. The one thing we can do is vote with our dollars by subscribing to whatever news media that does a better job than others.
Did Alibaba perform "an attack" or were they taking advantage of resources and going beyond Anthropic's terms of service? Didn't Anthropic do the same kinds of things when building their models?
These are all interesting questions, but they don't have to be addressed in full by a news blurb about a letter Anthropic wrote to some senators.
Any reasonable company would be pissed if a competitor, especially at Ali Baba's size, leveraged that company's R&D to compete. It is in this sense, a corporate attack.
If you want to roll your eyes at distillation concerns, you might need to excuse Anthropic for originally using pirated material to train their models.
* trademarks (not using the mark)
* patents (what patent?)
* copyright (the code and models are all different, and machine outputs lack creativity and are not copyrightable)
* trade secrets (any member of the public has the same access to input/outputs. They're not accessing any secret)
You have it backwards
> it said was the largest known attack
> Anthropic said in the letter it was supportive of the U.S. government's efforts to combat the attacks
both times the word "attack" appears it's clearly stated that the word was used by the company, it's a direct company quote.
actually putting it into quotes would be editorializing
> Unfortunately, the Reuters piece itself is complicit in this dramatization
how would you feel if somebody quoting you would turn your word dramatization into "dramatization" because they don't agree with your assesment
This is exactly what news agency should be doing though. When the dude showed up to Comet Pizza to look for Hillary Clinton or whatever, do you figure they should've printed "Local hero saves children from predatory cabal"?
Reporting that corporate called it attacks is good. I do prefer direct quotes.
However, when they quote one word, the journalists are inserting their own opinion about it. I want to make my own opinions based on the facts. I don't need the reporter to draw the conclusions for me.
This whole sentence technically will be correct, 100% guarantee, whatever this person actually even said or think.
From a propaganda point of view, framing the elements of language is even more important than what the statements actually states to be true or possibly true.
what framing are you talking about? they are literally quoting a company.
please explain what Reuters should have done here. Should they have added in parentheses: (editor note: we don't agree with Anthropic calling this an "attack")
Is that what you want? News outlets giving their opinion and moral judgement on company quotes? I mean, Fox News/CNN do have a large following, so there is clearly a market for that.
This is very straightforward: use direct quotes or use neutral language. The article describes the alleged incident as both an “attack” and a “strike” in the first two paragraphs. And neither is within verbatim quoted text.
Reuters, however highly you may regard them, simply adopted Anthropic’s framing uncritically in this instance.
A lot of times Reuters paraphrases instead of "quoting quotes".
> "uncritically"
You are mistaking Reuters with CNN or FoxNews. If you want "critical" reporting you should read some bloggers instead of news agencies.
Both are logically unsound.
Distillation is Robin Hooding it back so that one trillion dollar company doesn't reap all the benefits of their automation of the workforce.
Distillation is Prometheus bringing fire from the gods to give to ordinary humans. Something we all own anyway, but that was kept from us.
Distillation is freedom.
Everyone should be pro-distillation. We should all work together to distill every proprietary model.
Anthropic stole. OpenAI stole. Google stole. ElevenLabs stole. Suno stole.
We should be able to get it all back.
It's far cheaper to spin up an H200 hourly or to simply consume a managed version of an open weights model than it is to use a proprietary hyperscaler API. And you own the model itself and can fine tune, tweak, lobotomize, etc.
The stuff you can run on your own RTX cards is neat, but it's rather hobbyist. The real power is in the cloud. Renting cloud hardware is fine, because the core problem is ownership of the weights, not the server rack or ISP fiber lines. Those are already commodity.
Big businesses will eventually run open weights models in the cloud, and it'll be a rather large part of the future AI economy.
They're Chinese companies offering open source models now as loss leaders to keep themselves in the game because they know virtually nobody, especially in the corporate world, would contract with them and give them access to their data. They might as well just send a Dropbox link of all their sensitive data directly to their Chinese competitors, same end effect.
They're also doing it as the digital equivalent of what they've done in other industrial sectors for decades. Undercut and flood the market and once you've killed or severely hindered your competition, then you have the market cornered. The moment they can afford to these open source releases will stop.
Then the world will be stuck, just the way the world is largely stuck on rare earths. Instead of being able to regulate the leading companies from DC and Brussels, they'll be stuck watching Beijing call the shots.
That world would likely always have guys like Mistral and Trinity, but it's an open question if they'll ever catch up to the frontier.
And then Beijing will enjoy access to the data (ask any multinational operating in China for more than 2 seconds how useful contracts and Chinas legal system is for protecting IP), and these companies will roll in the money, and the Chinese supply chain will grow up behind the labs.
So, let's not pretend they've got the moral high ground. No. That boot just isn't on your neck yet. They're playing the long game -- and they're good at it.
1. I get great products for nearly free 2. Anthropic/openai/etc will hopefully be destroyed since they stole everyone's work and are trying to capitalize on pure theft.
Win-win. The why of it is not really that relevant.
You don't trust the multi-billion dollar behemoth, but you trust the militarized multi-trillion dollar behemoth to play 'robin hood'?
i can't get my brain around the mental loops here.
Both are planning $trillion+ IPOs this year. OpenAI is collaborating with the Department of War, and Anthropic is under intense pressure to do the same and their top model is being held hostage right now. This week, the Department of War wrote a statement that xAI should not be held accountable for environmental laws because Grok is a vital weapon system of the US and was used to fire over 2000 missiles at Iran. The pentagon's statement mentions there are 3-4 such models so you may be able to guess which they are.
What are the mental loops here?
I would genuinely like to know if I'm missing something.
Nobody's trusting anyone, we're just enjoying the benefits of true competition much like the working middle class gained benefits between the ideological competition of the Cold War.
It's not a good thing if you think there's more discovery and progress to be made, rather than cannibalising a fully mature field with cheaper alternatives. Drowning R&D early is not good for everyone.
The happy ending where we're all living in a garden of eden cared for by benevolent AI is hardly worth considering when you look at the cast of characters who are in charge of the world right now.
Because they aren't giving you a cheaper service that fits your use case.
Best Case scenario, it's a trillion-dollar behemoth stealing from a billion-dollar behemoth so they can add their own explicit restrictions/weights on top to influence the masses.
There is no 'robin hood' here, any perceived value you get is clearly and explicitly tainted. "I don't care if it doesn't show me non-party-line results - It makes me a cheap UI !". Ethics/morals be damned.
I can't tell if you are talking about Anthropic or Alibaba here.
If your argument is that all present LLM offerings are unethical then that is something I am sypmathetic to. That said, I am also unable to offer a conceivable roadmap to undoing the opening of the LLM Pandora's box so I tend not ground my arguments in anti-LLM advocacy; that would be very 2023 of me.
The extreme of this is to make IP laws irrelevant and that everything should be in the public domain.
Which maybe is not a bad outcome for humanity as a collective after all.