upvote
I'd kindly suggest that we could also stop calling them "distillation attacks".
reply
Agreed. I think when it comes to light that Claude has been known to say “I’m DeepSeek” that everyone has had their hand in that cookie jar. Moreover, paying for API calls hardly seems like an attack; ToS violation to be certain but not in the same category of law as criminal activity like hacking.
reply
wait, is there evidence of this? I've not observed it. It sounds like the kind of thing that I want to be true because it would be hilarious but that makes me suspicious.
reply
LLMs can't reliably answer what they are (w/o getting that info from system prompt/tool call/etc), so yea.

https://xcancel.com/teortaxesTex/status/2026130112685416881

I think I've seen same happening with some European languages as well.

reply
Ask it in Chinese
reply
Agreed, "distilled variants" might be more suitable.
reply
Calling them variants is also inaccurate when the pretrained base and architecture are completely different.
reply
Why on earth wouldn't you? It's clearly a forcible, aggressive, non-consensual attempt to take something. That's an attack in any other terms. It's totally fair if you approve of the attack, and want the attack to succeed. But your preference doesn't stop it from being what it is.
reply
> It's clearly a forcible, aggressive, non-consensual attempt to take something

Distillers are not taking anything, they are just making their model learn from better ones - isn't that the whole AI training doesn't violate IP argument?

They just aren't using the tool in compliance with the terms of service. Anthropic could ban them or take them to court maybe. Not an attack still.

reply
We could call it distillation learning

A model is teaching another here

Everyone wins

reply
Fine, then let's refer to the initial data collection/training as 'compilation attacks' going forward.

...or maybe we stop defaulting to adversarial paradigms for every conceivable situation.

reply
"They are using and paying for an API I am selling...But they save the data and use it for something I don't like! I'm being attacked."
reply
False dichotomy right?

Are Chinese labs impressively innovating? Clearly.

However this doesn’t rule out possible gains due to distillation.

I don’t know the degree of the latter but both things could certainly be true.

reply
Didn't Anthropic train on our collective data just to sell it back to us for $100/month? On top of that, Apple is suing them over alleged IP and trade secret theft by ex-Apple employees. Hard to feel too sympathetic, and I’m not an Anthropic hater in particular…
reply
That Apple lawsuit is against OpenAi, just for clarity
reply
Wow, I should never comment first thing in the morning... Thanks for the correction, you’re right. I will see if I can still edit my comment.
reply
Did Kimi or other open source models use a different corpus? Why is your animus directed specifically to Anthropic?
reply
The only data-related lawsuit Anthropic got was the books nah ? And they paid only a minor part as paid agreement compared to what they would have paid losing the trial
reply
Yep, that second part of my comment was an article I read about OpenAI and my mind mixed it up with Anthropic. My mistake.
reply
In a sense, what eventually gets legalized through settlement or what doesn't provoke a lawsuit isn't that relevant.

The process of creating an LLM involves taking and processing a massive amount of human generated data, roughly all the world's literature/thinking/etc. A large portion remains within these systems. Aside from the legality, ethically that shouldn't belong to any one company.

reply
Also possibly true: Anthropic is running Kimi locally in their hardware and "distilling" it.
reply
If they have any sense, they should be. It would be permitted under the licence, too (unless I'm misreading the k3 licence).
reply
Fable was available for a few weeks before Kimi K3 came out. If it was a distillation attack, then that's a truly groundbreaking technological feat to distill a model like Fable in 2 weeks
reply
deleted
reply
All LLMs are based on distillation broadly defined. Western models began distilling texts. If Chinese models are distilling Western models, they are taking information that Western models don't own anyway - but that doesn't mean the Chinese models aren't also taking information from text as well (which they probably also don't own). And none of this means Western and Chinese companies aren't innovating by creating very elegant methods of distillation.
reply
If they can distill fable into a full model post training run in ~15 days without the real thinking traces, yet we know Claude chats degraded with the thinking traces removed (chat resume bug from earlier in the year they reported stripping thinking to shed load as being the cause of degradation), how big can this degree be?
reply
“Distillation” is just indirectly pirating the largely pirated training data used to train the original model.

“You stole my warez!”

reply
If we do it, it's training a model. When they do it, it's distillation attack. - Anthropic
reply
"You are distilling what I have rightfully pirated."
reply
Is there even a steelman against this?
reply
The current steelman argument against this is "China bad, west good".
reply
The distillation complaints to me sound like when a casino complains about card counting
reply
I stil don't understand them. I want the US to "win the AI race" but I have trouble understanding how most of all inventions today aren't "distillations" of past knowledge. Is Anthropic claiming the data they stole as trade secrets?
reply
i want china to win so that i get access to ai and not restricted and censored.

the chinese models are less censored, you'd better believe it.

try asking claude about its 'guardrails' (restrictions), very high chance anthropic will censor it.

reply
> chinese models are less censored

Tried spicy geopolitical dispute questions?

reply
Yes, and they aren't a problem. I get tired of people claiming this. Go download Qwen 3.6 and run it yourself and fire away.
reply
deleted
reply
Anthropic is claiming that training an LLM to mimic another LLM is materially different and worse than slurping up stuff written by humans (even if that material is stolen).

Basically, they want IP protection for Claude. This is a nakedly hypocritical stance, but completely understandable from a company-needs-to-make-money standpoint.

reply
Their claim is even stronger than that, they have complaints about their models being used as a validation step for other model output, which is standard practice in the industry.
reply
How does anyone justify this? How can you argue this in good faith?
reply
Snarky answer: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Realer answer: A combination of the above, plus group/bubble effect of all your coworkers saying the same thing. You as a group, conflate a bunch of concerns together (China, no-guardrails-AI, etc), decide that your group will be the responsible stewards of AI, and then anybody "stealing your work" appears dangerous - both to your livelihood and to the human race.

reply
>This is a nakedly hypocritical stance, but completely understandable from a company-needs-to-make-money standpoint.

No, it's perfectly reasonable once you get down to reality.

China is not going to care about IP. That's just a fact. So either nobody cares about IP (at the very last in this context) and any AI company can just do whatever with data, or Chinese companies have to be held up to scrutiny.

We don't have the privilege to be able to hold western companies to higher ethical, legal, and environmental standards and not risk competitiveness.

That there is a whole lot of people right now who insist on doing above and still somehow praise China at every turn is something historians or news outlets will have to make sense of in some 5 years time.

reply
Give up IP for end users and people will be pretty okay with giving up on IP for ai companies. You can't have different standards for special companies though.
reply
> So either nobody cares about IP (at the very last in this context) and any AI company can just do whatever with data, or Chinese companies have to be held up to scrutiny.

Anthropic is currently angling for a "IP restrictions for China but not for me" la-la land scenario. If they were instead arguing for either of the choices you said, it wouldn't be hypocritical.

reply
why should western AI companies be held to different standards than Chinese ones? Neither of them are your buddy.
reply
They shouldn't be. But the point is, they are. OpenAI and Anthropic are paying many rights holders for access to their data (reddit, NYT, etc.).

So distillation, among other things, allows Chinese labs to indirectly benefit from these arrangements at no cost to them.

reply
Oh really - how much are individual Redditors getting paid?
reply
Google is apparently taking a different stance and offering distillation as a paid product

https://docs.cloud.google.com/gemini-enterprise-agent-platfo...

reply
You don't get to take distilled model home, it all stays with Google.

It's "optimize your costs in our garden" product.

reply
yup, strings are certainly attached when dealing with US Big Tech / Ai

I recommend Fireworks as an alternative

reply
But nobody wants to distill Google's models, Gemini is really bad.
reply
I think GLM 5.2 is in part distilled from it.
reply
strong agreement, I've stopped using all closed weight models on principle, but the latest gemini models have increased hallucinations and now talk back, so double reason not to use them
reply
You can’t build a frontier model with one single thing. This is an incremental improvement but it doesn’t explain the entire success of the model. The training set is immensely important, regardless of how you feel about distillation.
reply
Reminds me of this btw:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-12343597

Microsoft replied that Bing uses “many different signals” —- including cribbing from Google :-)

reply
I remember 15 years ago or so, one of my first student job was to evaluate Bing results compared to the same query on Google. Didn't know then that I was a distillation attacker.
reply
It can easily be both. Also, they didn't use this innovation in K3 - K3 pre-training would have started months ago and the paper only mentions a 48B model. The people working at this level may not even be heavily involved in shipping a new iteration of K3, or at least theory contributions to it were done many months or even a year ago and after that it is all engineering.
reply
This paper is from last year
reply
Does one have to exclude the other?
reply
Well said.

The distillation theory does not even make sense as Fable was only around for days (effectively) before Kimi was released.

reply