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.
replywait, 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.
replyLLMs can't reliably answer what they are (w/o getting that info from system prompt/tool call/etc), so yea.
replyhttps://xcancel.com/teortaxesTex/status/2026130112685416881
I think I've seen same happening with some European languages as well.
Ask it in Chinese
replyAgreed, "distilled variants" might be more suitable.
replyCalling them variants is also inaccurate when the pretrained base and architecture are completely different.
replyWhy 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
replyDistillers 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.
We could call it distillation learning
replyA model is teaching another here
Everyone wins
Fine, then let's refer to the initial data collection/training as 'compilation attacks' going forward.
reply...or maybe we stop defaulting to adversarial paradigms for every conceivable situation.
"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