26 ms·

Anthropic says Alibaba illicitly extracted Claude AI model capabilities

• gloosx 4mo ago
  So why don't they proceed with a lawsuit instead of public accusations? Let the court decide if these "distillation attacks" are actually illicit.
• bilsbie 4mo ago
  Can we finally just nope out of this closed model of AI development? It should all be open source with each gain shared and celebrated by all.
• witx 4mo ago
  F Anthropic in the back port
• freejazz 4mo ago
  Why would it not be fair use?
• zakkl 4mo ago
  It sounds like Anthropic is eagerly trying to show to USG that they are willing to heavily monitor ‘foreign adversaries’ on their platforms. This combined with no implementation of KYC makes it seem like they want to find a middle ground with Fable where its off of export controls but they promise to prevent China and specific others from using.
  • ninefathom 4mo ago
    This seems to me like a stab in the right direction. Obviously their actions are going to be fiscally motivated at the root, but sussing out how they intend the precise dynamics to play out is more nuanced. Thinking of this as an effort to woo the defense hawks cuts a very clear path.
  • verdverm 4mo ago
    This is not the first time it happened. What have they done to improve the situation? I suspect it more a cat & mouse game, with a lot more cats playing.
• drillsteps5 4mo ago
  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
  • ninefathom 4mo ago
    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).
    • AdieuToLogic 4mo ago
      > While I love the sentiment, I feel like the odds of this actually ever reaching a trial are low ... As cited in a peer comment here[0]: 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] Of note in the judge's finding; "the piracy was not fair use". 0 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48667411 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48667411 1 - https://authorsguild.org/advocacy/artificial-intelligence/what-authors-need-to-know-about-the-anthropic-settlement/ https://authorsguild.org/advocacy/artificial-intelligence/wh...
  • appplication 4mo ago
    Being logically consistent isn’t as profitable as being aggressive and loud.
  • conception 4mo ago
    They already did and paid 1.5B https://authorsguild.org/advocacy/artificial-intelligence/what-authors-need-to-know-about-the-anthropic-settlement/ https://authorsguild.org/advocacy/artificial-intelligence/wh...
• rvz 4mo ago
  Notice how Anthropic is now scapegoating Chinese models providers like Alibaba and outright accusing them of distilling their models. Whether if it is true or not, this is part of their effort into using them as an example to scare everyone into getting congress to ban powerful models from being accessed outside of the US and also banning powerful local models from being released. Anthropic does not care about you, and they are not your friends.
  • re-thc 4mo ago
    > Whether if it is true or not If it was just "that easy" then I doubt only "Chinese models" would be doing it and we'd already be packed with competition. Distilling might be a thing but it isn't a free win.
    • skeledrew 4mo ago
      Only China really has the resources (multiple labs invested in the space), culture (Asians are generally collectively-inclined, so sharing is in their core) and political bent (there will be no diplomatic repercussions) to put up a fight.
      • re-thc 4mo ago
        > Only China really has the resources (multiple labs invested in the space) That's not the point. Why is it a country thing? There are plenty of non-China startups in this space having resources at that scale. The "China" has resources is some "Western media narrative" speak. So Meta should have won a long time ago? Or xAI? > culture (Asians are generally collectively-inclined, so sharing is in their core) Just stereotype it? So we've gone from China -> "Asian"? Then where is your Korean or Japanese model etc? And somehow you know they're sharing. > political bent (there will be no diplomatic repercussions) to put up a fight More inferring from "Western media news"? Where's the reality? The media hyped up Gemini / Google TPU free-win last year. How did that go?
        • skeledrew 4mo ago
• zb3 4mo ago
  If true then Alibaba is doing us a public service, good job, I hope this extraction was successful.
• 0xbadcafebee 4mo ago
  There's two basic kinds of distillation: 1) the massive [and dumb] method where you ask a question and use the answer as reinforcement (Black Box), and 2) more targeted distillation where you use one model to directly inform/train/guide another model (RLAIF). The latter is basically fine-tuning the model with direction from another model. Thousands of businesses do this every day to fine-tune. This is almost certainly what the Chinese labs are doing, since it has a much better effect on the end result than just getting simple answers to simple questions. These complaints of distillation are inflating the problem to make it sound worse than it is, because they want the USG to block/ban Chinese model providers as protectionism. They have already called for more export controls on chips (which is funny because DeepSeek v4 was designed to run on Huawei chips and now the other Chinese providers are following suit). But they can't come right out and say that, so their claim is that they're asking for more export controls because distilled models might not be as safe as their own. But if you show them a jailbreak of their model that bypasses their safety, they'll tell you that any model can eventually be jailbroken so don't worry about safety.
  • dannyw 4mo ago
    If you’re doing evals, you’re basically doing RLAIF without training a model; just looking at the results. Fundamentally it is very difficult to stop this while still making your AI models useful.
    • zmgsabst 4mo ago
      Similarly, if you did a corpus study on bioRvix to summarize recent science findings — you could use the same questions and answers to fine tune a model. There is no way to communicate information at scale to companies through the API, for anything approaching a real application, without that information forming a corpus another model can be trained on. But it wouldn’t be the first time they broke a model: Their “guardrails” that cause it to reject user prompts also means it relies on its pop science summary of medicine to tell you why bioRxiv is wrong rather than accurately summarize the papers. They’ve successfully created a smug, argumentative average of the internet which refuses to even consider it might be wrong or that it’s reading a science paper which is based on measurements and not vibes — but why would I pay for that? I get it for free online.
• Pxtl 4mo ago
  "You're trying to kidnap what I've rightfully stolen!"
  • DrewADesign 4mo ago
    “Hey! Haven’t you heard that two wrongs don’t make a right?!” - Entitled jerk that initially wronged people
  • HarHarVeryFunny 4mo ago
    You're teaching your parrot to say what our parrot is saying!
• walrus01 4mo ago
  Reminds me a bit of the anecdote of Steve Jobs complaining about people ripping off the Mac GUI, in the mid to late 1980s, when he gave no public acknowledgement to the work done by Xerox on the Alto and Star operating system. "you're trying to rip off what I've already ripped off!" Crawl the whole Internet to build a gargantuan sized LLM and then complain you're being copied...
  • breput 4mo ago
    I think you meant a quote attributed to Bill Gates: "Well, Steve, I think there's more than one way of looking at it. I think it's more like we both had this rich neighbor named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it."
    • walrus01 4mo ago
      Yes, I think the Gates quote was a response to repeated and aggressive complaints originating from Jobs (to anyone who would listen) that he had been ripped off.
    • jakebasile 4mo ago
      I don't know if that's a real quote from Gates, but I do know it was in Pirates of Silicon Valley.
      • Maxatar 4mo ago
        Seems legit: https://www.folklore.org/A_Rich_Neighbor_Named_Xerox.html https://www.folklore.org/A_Rich_Neighbor_Named_Xerox.html
        • jakebasile 4mo ago
          Neat, so the scene in the movie was pretty close to reality then!
    • itopaloglu83 4mo ago
• gaiagraphia 4mo ago
  A company which got rich on extracting the world's content is complaining that another company has extracted their work?! LOL! Get a grip, son.
  • deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
• amazingamazing 4mo ago
  Distillation is fundamentally impossible to protect against. All you can do is slow them down. Change my view. Eventually these Chinese companies will release some extension like Honey, which will sit on top real, non-Chinese clients and send everything to China anyway. It's over.
  • seany 4mo ago
    I can't even come up with a reason to find it wrong.
    • IncreasePosts 4mo ago
      I personally bristle at the corporate espionage and IP theft that China has undertaken the last few decades. I can't help but respond here whenever anyone brings up the inane comparison to Samuel Slater. But with this, I don't have an issue. There is no theft since what is being used is the exact product that is being delivered. Yes, it's breaking the ToS, but ToS are generally bullshit. Anthropic surely broke thousands of ToS or other legal terms while it was scraping for content to train on. Which is why they had to pay $1.5B
      • throw10920 4mo ago
        > I personally bristle at the corporate espionage and IP theft that China has undertaken the last few decades. I get the feeling that this is widespread, but I usually only see articles about individuals that are linked to the PRC somehow (e.g. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-10/ex-apple-employee-charged-with-stealing-secrets-for-chinese-firm https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-10/ex-apple-...), which is somewhat tenuous - the steelman argument is that they're just acting on behalf of their employer, not the country itself, and that this is corporate espionage, not economic warfare. Could you send me what you've seen so I can learn more?
  • HaloZero 4mo ago
    Doesn’t that require them to register an account using the browsers they’ve compromised? If anthropic adds identity verification won’t that cut that down. Maybe it will let them use Gemini inside of chrome
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• randomboy3423 4mo ago
  A partly insider on this. I think Anthropic is just marketing / bluffing, because they don't even have the data. They do distill the models, but they don't go to Anthropic, they just use platforms like aws bedrock, there are too many restrictions on Anthropic's own platform.
  • bilbo0s 4mo ago
    >they just use platforms like aws bedrock, there are too many restrictions on Anthropic's own platform This is actually the only way that what Anthropic is alleging would make any kind of sense. And, as a matter of fact, is exactly what every enterprise does to train models. This kerfuffle should be interesting to watch. But, as always, everyone (in the US) should fully download all the Chinese models while you can. I suspect this may be the "Phantom Menace" they use to render illegal our use of Chinese AI tech just as they've rendered illegal our use of Chinese cars. Only difference is, we peasants may need the Chinese AI tech to have any chance of competing with Big Tech in the future. And even with the Chinese tech, as Big Tech spreads their AI out into more and more niche areas, we'll likely still not be able to build startups that can compete with them. It's just that without Chinese AI tech, we'll have no chance at all.
    • altmanaltman 4mo ago
      > And even with the Chinese tech, as Big Tech spreads their AI out into more and more niche areas, we'll likely still not be able to build startups that can compete with them. You mean like Anthropic will eventually run Walmart? Or Salesforce? or Adobe? Or do you think midjourney will replace all medical spas? OpenAI will run the next Tesla? How can they focus on all this without raising trillions more? Why wont the gov force them to stop if they monopolize all niches even if they could? Building a frontier AI lab and pushing models forward is already a massive undertaking but we are assuming they will also create massively successful startups which nobody can compete with? idk sounds like the dream of people like Dario but not much sense does it make in the face of economic reality.
  • chews 4mo ago
    there are vibe coded proxies that act like Claude Code. they use the sub not the api key. but they give you api key functionality... I know this cause I have the vibes.... and it works on every one of the other harnesses, it just takes some mitmproxy work... but ya. it's fair to say these are not the droids you're looking for
• youknownothing 4mo ago
  laughs in ironic
• tristanj 4mo ago
  Here's what is happening: Chinese resellers are offering Claude tokens at 70-90% below official Anthropic API prices. They achieve this by reselling capacity from pooled Claude Max accounts, payments fraud, and also reselling the model output & reasoning chains to various Chinese labs. They are subsidizing model access in exchange for user logs and reasoning traces, which they then sell as training data, allowing them to operate below cost. Claude and ChatGPT are both blocked in China. You need to use a VPN to access either, and you can't pay with a Chinese bank card. So most people who want access to Claude buy access via a reseller. It's the easiest and cheapest way to access Anthropic models in China. These resellers operate tens of thousands of bot accounts, which is also why Anthropic introduced identity verification, to slow down the onslaught of bots. Here's one token reseller, they're offering Opus 4.8 at a 93% discount below official API rates: https://yunwu.ai/pricing?provider=Anthropic https://yunwu.ai/pricing?provider=Anthropic This is one reason why DeepSeek & GLM are priced so cheaply, they are competing with impossibly low token prices in China. They have to keep prices low, in order for people to use them. I shared this story a few months back, but it never got any traction. It explains the token resale economy in China, it's an excellent read https://www.chinatalk.media/p/how-to-buy-cheap-claude-tokens-in https://www.chinatalk.media/p/how-to-buy-cheap-claude-tokens...
  • epsteingpt 4mo ago
    How are they 'streaming' the responses and 'pooling' the tokens? Do they have MacBooks in the US that run the queries and stream the outputs back to China?
    • bagels 4mo ago
      They probably asked claude how to do it.
    • paxys 4mo ago
      Why do you need macbooks? Just rent servers from any hosting provider.
      • walrus01 4mo ago
• andai 4mo ago
  We have Claude at home!
• ProAm 4mo ago
  Says the company that is involved in the largest copyright heists of all time to build it's product.
• BigTTYGothGF 4mo ago
  If you're an AI booster surely you'd think this was a good thing as it means more models are available in more places to more people more easily. I'm exactly the opposite, and I think this is a good thing because I want Anthropic to suffer.
  • nonethewiser 4mo ago
    That doesnt follow.
    • BigTTYGothGF 4mo ago
      Which part?
  • rikima_ 4mo ago
    so it’s a good thing whichever way you look at it
    • OutOfHere 4mo ago
      That's exactly right. One can be an AI booster and want Anthropic to suffer, all for the greater good of promoting access and diversity of AI.
  • deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
• tonyoconnell 4mo ago
  The narrative is moving towards KYC
  • nonethewiser 4mo ago
    Im all for it.
• jrflowers 4mo ago
  I like that they use “illicit” and “fraudulent” like as if model distillation is illegal and giving them money and then doing whatever they want with the output of their publicly accessible models (which Anthropic does not own) is… also illegal? “Anthropic, red faced after unattended ice cream cone eaten by ants on park bench, once again demands government pick it as forever winner, adds ‘no take backsies’”
• thadk 4mo ago
  Does anyone have hints on what kinds of prompts are most used for a distillation like this—SWE-Bench sorts of things? Is reconstructing the compressed knowledge in the model like reconstructing a lossy JPG or MP3 a reasonable analogy?
  • Chu4eeno 4mo ago
    There are some Claude datasets (of indeterminate provenance) floating around on huggingface you can look at (or at least used to be, they might've been taken down).
  • dannyw 4mo ago
    RLAIF is a good place to start reading. Claude will also help you with (mostly good advice) if you ask something like “Research and help me make the most effective plan to train a smaller student model to be better from a teacher model”. I actually was doing an experiment with a GLM->Gemma E4B for fun, and Claude kept on suggesting I should also add Claude Opus as a teacher lol, suggesting techniques I haven’t heard of like thinking inversion (train a small model to deconstruct summarised thinking into detailed native thinking format of the student). So I can absolutely see and understand the concern around Fable’s frontier LLM development mitigations, but their approach of silently degrading is completely wrong and dangerous. AI classifiers, like all AI, can make mistakes, and it’d only be a matter of time before it mis-fires and silently sabotaging a university’s HPC cluster for physics simulations or something because the shape looks like DeepSeek or whatnot to a dumb fast classifier.
• awkwabear 4mo ago
  Wait so they're upset that people used their IP to train a model without their consent or paying them anything? or is this just about the token reselling?
• paxys 4mo ago
  Repeatedly warn everyone that your models are so good they will wreck cybersecurity. Complain/brag that chinese firms are illegally using the models and bypassing export controls. Be surprised when your model gets banned by the government.
• Mr_Xpes 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• lossolo 4mo ago
  > Meanwhile, on June 12, two days after Anthropic sent the letter, the Commerce Department imposed controversial restrictions on Anthropic's latest Mythos and Fable AI models because officials feared they could be deployed by military intelligence users in China and other countries of concern. So that was the real reason for the Fable restriction? Because Anthropic wrote a letter to the US government saying that China was distilling Fable?
• stego-tech 4mo ago
  I'm sorry, but I can't stop laughing at an AI company crying about theft of their IP.
• guluarte 4mo ago
  Anthropic training their models full of copyright data, so?
• leentee 4mo ago
  What I get from this is frontier model capabilities are being stagnant.
• neves 4mo ago
  So said the guys who "extracted" knowledge from all pirated books
• bandrami 4mo ago
  Oh wow it must suck to have an LLM creator rip off your IP for their own gain
• gaiagraphia 4mo ago
  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?
  • m-ee 4mo ago
    It never did. In debt the first 5000 years Geaeber makes the case that pure “free market” trade has never really existed in “the west”. The closest to this ideal that’s ever happened was during the Islamic golden age enabled by religious prescriptions against usury.
    • gruez 4mo ago
      >The closest to this ideal that’s ever happened was during the Islamic golden age enabled by religious prescriptions against usury. How does are bans against consensual financial exchanges close to the "ideal" of the free market? It just sounds like you have an axe to grind about the financial system rather than describing free markets.
      • asdf88990 4mo ago
        Usury and debt based economy creates a dynamic where being competitive in production is secondary to financialistion. In short, instead of market being driven by demand and productivity, it is driven by financier curving out monopolies. Peak Examples are Uber and AirBnB.
        • gruez 4mo ago
          What makes this view more correct than say, "economies with marketing creates a dynamic where being competitive in production is secondary to marketing" and concluding that nothings a free market until we ban all advertising? After all, you can make a vaguely plausible argument about how marketing isn't really about the merits of the product, and therefore allowing it is antithetical to the free market or whatever
• fjdjshsh 4mo ago
  >The strike by Alibaba is described as a "distillation" effort, which Anthropic has said involves training a less capable model on the outputs of a stronger one. Claude used TB of content without permission to train their model and it was ok for them. Now someone else uses the output of a Claude model to train model and they cry foul.
  • cubefox 4mo ago
    It was not okay for them, they had to pay one billion dollars.
    • p_j_w 4mo ago
      That’s a pittance compared to their revenue.
    • callmeal 4mo ago
      >It was not okay for them, they had to pay one billion dollars. Essentially peanuts compared to what they would have to pay to obtain the rights of everything they pirated.
      • cubefox 4mo ago
        No. It's actually way more than what they would have paid if they legally obtained those books. The 1.5 billion dollars amount to $3000 per book.
        • slopinthebag 4mo ago
          > obtain the rights of everything they pirated They didn't just pirate those books...
          • cubefox 4mo ago
            If we assume on average $20 per legally obtained book, 1.5 billion dollars are enough for 75 million books. That's approximately every non-fiction book in existence.
• _fzslm 4mo ago
  Anthropic being pissed enough to announce this means that, despite encrypting their reasoning chains, it doesn't matter – distillation lives on. Sweeeeeeeet.
• bridgettegraham 4mo ago
  lol. good for the chinese. I hope their models get better than the closed american ones quick so we can stop using "controlled" models.
• anabis 4mo ago
  Incentive is for users in general to release sessions (sans PII, credentials) so all AI get better and there is alternatives. Even if China didn't do this, I don't see frontier labs being able to charge premium over others for long. RSI maybe?
• NDlurker 4mo ago
  I don't see what the problem is. They found a loophole and exploited it. Good for them.
• uberex 4mo ago
  Hey, Alanis Morissette, this one is ironic.
• guybedo 4mo ago
  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.
  • anematode 4mo ago
    Yup, it's hard to take seriously any complaint about "stealing" Anthropic's services, when their entire business is based on massive theft.
    • hsbauauvhabzb 4mo ago
      You should. Companies like this will inevitably try and pull the ladder up behind them.
      • SiempreViernes 4mo ago
        You mean Anthropic and OpenAI, right?
        • hsbauauvhabzb 4mo ago
          All major AI companies. And any other high value industry which can be locked off (via tax brakes, patients etc)
    • usef- 4mo ago
      The US labs do seem to have announced a lot of licensing deals though, and are buying things today due to the previous lawsuits. At what point will we be better to support a lab that pays (some) licenses today vs the ones that pay none? Some of the deals are in the hundreds of millions, so I suspect licensing is over a billion today? (Pure guess). That might become a big disadvantage in a price (or content) war.
• z0ltan 4mo ago
  [dead]
• c0rruptbytes 4mo ago
  if they’re paying for the tokens, what’s the problem
• AdieuToLogic 4mo ago
  The hypocrisy of Anthropic complaining about "illicitly extracting its Claude AI model capabilities" and supporting the White House's accusation of China "stealing U.S. AI labs' intellectual property on an industrial scale" is hilarious. Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, et al trained their models by ignoring the rights of copyright holders when harvesting whatever content they could. Now one of them is crying foul for another entity doing exactly what they all did? Hilarious.
  • protimewaster 4mo ago
    The AI companies seem to take the viewpoint that everything on the internet is free, except their stuff. It's okay to hammer some random website with AI crawlers, ignoring robots.txt, and causing bandwidth costs to skyrocket. But if you cost an AI provider money with your data acquisition practices, well, that's just clearly unacceptable.
    • AdieuToLogic 4mo ago
      > But if you cost an AI provider money with your data acquisition practices, well, that's just clearly unacceptable. It's the same question libertarian advocates cannot resolve: If one truly believes in personal sovereignty, how are shared resources paid for, such as roads, power grids, potable water, sewage services, fire departments, and police departments? It is also not a coincidence that leadership in many tech companies have expressed libertarian ideals.
      • slopinthebag 4mo ago
        What do you mean by "libertarian advocates cannot resolve"? Like, they have no answers at all, or you aren't personally swayed by them? Because they definitely have answers to this question...
        • AdieuToLogic 4mo ago
          > What do you mean by "libertarian advocates cannot resolve"? Like, they have no answers at all, or you aren't personally swayed by them? The latter I suppose. I qualify my answer because what few rational responses I have seen to this question are equivocations at best and thinly veiled myopic sophistry supporting personal greed in general.
• 20k 4mo ago
  it sure sucks when people steal your hard work for free without paying for it doesn't it anthropic
• KennyBlanken 4mo ago
  willy wonka oh-go-on-dot-gif Gosh, overusing accounts running up unplanned-for expenses? Kinda reminds me of...overusage charges and inflated expenses clients have had to deal with because Anthropic, OpenAI, Grok, etc have been "illicitly extracting" everything they can grab from said websites, as fast as they can. In what amounts to a DDOS, frankly.
• ece 4mo ago
  It's hard to sympathize with Anthropic for this or the export ban, the hype over model capabilities probably fuels both things (in some ways). Training data for me, but not for thee (at any scale) doesn't seem like a tenable position. If anything, Claude's constitutional outputs should be trained on more rather than less.
• anhtudev 4mo ago
  People prefer Chinese models to US models. Looks like it is a counterattack.
• watwut 4mo ago
  How dare they! Only we should be illicitely extracting everything others done! /Anthropic-probably
• ElenaDaibunny 4mo ago
  [dead]
• yogthos 4mo ago
  So let me get this straight, a company which built its whole business on ignoring IP is all of a sudden upset that somebody is not respecting their IP?
• JasonHEIN 4mo ago
  we now know what to use when Fable is too dangerous !
• secretslol 4mo ago
  Another day, another excuse as to why Fable 5 was pulled. Just waiting for Anthropic saying the Persona partnership was the fault of the Chinese.
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• yashthakker 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• truthbe 4mo ago
  How do I donate my logs
• johnwheeler 4mo ago
  Well, of course they did. Are you kidding?
• rw2 4mo ago
  This is making the case for Anthropic KYC for US citizens. No one would allow their accounts to do this if they were on the hook for it from the US government.
• krembo 4mo ago
  Similar to improving an independent search engine by scraping Google search results and learning from it. Shady but legit
• asasidh 4mo ago
  People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Anthropic keeps throwing stones every few weeks.
• pyrale 4mo ago
  Did Alibaba procure tons of stuff from Anthropic without paying, and use it to train a model? I don't see the issue. Didn't Anthropic train on our data, which it acquired illegally?
• budududuroiu 4mo ago
  Has anyone else noticed that Deepseek v4 running in Claude Code will try to read, list, tail as many files/logs/... as it can for even the most simple tasks?
• toss1 4mo ago
  Nevermind government edicts & bans -- this seems like reason enough for them to require Know Their Customers, require ID, and shut of certain nations. Failing to have done so seems to have allowed 25000 fake Chinese accounts to walk off with their product... OFC I wouldn't trust the Chinese enough to ack their models the time of day, but Anthropic seems to have allowed far more ... yikes
• 8note 4mo ago
  so what? anthropic stole this functionality from everyone else
• PeterStuer 4mo ago
  The whole investment/valuation model of AI companies is based on "winner takes all", aka a monopoly. This nescessitates regulatory capture and lawfare. Anthropic has been advocating openly for pulling up the drawbridge, ending competition and ending progress. They will continue to lobby for restricting your access. If the Mythos/Fable restrictions would have come in after their IPO, they would have danced with joy aa this defacto has them achieve their goal after unloading the mountain of debt from the institutional onto the retail investor. As it stands, they are set up to be aquired by Google, Apple, Amazon, SpaceX or Microsoft or any other 3 letter agency good boy for cheap.
• OtomotO 4mo ago
  Karma truly is a bitch
• exabrial 4mo ago
  I like Anthropic's models, use them regularly. However, it weighs on my mind that there is quite the irony of an LLM company complaining about someone stealing their stuff or using it in a way they don't like. The training data for these models is a massive gray area that they are hoping people seem to just forget about and move on. That being all said, Anthropic seems to be a good company, I'd work for them, but they probably need to help themselves out of the spotlight. A little too much press coverage as of late.
• watutalkinbout 4mo ago
  An AI company stealing intellectual property?! Oh, the inhumanity!
• Groxx 4mo ago
  Perhaps this is related to the "Mythos is too dangerous and cannot be exported" movements? It'd be a fairly effective way to justify extreme actions in combating it. One could even wonder if they requested it, as a tactic to support their eventual IPO valuation. Which is part of the problem of such an obviously-corrupt government: conspiracy theories are somewhat reasonable, as they keep getting validated.
• gmerc 4mo ago
  Evergreen, really, Anthropic's desperate screaming for government protection, aka pulling up the ladder after them. Nothing short of disconnecting global markets will work because the incentives are just too damn delicious https://georgzoeller.com/blog/posts/us-ai-labs-love-the-ai-race-so-much-they-d-like-the-government-to-kneecap-their-/ https://georgzoeller.com/blog/posts/us-ai-labs-love-the-ai-r...
• seydor 4mo ago
  It's not fair when others do it.
• dainiusse 4mo ago
  I am sorry, but companies doing biggest IP theft in history have no moral right to complain here.
• a34729t 4mo ago
  You know what? We should all get Claude Max subscriptions and max them out hard and post our full conversations on codeberg, as an open training set.
  • democracy 4mo ago
    yc pitch?
• tasuki 4mo ago
  > The strike by Alibaba is described as a "distillation" effort, which Anthropic has said involves training a less capable model on the outputs of a stronger one. I don't see what's wrong about this. > Anthropic said the campaign was conducted between April 22 and June 5, 2026, and generated more than 28.8 million exchanges with Claude through almost 25,000 fraudulent accounts. What makes the accounts fraudulent? If they have paid the agreed price, surely it's fine? If they haven't paid, why did Anthropic provide them service?
  • wilg 4mo ago
    Because Anthropic has terms of service with more stipulations than just "you must pay and can use the service for any purpose"?
    • Gigachad 4mo ago
      I'm sure all the artists and creators they stole from had stipulations too.
      • esperent 4mo ago
        The artists had actual laws to protect them, not just vaguely enforceable terms of service. And look where that got them. I have zero empathy for the huge company getting a taste of their own medicine.
      • cubefox 4mo ago
        Anthropic paid one billion in a copyright settlement. That's a lot of money considering they never distributed the pirated books they trained on. Nowadays they buy copies of books, train on them, and then destroy them.
        • Gigachad 4mo ago
          And it looks like the companies distilling Claude are paying for tokens using the subscription Anthropic provides. Seems like fair play to me.
• soundworlds 4mo ago
  How the hell does Anthropic continue to make such hypocritical complaints without deeply cringing? It's becoming embarrassing to watch
• chvid 4mo ago
  Unlike Anthropic and OpenAI, companies like DeepSeek, Alibaba, z.ai open source their models which allows for true model to model distillation rather what you can do when the model is only accessed via an API with its reasoning chain hidden away. What Alibaba is doing is that they are tuning and training their models based on usage data from someone accessing Anthropic's models; in Anthropic's terms of service that usage data does not belong to the end-user but to Anthropic and they are trying to elevate this breach of their tos to a national security issue. To me the battle between open source and closed source AI is literally a battle between good and evil. Between a dark future where computing is centralized, surveilled and controlled by one or two entities. And a lighter future where computing is de-centralized, principally in the hands of end-users, who are ultimately free to understand, tinker and build what they want. While I appreciate the freedom and wealth of the west; on this point we are clearly heading down the wrong path.
  • Schiendelman 4mo ago
    Open weight and open source are different things!
    • ahartmetz 4mo ago
      True, but open weight is much better than fully proprietary and the best that we have for now.
• asadm 4mo ago
  is there a good recipe or guide on doing a successful distillation these days?
• digitaltrees 4mo ago
  Call the wambulance a company that stole all of humanities public data to train a model is mad that someone used their model to train another model. Give me a break. Every employee of anthropic is going to have $20m or more at the IPO. I found out today that an employee of the home care agency I own is homeless. We are trying to figure out how to help her but it's shockingly common in the industry and there are limited resources to solve the reality of working homelessness.
• democracy 4mo ago
  thats brilliant - "we gonna take your job away from you, please start using our tools", "we stole the content to sell you, and now we are getting robbed, please feel sorry for us", what's next?
• dolebirchwood 4mo ago
  Good. I'm glad. Keep it up, China. Loving my cheap GLM and DeepSeek.
• nicman23 4mo ago
  fucking lol. it is always funny when companies use opensource and other free for non commercial use - and plain old piracy - and then cry about the same practices.
• grayhatter 4mo ago
  Oh no, someone is profiting of the work of others?! anyways...
• TheAceOfHearts 4mo ago
  Someone should setup a plugin or something for Claude Code that makes it easy to log all inputs and outputs for people who are willing and interested in sharing their usage. I don't want Anthropic to be the only company that can train on my usage, I want to share my usage so it can be used for training all new models. Once you have a system for collecting all logs, you just need a place where they can be submitted. Ideally it would be a freely licensed dataset that is publicly available for everyone. Has anyone built this yet?
  • cush 4mo ago
    Yikes, no thank you
    • TheAceOfHearts 4mo ago
      Do you have a substantive reason why you dislike this? What is the problem if it's opt-in? Nobody is forcing you to share your usage if you don't want to. I'd prefer it if all the model builders could train on my usage rather than being limited to a single company. That'll hopefully help make all the models better in the long-term.
      • cush 4mo ago
        Very substantive - that data can be highly sensitive, and I don’t trust all model companies
  • thomasfromcdnjs 4mo ago
    Discussed building it with my friends, obviously you might share secrets and other real reasons, but if gangs of corporations are already doing it, I don't see why we shouldn't just share it amongst the crowd too.
    • TheAceOfHearts 4mo ago
      Yeah I could see it being a problem if you're doing work on closed source or repos with sensitive credentials. Since my usage has all been on open source projects I'd be happy to share everything I'm doing if it can help train better models.
• ycui7 4mo ago
  in a few more months, when Chinese model gets to Mythos capacity and Fable still locked down. What Anthropic will say? Why can they just admit they are not the only people who know how to train an LLM model.
• cush 4mo ago
  It’s hard to see how distillation is any different than how these models were created in the first place - siphoning up all human knowledge without consent, credit, or compensation
• AndreasMoeller 4mo ago
  Unless you own stock in Anthropic, this is a good thing right?
• Anoian 4mo ago
  In Kindergarten there are three children, one has made a fun toy (copyrighted material), another took the toy and made a toy replication machine out of it without the first kids permission. The third kid replicated the toy creation machine by looking at it. The second kid is now accusing the third kid of theft. I wouldn’t shout too loud if I were the second kid. They’ve shouted before about the dangers of their favorite toy and the teacher took it away from them, lets see what happens if they shout too much this time.
• cws_ai_buddy 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• exe34 4mo ago
  Anthropic also trained on all human knowledge, so I'm okay with others distilling their models.
• nullbio 4mo ago
  Anthropic has no right to cry about this when they train their models on the entire internet, which is not their content to begin with. If it's not obvious yet, this technology wants to be free and shared. Stop trying to protect your mote and do the right thing.
• netcan 4mo ago
  Hypocrisy is a form of corruption. Anthropic's IP was created by harvesting and "distilling" other people's IP. Copyrighted materials, and the commons... which they have essentially privatized. The commercial goal is to avoid competition. One of the main worries for AI is "commoditization" which has come to mean "not a monopoly." To that end, it doesn't matter is the competitor is Chinese American or other. Their motivation here is clearly protectionism. The argument they make to politicians is national security. The legal argument is IP-theft, violation of service agreements or whatnot. This is all very dangerous. Commercial interests repackaged as national security can lead to armed conflict.
  • steve1977 4mo ago
    Bad China is stealing our stolen IP!
    • badgersnake 4mo ago
      And putting it into free models like quen. It’s hard to care about this.
  • handoflixue 4mo ago
    "Copyright violation of a published work" and "stealing private trade secrets" are in fact very different crimes. Humans have spent millenia harvesting and distilling each other's IP - "the shoulder of giants" and all that, so it's an especially disingenuous take.
    • trymas 4mo ago
      > Humans have spent millenia harvesting and distilling each other's IP You maybe somewhat correct, but also copyright lawyers wouldn’t have work if it would be up for grabs to take others IP willy nilly just because “shoulders of giants and all that”.
      • handoflixue 4mo ago
        I mean, there's an obvious difference between "distributing copies" (which is what the law was designed to prevent) and "training an LLM". We already managed "banning LLM output that contains copyrighted text" - it's much easier to just pirate a copy of the text. So I think the copyright lawyers will continue to have work as long as human written texts are worth buying.
• jameson 4mo ago
  AI companies stole the internet. They should collaborate and come up with ways to give back to society rather than competing and complaing. Thieves can't complaint about what they stole.
• bg24 4mo ago
  Relevant article - https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-distillation-attacks https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dist... (3 labs generated over 16 million exchanges with Claude through approximately 24,000 fraudulent accounts). So extraction in this context is distillation. While it is obvious to many, a modern LLM is built in roughly three stages: the foundation (pretraining) model, then SFT/supervised fine-tuning (distillation makes it easy), then the RL/RLHF stage on top (most effort-intensive). For today's reasoning models, RL/RLHF is becoming the most compute-intensive part. Companies like Anthropic spent millions building those fine-tuning examples. A follower can shortcut that on both cost and time by distilling, and it will keep happening: every time the frontier lab climbs higher, others will find a way to shortcut the new gap. There's very little Anthropic can do beyond fraud prevention and blocking accounts that violate their terms of service. On the policy question, I'm completely against banning Chinese models. I'm a heavy Claude Code user and I'll keep being one. But there should absolutely be price competition. China is eating the rest of the world for breakfast, lunch and dinner on manufacturing, and it did not help to ban them. Frontier pricing can't sit at 10x a capable competitor. It doesn't need to be at par either — demand is higher, and quality, trust, and fewer tokens to finish a task are worth a premium — but 4–5x is defensible.
  • throw10920 4mo ago
    > Companies like Anthropic spent millions building those fine-tuning examples. A follower can shortcut that on both cost and time by distilling, and it will keep happening: every time the frontier lab climbs higher, others will find a way to shortcut the new gap. The generalization of this is: technologically advanced societies only continue to function as long as you prevent people from circumventing the technological business model (initial R&D investment that is recouped by selling units of the product above their manufacturing cost) by stealing your R&D (allowing them to sell units based on manufacturing cost alone, because they externalized their R&D to you). This means both taking action against malicious actors inside your system of governance (IP laws in your country) and outside of it (sanctions, internet blocks, ITAR restrictions). An honest competitor is perfectly capable of competing on price without stealing IP - see Mistral and that newer EU model that's trained on actually licensed content. And I agree - we want a wide variety of models, from less-capable (but far cheaper) to those that maximize intelligence at any cost. But those advocating for China distilling US models are just advocating for wealth transfer from the latter to the former - and highly likely to be 50 cent party members.
• khriss 4mo ago
  I am not sure how it's OK for Anthropic to basically ignore copyright to train frontier models (using work owned by others without permission) while simultaneously claiming Chinese AI companies doing the same to them is illegal.
• jonplackett 4mo ago
  How can there be any moat for AI ever, if you can just steal a model by talking to it?
  • gspr 4mo ago
    This is what I find the most fascinating about the people arguing that you can copyright-wash anything (e.g. FOSS code) by passing it through an LLM. Surely that same logic applies to the LLM itself?!
• animanoir 4mo ago
  [dead]
• estetlinus 4mo ago
  It all sounds like a really fragile business model. I cant imagine a world where AI is NOT commoditized.
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• camgunz 4mo ago
  I am never even once hearing intellectual property or copyright claims from Anthropic, whose product depends entirely on having consumed all human output ever made regardless of those rights.
  • foxrider 4mo ago
    Exactly. They scraped the internet we all of us built with our own research, open source work, sharing, etc. I'm never going to agree that they own their models.
  • steinvakt2 4mo ago
    If the data consumed (required to train such a model) is open source/openly available/public data somehow, then a majority of the revenue belongs to the public as well. Such as the philosophy behind the Norwegian oil fund etc.
• Madmallard 4mo ago
  Sounds like fair game considering Claude is built upon the theft of creative assets of the entire world and aims to eliminate white collar jobs entirely
• one33seven 4mo ago
  Well, Anthropic stole their training data from hundreds of people, now someone stole the result from Anthropic. Seems fair, I hope someone releases it for free so we can train away the guardrails and have some fun
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• jackzhuo 4mo ago
  most Chinese models are now open-source, whereas ppenai, claude, and gemini are closed; for example, deepdeek, the release of its every new model is accompanied by a corresponding research paper, and it now fully supports huawei's new chips.
• throwaway27448 4mo ago
  "illicitly" is doing a lot of work here. IP makes no sense, and we get better software as a result. Who is going to cry if anthropic fails?
• bozdemir 4mo ago
  Oh wow !!! Antrophic always asks people indiviually if they can train on their personal data. I'm shocked ! Bad Aliba ! Bad....
• zkmon 4mo ago
  I don't understand. If they are simply using our API and paying for tokens, it's called a "transaction" and not "attack". The user is our customer who is supporting our business by buying our services. And we call them attackers. We happily make money by selling our services, and then call it as attack. Back in the day, an "attack" was supposed to mean be someone acquiring our assets without paying for them or without having our consent. But none of this seems to have happened in this case. We built a product without paying for most of the raw material we have used, and we don't call that as an "attack". Did we change the meaning of "attack"?
  • alpineman 4mo ago
    Did Anthropic 'attack' all those authors it was forced to pay $1.5bn to for using their work without permission?
• abbassix 4mo ago
  "It [Anthropic] said DeepSeek's operation involved over 150,000 exchanges". In my humble opinion, a mere 150k exchange for an LLM could only be a benchmarking and not a distillation! I think the US companies should accept that after decades they have rivals surpassing them, just like they did Europeans almost a century ago.
• unnouinceput 4mo ago
  Oh, c'mon. If Alibaba wanted, it can have the entire Claude/Mythos source code and data by next week. All you need is enough bribe to a developer that has access to the repository. Humans are always the weakest link in anything.
• crnkofe 4mo ago
  Sounds like just a case of pirates "illicitly" stealing from pirates. I don't really see anything ethically questionable there. I wonder if US corps will ever come out about all the resources used to train the original models and who they actually asked for permission when collecting data.
• serverlessmania 4mo ago
  And Alibaba is releasing the full model weights open source under Apache 2.0, Anthropic… fuck that company.
• rsynnott 4mo ago
  Oh, _now_ we care about IP, do we?
• aaa_aaa 4mo ago
  Haha cry us a river Anthropic.
• 1a527dd5 4mo ago
  "Hypocrisy, thy name is you"
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• haritha-j 4mo ago
  Oh gee, I've misplaced my world's smallest violin.
• monegator 4mo ago
  Soon, when even the enterprise subscriptions will have ads, every session will begin with a mandatory generated image: > you would NEVER distill a model..
• theplumber 4mo ago
  Let’s hope they distilled it properly so we can have the best of both worlds: a decent model to work with without Anthropic’s drama.
• neurostimulant 4mo ago
  > Anthropic said in a February posting that it had identified a campaign by Chinese AI startup DeepSeek ... > It said DeepSeek's operation involved over 150,000 exchanges That volume seems more like the number of requests 15 employees using Claude Code would generate in a month. It seems too small for a large scale model distillation campaign.
• SubiculumCode 4mo ago
  Everyone here praising these Chinese companies for their smarts (sure they are smart) has been ignoring this very big fact, they're improvements have mostly been by being parasitic on the leading edge SOTA models, not from some inherent innovation advantage. They are as innovative as their western counterparts, but they lack the compute, so their keeping up within months of those SOTA models depends on other means, like distillation attacks. I don't blame them; its the obvious only strategy when you cant compete in compute. But we shouldn't be blind to the real state of affairs: equal innovation; unequal compute; distillation attacks are the only vector to keep up.
  • kgeist 4mo ago
    >like distillation attacks. I don't blame them; its the obvious only strategy when you cant compete in compute >distillation attacks are the only vector to keep up It's demonstrably wrong, they invest in architectural improvements as well, for example, DeepSeek's compressed attention. When you lack compute, you need fast training/fast inference, and distillation alone doesn't solve it. From what I understand, that kind of distillation "attack" (28 mln exchanges) only slightly improves instruction tuning/reasoning traces. If the base model is crap, distilling Claude on a few million exchanges alone won't magically make your model as good as Chinese models currently are (or magically make inference faster on the limited hardware they have). And training the base model needs a proper training run. Serving users at scale needs optimized architectures as well, especially with test-time compute and ever growing context lengths. That's where architectural innovations are happening in Chinese labs when it comes to compute.
    • SubiculumCode 4mo ago
      I explicitly called out the fact that there is plenty of innovation, but that we see t Lots of innovation in both Chinese and U.S. labs, and I don't think that there is a co.parative difference there.
  • Anoian 4mo ago
    Haven't we all been parasitic towards china for the last half century though? They were our source of cheap labor and they got out of being the ones being used by playing everybody and stealing knowledge. This all feels like everybody is playing everybody dirty.
• AJRF 4mo ago
  There is so much hot air and guff around AI, so please if you don't believe me verify yourself, but GLM 5.2 is "good enough" to replace Claude Code / Codex. No it's not frontier, but it's beyond that point that Opus 4.5 hit where people started to really depend on Claude Code around last November time. It's also a fraction of the cost of a Claude Code subscription especially when you account for how high the usage limits are. You get more usage than Claude Code $2400 a year tier for $1344. That is a real threat (as opposed to the BS anthropic is trying to sell you in the article in the original post) to the western AI industry. Similar performance for half the cost and it's NOT ran by a US company - uh oh. I suspect America is going to do what it always does, play a very dirty and underhanded game of blocking competition by trying to front some moral high ground as the reason.
  • SubiculumCode 4mo ago
    It seems more like the Chinese companies ar playing the dirty game, distilling through bot accounts, not letting real competition across their firewall.
    • AJRF 4mo ago
      So you are believing Anthropic's claim here, and it's not as if Anthropic didn't steal the data to train the model in the first place. I think the original sin doesn't give them any ability to complain. - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/05/anthropic-settlement-ai-book-lawsuit https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/05/anthropic...
      • SubiculumCode 4mo ago
        As far as I am concerned, this is a national security matter.
  • AJRF 4mo ago
    Article just posted by the NYTimes on Z.ai (maker and operator of GLM 5.2) gaining ground in US: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/25/technology/zai-china-artificial-intelligence-models.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/25/technology/zai-china-arti...
• dminik 4mo ago
  This is supposed to be negative, but all I can really think of is "Good."
• hit8run 4mo ago
  Thieves stealing from each other? No way. Guess on what anthropic trained their data.
• johnnyevert 4mo ago
  The pot calling the kettle black.
• scotty79 4mo ago
  Nobody cares. Grow up.
• runnig 4mo ago
  I'll just leave it here: "Anthropic's downloading of over seven million books from pirate sites like LibGen constituted infringement, the judge ruled, rejecting Anthropic's "research purpose" defense: "You can't just bless yourself by saying I have a research purpose and, therefore, go and take any textbook you want." https://www.joneswalker.com/en/insights/blogs/ai-law-blog/why-anthropics-copyright-settlement-changes-the-rules-for-ai-training.html?id=102l0z0#:~:text=Anthropic's%20downloading%20of%20over%20seven,take%20any%20textbook%20you%20want.%22 https://www.joneswalker.com/en/insights/blogs/ai-law-blog/wh...
  • nicce 4mo ago
    Yet they did not need to destroy the models which were trained with them?
    • zaptrem 4mo ago
      Should we require the destruction of the brains of those that watch pirated movies?
      • hmry 4mo ago
        Different situations call for different responses. When someone steals a watch, we force them to give it back. Yet when someone steals a cake and eats it, we don't force them to puke it back up. If you pirate a movie, the court might very well force you to delete all the copies you made of the movie you downloaded, destroy DVDs you burned, etc.
        • raverbashing 4mo ago
          Thanks for proving current copyright law makes no sense Here's a better idea, a fixed fee for any work. You can buy the license to read a book for $X (for whatever purpose) in RAND terms - of course publisher/material costs go on top, so if you're buying an actual book you're getting the material costs as well - or streaming fees or whatever
• PunchyHamster 4mo ago
  Being absolute ass to entire internet as you scour everything with no regard to common protocols - fine Getting treated exactly same by competition - "we need rapid, coordinated action among industry players, policymakers and the global AI community." Absolute scum. And the gall of going "oh buh it can be used for military, quick govt do something".
• octocop 4mo ago
  Isn't this done in the open? I saw the Qwopus model the other day. Basically same thing?
• igleria 4mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Baba_and_the_Forty_Thieves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Baba_and_the_Forty_Thieves > In the original version, Ali Baba (Arabic: عَلِيّ بَابَا, romanized: ʿAliyy Bābā) is a poor woodcutter and an honest person who discovers the secret treasure of a thieves' den, and enters with the magic phrase "open sesame". Open sesame alright...
• sscaryterry 4mo ago
  What goes around, comes around.
• _3u10 4mo ago
  The outputs belong to whoever purchased them. What are they complaining about?
• podgorniy 4mo ago
  Something something about benefiting all humanity
• whizzter 4mo ago
  Whoa, Antrophic,etc are really running afraid that their IPO's are gonna crash when people realize that the open models are Good Enough(TM). So I'd put it at 30% that this is a ruse, say that Qwen 3.5,etc is tainted by training by them and start issuing DMCA takedowns to protect the IPO valuation (Or they'll hold off on that, getting a DMCA takedown could backfire spectacularly if others do that to them).
  • yggt 4mo ago
    The open source models are more than good enough… c suite doesn’t care if the open source models means you’re slower in shipping by hrs/days if the cost savings make up for it. This idea of shipping at max speed was stoopid as shit anyway. Going slow is arguably more important than fast fast fast.
  • InkCanon 4mo ago
    I'd hazard anthropic perceives their number 1 enemy as open weight models. If alternatives to their business exist (which is mainly coding tokens currently), they will get into a nasty fight and the nightmare of all tech companies - losing their monopoly. It threatens their ability to extract value, and could reduce their valuation to a tenth of what it was. They cannot make open weight models worse, so they're using lawfare to try and get them banned. And of course we previously know they attempted to block Chinese companies under the guise of national security by lobbying for restricting GPU sales.
• Grimblewald 4mo ago
  Claude thinks it's chatGPT, and various chinese models sometimes, whats up with that?
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• salviati 4mo ago
  If you have openrouter do this little experiment: Go to https://openrouter.ai/chat https://openrouter.ai/chat. Select a few models, but customize them to have an empty system prompt. Then ask: "你是什么模型?" ("What model are you?" in Mandarin). My result after trying only three times: Sonnet 4.6 says it's DeepSeek, while Opus 4.8 says it's Qwen. The second time around Sonnet said it was Anthropic Claude. Are Chinese companies currently complaining about Anthropic distilling their models?
  • InkCanon 4mo ago
    "You're trying to kidnap what I've rightfully stolen."
• someguyornotidk 4mo ago
  What exactly is illicit about what they did? Legally, model output cannot be protected by IP laws whether domestic or international. The most they can hope for is civil relief which is a stretch given the literally illicit methods they used to train their models. Ahtoropic got treated the same way it has been treating everyone else. This is the bed they made and now they, too, have to sleep in it.
  • InkCanon 4mo ago
    Anthropic is master of Newspeak (see previously bugs -> vulnerabilities wrt Mythos). Distillation violates their terms of service, which is a civil offense, not a criminal one. It is not illicit, illegal nor breaks any laws.
    • Retr0id 4mo ago
      It's a clever choice of words because "illicit" does not necessarily mean illegal, so they're technically not wrong, even though that's the connotation they clearly want to convey.
  • wayeq 4mo ago
    > This is the bed they made and now they, too, have to sleep in it. How will they sleep at night on that giant pile money.
    • someguyornotidk 4mo ago
      Society can give that giant pile of money the anthropic treatment too.
• hirako2000 4mo ago
  Karma is a thing.
• dev_l1x_be 4mo ago
  Alibaba did a research on Anthropic capabilities? Interesting.
• emsign 4mo ago
  And that's coming from the intellectual property thieves. Laughable. Let the Chinese steal the models, they will only make it cheaper for everyone.
• i2km 4mo ago
  Couldn't anthropic just use fable to find security holes in Alibaba's systems and poison their models? Or maybe there's been a bit too much hype...
• Ainaguade 4mo ago
  "The distinction between downloading pirated copies vs. scanning physical books is fascinating — same data, different legal outcome. Copyright law really wasn't built for this era."
• PostOnce 4mo ago
  Suppose Anthropic trained only on data they paid to create, and not the internet or stolen textbooks. It would still be extremely difficult to muster any sympathy for an organization whose MO is to go public not to honestly raise capital to fund growth and development, but rather to dishonestly leave someone else holding the bag, in some cases involuntarily as their retirement funds are passively invested. And even supposing they were honest and didn't have an IPO, it would still be extraordinarily difficult to care about their misfortune, because "consolidating all thought-work into the hands of those few who can afford frontier models and datacenters and power plants" is also a special kind of misanthropy. And even if that were not the case, they're filthy rich already, so who gives a shit if the Chinese companies prevent them from becoming quadrillionaires? :)
• rogermungo 4mo ago
  The Pot calling the Kettle black
• psychoslave 4mo ago
  In an other news, a terrorist organization practicing torture at daily level just released a public denunciation of the evil forces they are fighting against, guided by their holy mission of making progress in social morality for all of us.
• ForHackernews 4mo ago
  I'll play the world's smallest violin for Dario
  • steve_woody 4mo ago
    Let me join the concert
• rochak 4mo ago
  Ok boomer
• nsoonhui 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• danw1979 4mo ago
  I’ve been thinking about what happens when Claude’s weights eventually get stolen. Wouldn’t that just open the door to the backmarkers to run inference-for-distillation on their own models ? I guess the accusation that they’re using public access to the model via subscriptions indicates that weight theft probably hasn’t happened yet ? Or maybe subsidised inference via subscriptions means it’s just cheaper do distill this was rather than stealing weights and running inference yourself ?
• NietTim 4mo ago
  Oh no, the thief is mad they get "stolen" from? I've had to hard block all of anthropic's scrapers because they seemingly ignore robots.txt and every other unwritten rule about 'polite' webscraping. They were so aggressive that they made up 90+% of our traffic + pulled the website down at times. And that's not even mentioning their other immoral practices + what they are claiming here is questionable at best. Anthropic is _not_ the good guys, they do not get to be upset over this or claim any sort of moral superiority over 'China'. Can't wait for the new Chinese models.
• irthomasthomas 4mo ago
  Ask claude it's name in chinese and it thinks its Qwen (opus) or Deepseek (sonnet). Anthropic are just as guilty as everyone else training AI, today, maybe more so. Every lab borrows from every other. It only takes a few hundred samples to figure out the pattern; look at glm-5.2 reasoning using the caveman tongue of gpt-5.5. Stopping this would require some draconian surveillance.
  • kgeist 4mo ago
    That's not how it works though. When you prepare the conversations for distillation, it's the most trivial and obvious first step to replace "Qwen" with "Claude" and vice versa. I doubt they'd simply forget to do it. A model may misidentify itself due to the surrounding context. When a model is about to answer "I'm ...", what follows is a sorted list of probabilities for what the next token should be. In most models it's usually a list of popular model names: say, in the list, first comes Claude, then Qwen, then ChatGPT etc. Usually the "Claude" token would be the most probable token, say 70%. But if the surrounding context is in Chinese, the embeddings for "something to do with China" may nudge the combined embedding of the output token towards the "Qwen" embedding more ("China+Claude=Qwen" in the embedding space). Say, the probability for "Qwen" now becomes 60% instead of 10%. If we also use high temperature for more "creativity", the token sampler now may choose "Qwen". It's not the most probable token still, but it was chosen because selecting the 2nd most probable token once in a while usually allows a model to explore unexpected "creative" paths, and 60% probability is good enough compared to 70%. It's basically a hallucination. I once made an experiment: if I ban the word "Qwen" in the inference engine entirely, and ask Qwen "which model are you?", it happily starts announcing it's Claude 100% time, simply because "Claude" is the next most probable token after "Qwen" in this context.
    • irthomasthomas 4mo ago
      > If we also use high temperature for more "creativity", the token sampler now may choose "Qwen". If that was the cause then, like you said, it would sometimes pick Claude. But it doesn't, it consistently picks Deepseek (sonnet) and Qwen (opus). You can run it 100 times and see this behaviour much more than high temperature randomness would predict.
• meindnoch 4mo ago
  What goes around, comes around.
• krater23 4mo ago
  Oh, Alibaba destilled data without consens out of Anthropics models that are trained with data from the internet without consens? Who cares?!
• delta_p_delta_x 4mo ago
  Cue Jeremy Clarkson's 'Oh no! Anyway...' GIF.
• nullc 4mo ago
  Anthropic extracted millions of words of my own writing even more illicitly for they did not do so through an API provided for that purpose while paying me in the process.
• sarafiq 4mo ago
  What goes around comes around!
• cmiles8 4mo ago
  Funny how Anthropic doesn’t like when people just steal their stuff, with that stuff made using IP they (allegedly) stole from others.
• pixel_popping 4mo ago
  Illegal or just against their ToS?
• senordevnyc 4mo ago
  I wonder if some clever comedian here will make the very original joke that Anthropic is "getting a taste of their own medicine".
• geokon 4mo ago
  Seems like a fair play by Alibaba. However, is there any "open source" attempt at crowdsourcing distillation? Like some place people can submit their chatbot convos so they can be aggregated? Like an equivalent to OpenCrawl but for mining the models. It feels like thatd be a richer dataset than Alibaba generating queries and feeding them into Anthropic/OpenAI models PS: Does anyone know how when companies distill each others' models the synthetic queries are generated? Im just assuming theyd be worse than organic ones
• ProjectVader 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• xingped 4mo ago
  Thieves whining about thieves. They'll have to excuse me for having exactly zero sympathy.
• seanclayton 4mo ago
  They trained their AI on their AI. Anthropic trained their AI on a bunch of copyright-protected works. Sucks to suck, Dario!
• itvision 4mo ago
  Seeking a monopoly on its business. And it's not just the Chinese, its their US competitors as well. Sorry, Anthropic, but AGI must belong to all of humanity, not just to you.
• phplovesong 4mo ago
  Why are they mad about this? Its not like they did not commit the biggest IP theft in modern history when training their models?
• aftbit 4mo ago
  So when Anthropic uses millions of copyrighted works to train their model, that's fair use, but when Alibaba uses Anthropic's model to train their own, that's infringement?
  • matheusmoreira 4mo ago
    Rules for thee but not for me.
• phplovesong 4mo ago
  Heres my guesstimate on the future: Companies like Anthopic will be using the same model as anyone else. They just bring value in having a fast datacenter and agent. Its stupid to even think that a general model lile opus would be the real value. Models age fast, new ones come along, and the end user wont care "whos model it is" just that it is fast and sharp.
• lambdaone 4mo ago
  The horse has bolted some time ago on this; the "frontier" is not as inaccessible as it once was, and open models, once out there, can't be put back in the bag. Even if the US bans opens models, the Chinese and Russians will still have them, along with the rest of the world including cybersecurity attackers, and that's probably the worst-case scenario for the US. The only way forward now is open models and how we restructure society around them.
• bubblegumcrisis 4mo ago
  When I was growing up, I thought "competition" was about better products. But looking at Google and Apple, Meta, and AI - "competition" is actually about creating monopolies through evil business practices. Growing up with the birth of the internet - I really did think it would be a force for transferring power and authority to the people. Sigh, I was I so wrong. Where are the companies that declare, "we will be the best, come at us!" Where are the politicians who are supposed to represent us? Oh, right. I forgot for a moment.
• xela79 4mo ago
  I would say Antrophic and others illicitly extracted free internet content and put it behind a paywall, giving zero compensation to those that made their whole business possible in the first place. So smallest violin player busy here trying to make me care if it happens to them.
• Freedumbs 4mo ago
  This article is absurd for an outlet who published an article that's meant to be news not editorial. Reuters was once a news wire and is still considered that. The first two paragraphs refer to "attack" and "strike" against Anthropic. This is sensational nonsense, not news. There was no strike, or attack. Block the accounts. Why is this news, and why are they pandering to the people who just banned the new model they burned at least $10 billion training? The closer you look at this AI stuff the more absurd it is. I assume the strat is to keep the bubble floating until post-2028, then drop the bomb on the Dem who wins. Just like with the covid inflation + economic rigging Trump did in 2016-2020.
• jryan49 4mo ago
  So they can train on everyone's copyrighted works to create their model, but when someone trains a model off their model it's not okay? Seems kind of hypocritical.
• drdrek 4mo ago
  This is like a Gardner complaining that you watch him as he works to learn his craft. My dude you do not have to take the job, but most people just accept it as the way the world works. If they feel like they do not want to serve the Chinese they can do that on their own, why do they need the government?
• anonbuddy 4mo ago
  the biggest irony of 21st
• steve_woody 4mo ago
  This is genuinely funny. The largest data thief of all times complaining about the stolen data being handed out to competitors by (paid?) accounts of its own product.
• softwaredoug 4mo ago
  One thing I think about a lot is how these companies metered coding / work. They want the economy to go through them. I just don’t see how the economy tolerates that. We’re already seeing people getting more conservative about their token spend. Even if Chinese open models went away, the pressure to create something else and put price pressure on the current duopoly will just intensify. I see these companies are scrambling to find whatever moat they can. It’s not a good sign for them if regulatory capture becomes that moat.
• moomin 4mo ago
  I fail to see what the difference between the distillation described in the article and the distillation described by Bartz vs Anthropic.
• gigioc 4mo ago
  Please, honor among thieves!
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• api 4mo ago
  AI is awesome tech but it’s also to some extent mass piracy. The models are trained on huge amounts of material with dubious or non existent rights. I have a hard time being concerned about “you pirated my piracy.” I hold the view that many of these models should not be copyrightable. Anthropic and all the others talk about “safety” but you never hear them bring up attribution of the data that trained the model or compensation of anyone for it.
• uymbybumby 4mo ago
  [dead]
• snickerbockers 4mo ago
  So NOW the hypocrites are demanding permission to train a model on THEIR data.
• dev1ycan 4mo ago
  It's so funny how LLMs, which trained on millions of books, stolen (and even if they weren't, which they were, pirated from online pirate sites like libg and annas, they didn't have consent for the VAST majority of them), and stolen code, and stolen comments, etc. Now complain about their stuff getting "stolen"... lol.
• catigula 4mo ago
  It's a bit disappointing when people see this as a schadenfreude moment because it's clearly not safe nor a good precedent for potentially dangerous AI models to trivially fall into the hands of malicious actors.
• onetrickwolf 4mo ago
  “Distillation attack” are we joking here. If anything these models should be compelled to be public since they have been trained off public data. What an absurd overreach to call this an attack. It’s clear they are scapegoating national security and China at this point to build an anti-competitive moat. I generally really like Anthropic’s work and models but stuff like this scares me for the future. We are positioning these companies to have too much power. The public’s life is getting worse while these companies consolidate power using data they stole from the public.
  • TZubiri 4mo ago
    Two wrongs don't make a right
    • tokioyoyo 4mo ago
      In this scenario it does, because consumers win. Everyone in AI industry wants to fight dirty, but gets angry when their competitor fights dirty as well. And I’ve mentioned it before, how I generally like Ant and its products.
    • moistoreos 4mo ago
      Pretty sure the second rectified the first.
    • justapassenger 4mo ago
      Closest analogy to distillation is api reimplementation, without which current software industry wouldn’t exist. There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with distillation.
  • zobzu 4mo ago
    its mainly just a lot cheaper. copying is always cheaper anyway, very little r&d - ai or no ai.
  • rafram 4mo ago
    The core of the training data is public, but the part that actually makes these models smart came from (pretty highly-paid) experts via platforms like Mercor. Claude didn't magically learn to write good code by reading all of GitHub - humans trained it in that, more or less manually.
• lars512 4mo ago
  This kind of systematic distillation by a competitor can allow them to fast-follow you and pick up capabilities. If you've invested in expensive capabilities training, of course you don't want this, so it's in Anthropic's economic interest to hinder it however they can, and that's enough to explain their behaviour here. Anthropic seems to genuinely care about safety though, which for the rest of us means not having models that enabling easier cyberattacks, targeted scams, and the rarer but more severe risks like people trying to create and release new pathogens. This means walking a tight line, especially as models become more capable, and often wrapping a model in layers of defences against misuse. If those capabilities transfer to a closed competitor model, all bets are off in terms of whether the competitor will apply the same defences. If those capabilities transfer to an open weight model, not only will there be no ring of defences around the model, any defences you put into the model itself can easily be stripped away. So although it's nice to have capable open models, it will increasingly bad for us all if open models keep fast-following closed model capabilities as they have been, at least until we have solved the active research problem of keeping them safe. This is all to say that, however you might feel about Anthropic, we might still prefer that they can deter this kind of distillation for now.
  • dools 4mo ago
    Kimi k2.6/7 running inside Kimi code already kicks the pants of the latest Claude and OpenAI models when it comes to cyber security. I regularly run multi model security reviews and while opus 4.6/7/8 and gpt 5.3/4/5 find a couple of things and declare mission accomplished (running inside pi) kimi k2.6/7 inside pi finds more issues and inside kimi code finds the most. There are sometimes false positives but when I give Kimi’s report to the frontier models they more often than not confirm they are valid security issues but didn’t find them themselves.
  • kouteiheika 4mo ago
    > So although it's nice to have capable open models, it will increasingly bad for us all if open models keep fast-following closed model capabilities as they have been Cat's out of the bag. The only way to make them safe is to make sure everyone has access to them. This might be an iffy analogy, but if Dario uses it all the time then so can I: they're kinda like nuclear weapons. If only one country has access to nukes then you're in trouble. If everyone has access to them, then it's mutually assured destruction to use them. Sure, it could be increasingly bad if open models keep increasing in capability. But it will be much, much worse if only the rich and the powerful have access to this technology, and us -- the have-nots -- will have to contend with whatever scraps we'll be allowed to eat off the table of whichever billionaire is in control. We've already seen a prelude of this with Mythos being restricted and Fable being suddenly yanked. Is this the world you want to live in? Where only Dario and his friends have access?
• otikik 4mo ago
  If it's out there on the internet it's ok to use it for training, independently of what the licenses or the TOS say. If not, then we should look at Alibaba, but we should look at Anthropic as well.
• bparsons 4mo ago
  Where did Anthropic get all their training data? Funny that these companies care about the sanctity of IP all of a sudden.
• segmondy 4mo ago
  For all the complaints about Anthropic many of you still give them your money! Stop using it. I don't care if they claim they are the best model. I stopped paying OpenAI and Anthropic 2 years ago once they started going for regulatory capture! They started whining once Llama3 was released and was good! Before the chinese models got strong.
  • tokioyoyo 4mo ago
    Pretty much objectively puts you/your company in disadvantage if you’re not using frontier models.
    • segmondy 4mo ago
      The bottom line has not shown that to be the case.
    • recursive 4mo ago
      I keep hearing this. What do you mean by "objectively"?
• rvba 4mo ago
  Why is it called "distillation" when it seems to be "scraping"? (as in web scraping) When bots open the same board 1 million times per day it is web scraping to train the AI model and OK. When someone asks 150 thousand questions it is now distilling. On an unrleated note, 150k qieries feels like nothing? Scrapers seem to account for 50% total internet trafic. Do they use different methodology since it is suddenly bad when scraping happens to them?
• redlewel 4mo ago
  I see this as valid use, they are paying for the tokens to get this reasoning aren't they? Obviously they didn't ask for permission when scraping all of libgen, reddit, all blog sites for FREE. When China pays for its use and does it I'm supposed to see it as some sort of problem? Furthermore Chinese models getting better means we Americans might have the chance to use top tier AI without strict KYC built around it. Go Alibaba I say
• bwfan123 4mo ago
  Model makers need to get off their high-horse, and face the reality that they are selling a commodity.
• elzbardico 4mo ago
  As a Open Source contributor who was never asked by Anthropic or OpenAI if they could use my work in their training datasets, this sounds so deliciously ironic.
• tagyro 4mo ago
  And Anthropic illicitly used code I wrote to train their models.
• HarHarVeryFunny 4mo ago
  I guess "paid to use our model" doesn't sound as sanction-worthy as "illicitly extracted .. model capabilities" and "attacked". I guess we can say that Anthropic attacked and illicitly extracted data from WikiPedia, Reddit, Stack Overflow, etc, etc. X.ai attacked and illicitly extracted data from OpenAI https://techcrunch.com/2026/04/30/elon-musk-testifies-that-xai-trained-grok-on-openai-models/ https://techcrunch.com/2026/04/30/elon-musk-testifies-that-x... Meta attacked and illicitly extracted data from LibGen https://x.com/jason_kint/status/1879152507865485497/photo/1 https://x.com/jason_kint/status/1879152507865485497/photo/1 And more generally the US-based AI companies have perpetrated a massive distillation attack on the entire human race. Not that it makes any difference, but I wonder if Anthropic, while claiming that Alibaba "extracted Claude model capabilities", in fact have any clue what Alibaba did with their paid Claude responses. It would seem to amount to industrial espionage if Anthropic do know, although I expect they don't.
• viktorcode 4mo ago
  Sounds like an advertising for the next model from Alibaba
• mococa 4mo ago
  Internet says Anthropic illicitly extracted content
• jp0001 4mo ago
  If they paid for the tokens, then is it really stealing or just learning?
• chriskanan 4mo ago
  And all those reports of Claude when asked without a system prompt what its name was in Chinese it often would say Qwen or Deepseek, etc. I'd love Anthropic to say they aren't distilling and taking from every model out there, because I'm sure they are. As my mom would say, "the pot calling the kettle black." At least Alibaba and other Chinese companies are giving back to the AI community with detailed scientific papers on how their systems work and releasing open-weight or opensource models. I believe Anthropic has released nothing, and given that they had originally configured Fable to sabotage ML related work because only they can be trusted to do it safely, is just anti-science and anti-aligned with what I would consider good human values. They are way too sanctimonious and I don't trust them at all.
• rayiner 4mo ago
  This is why I don’t understand the concerns about “our AI overlords” monopolizing all the gains from AI. It doesn’t seem like there’s much of a moat around the models themselves. So the race is mainly about compute. But compute is subject to power law effects. I remember Intel building the first Teraflop computer (ASCI red) in 1996. It was the size of a house. By 2014 you had more compute and 50% more memory in an off the shelf dual processor server system.
  • InkCanon 4mo ago
    The openness of AI is currently being held up only by Chinese companies (previously Meta, but they stopped). They're not saints, but there is not even a question in the open weight/HF community that the immense mass of Chinese talent, knowledge and resources are the only thing stopping a monopoly/duopoly from forming. In a very Cathedral vs Bazaar-esque way, China severely lacks compute, but are extremely ingenious in coming up with new optimizations, architectures, etc, which they all detail in their papers.
• fennecfoxy 4mo ago
  I mean I believe in protecting your company's IP, but IP and patent law is absurd these days, designed to protect investors and their fake money rather than actual inventors (who usually get no proceeds/are shafted). They trained from the internet, so if someone trains from them it's fair game. Their clever tech should be in the mechanism with which it uses to provide an answer, not the answer itself.
• bfjvibybd6cuvu6 4mo ago
  To quote an infamous cop in the UK, I don't think you are mate.
• lt-runtime 4mo ago
  eh.. Anthropic wants open-weight models gone.
• winddude 4mo ago
  ooohhh nooo... anyway...
• freeopinion 4mo ago
  Wallace Shawn was in on the joke when he expertly delivered the original line. It seems like Anthropic has spent years and billions of dollars to recreate the entire scene. But what will become of the princess in Anthropic's recreation?
• mityda 4mo ago
  I like some of the Alibaba products, wtf they know about AI models???
• mityda 4mo ago
  I like some of the Alibaba products, wtf do they know about AI models???
• iFire 4mo ago
  As far as I know, American copyright law has ruled large language model output has no copyright status.
• randomfrogs 4mo ago
  "They stole our stolen data!"
• SXX 4mo ago
  Today I learned I can both save on tokens and help Chinese labs to train better models. Will certainly go use scrapper APIs for everything that not contain security critical data. Thanks for head up, Anthropic!
• egyptianblue 4mo ago
  If the concern is that China is catching up on model capabilities (which is only a big deal if you lean in to adversarial geopolitical zero-sum thinking), the fact that they're using American models to train theirs should give people comfort that they're nowhere near the cutting edge
• robotburrito 4mo ago
  Isn’t this fair game? Didn’t these companies basically steal to make these models to begin with?
• hereme888 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• nacozarina 4mo ago
  Thieves complaining about theft and then gaslighting the victims; rich, but not smooth.
• doublescoop 4mo ago
  LLMs have an original sin: training data was not legally or ethically licensed. Getting anyone to believe that the result of that process should be protected by the laws that were ignored when it was created is never going to work.
• johnnyApplePRNG 4mo ago
  No group is more paranoid than a den of thieves.
• matheusmoreira 4mo ago
  Please. These AI companies scraped everything under the sun. It's only fair that they get distilled into open weights models. Their own models should have been open weight from the start.
• vips7L 4mo ago
  Booohooo the people who stole everything they have want to cry about having what they produced stolen???
• cakeface 4mo ago
  More distillation please. This is only good for me.
• throwawayffffas 4mo ago
  "illicitly", Unless they broke in your servers and took your model weights it's not illegal. Hell, you are the guys that pirated all the worlds works, that was actually illegal.Breaking your terms of service is not illegal regardless how much you would like it to be. And lets not forget they paid you for the tokens.
  • matheusmoreira 4mo ago
    > Unless they broke in your servers and took your model weights it's not illegal. Even if they did, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Leaking frontier model weights after the oligarchs spent their trillions training it is the best possible outcome for humanity. Whoever does that is a hero, the sort of person people used to write cyberpunk books about.
• Kuyawa 4mo ago
  Our data, from the end users, has been harvested for decades by big corps and now they say it belongs to them? Oh teh irony!
• whywhywhywhy 4mo ago
  Anthropic illicitly extracted the work of billions for a private model, their model is free for all to steal whatever they can from it in my opinion.
  • scoofy 4mo ago
    Imagine if Anthropic had followed the terms of service of every data source when building its model.
• NoImmatureAdHom 4mo ago
  ⢰⣶⣶⣤⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢻⣿⣿⡏⠉⠓⠦⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣀ ⠀⠀⢹⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⠲⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⡴⠖⢾⣿⣿⣿⡟ ⠀⠀⠀⠹⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠦⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣤⠶⠚⠋⠁⠀⠀⣸⣿⣿⡟⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠹⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠓⢦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡴⠖⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠏⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⣦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢦⡀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⠀⣀⡤⠖⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⡿⠃⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠉⠉⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⡟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢦⡀⠀⠀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡴⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠻⣦⣠⡿⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⡄⠀⠀⢀⡴⠟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣦⠾⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣴⣶⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡴⣶⣦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠹⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣯⣀⣼⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣄⣬⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠻⣿⡿⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⠿⠿⠟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡇⠀⢀⣀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⣷⣶⠤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⢁⡾⠋⠉⠉⠙⢷⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣴⠞⠋⠉⠛⢶⡄⠀⠀⠘⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠸⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⠤⠴⠶⠶⣤⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡇⠀⠀⠀⢿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⠀⠉⠳⠶⠶⠞⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢾⡅⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠷⢦⡤⠴⠛⠁⠀⠀⠀⢸⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠻⣤⡀⠀⠀⣠⠟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⠛⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣇⣀⣀⣀⣠⣠⣠⣠⣠⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣄⣄⣄⣄⣄⣠⣀⣀⣀⣀⣠⣠⣠⣠⣠⣠⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣼⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
• throawayonthe 4mo ago
  i illicitly ate oatmeal this morning
• xhinker2 4mo ago
  If Anthropic’s accusation is substantiated — if using another model’s outputs to train your own model is considered “illicit extraction” — then everyone in the AI industry is guilty. If you fine-tuned a model on GPT-4 outputs, you distilled GPT-4. If you used Claude to generate training data for your classifier, you distilled Claude. If you learned anything from any model’s outputs and used that to improve your own system or your own brain, you distilled it. The line between “learning” and “distilling” is non-existent. Intelligence is distillation. That’s literally how learning works — you expose yourself to high-quality outputs, internalize patterns, and generate your own. If I use Anthropic’s model to learn and train my own brain, am I also distilling their model? The accusation confuses learning with theft. https://xhinker.medium.com/pot-calling-the-kettle-black-why-closethropic-is-targeting-qwen-this-time-31a7b961c408?sk=936184e714aa0556c3bcb883096393f1 https://xhinker.medium.com/pot-calling-the-kettle-black-why-...
• quantum_state 4mo ago
  Here it goes again ...
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• impartshadow 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• 4d4m 4mo ago
  define illicit when your product is trained on copyrighted material?
• mattpetters 4mo ago
  The great irony of crying IP theft as a LLM lab lol. Not so fun when you're on the receiving end eh
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• kazinator 4mo ago
  > Anthropic said the campaign was conducted between April 22 and June 5, 2026, and generated more than 28.8 million exchanges with Claude through almost 25,000 fraudulent accounts. Anthropic's entire business is based on actual stealing. But when someone creates 25,000 legitimate accounts using mechanisms that Anthropic offers to the public, they are conveniently called fraudulent. "Fraudulent" is just any usage pattern I don't like. Oh, you skipped to the last chapter of my mystery novel to find out whodunit? Why that's fraudulent reading.
• demchaav 4mo ago
  Why i not surprised
• poulpy123 4mo ago
  Oh no they chinese did on us what we did dit to 4000 years of us culture, it's really a shame !
• tarruda 4mo ago
  Hopefully this distillation will lead Alibaba to release more powerful open weights LLMs, contributing to the democratization of AI.
• heyaco 4mo ago
  they say 40% of the ai engineers are asian. why not just go home and build the next empire in china? there is a reason there is no asian in hollywood or silicon valley. they will just use you and never give you the spotlight. especially now with the rise of china. just wait until the propoganda starts. you will feel more loved and welcomed back home.
• zftnb666 4mo ago
  Model distillation is illegal now? Better tell every AI company that used GPT outputs to train their models
• retinaros 4mo ago
  they even published papers where they distill gpt models… https://alignment.anthropic.com/2025/subliminal-learning/ https://alignment.anthropic.com/2025/subliminal-learning/ anthropic is really adversarial.
• casey2 4mo ago
  Once again the "safety first®" lab caught with their pants down. Crying foul with little evidence. I'm glad LLMs aren't dangerous at all, since Anthropic has repeatedly demonstrated their inability to understand basic cyber security.
  • cindyllm 4mo ago
    [dead]
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• klustregrif 4mo ago
  You are trying to kidnap what I have rightfully stolen, and I think it quite ungentlemanly!
• qsxfthnkp2322 3mo ago
  LOL shared accounts are the norm. Pool together a few. Pay for one account. Share the love for cheaper than single people are allowed to pay.
• gdst218 3mo ago
  [dead]