2 ms·

I'd kindly suggest that we could also stop calling them "distillation attacks".

reilly3000 2mo ago
Agreed. I think when it comes to light that Claude has been known to say “I’m DeepSeek” that everyone has had their hand in that cookie jar. Moreover, paying for API calls hardly seems like an attack; ToS violation to be certain but not in the same category of law as criminal activity like hacking.
- idiotsecant 2mo ago
  wait, is there evidence of this? I've not observed it. It sounds like the kind of thing that I want to be true because it would be hilarious but that makes me suspicious.
  - petu 2mo ago
    LLMs can't reliably answer what they are (w/o getting that info from system prompt/tool call/etc), so yea. https://xcancel.com/teortaxesTex/status/2026130112685416881 https://xcancel.com/teortaxesTex/status/2026130112685416881 I think I've seen same happening with some European languages as well.
  - snovv_crash 2mo ago
    Ask it in Chinese
__MatrixMan__ 2mo ago
Agreed, "distilled variants" might be more suitable.
- overfeed 2mo ago
  Calling them variants is also inaccurate when the pretrained base and architecture are completely different.
halJordan 2mo ago
Why on earth wouldn't you? It's clearly a forcible, aggressive, non-consensual attempt to take something. That's an attack in any other terms. It's totally fair if you approve of the attack, and want the attack to succeed. But your preference doesn't stop it from being what it is.
- Tostino 2mo ago
  "They are using and paying for an API I am selling...But they save the data and use it for something I don't like! I'm being attacked."
- egeozcan 2mo ago
  > It's clearly a forcible, aggressive, non-consensual attempt to take something Distillers are not taking anything, they are just making their model learn from better ones - isn't that the whole AI training doesn't violate IP argument? They just aren't using the tool in compliance with the terms of service. Anthropic could ban them or take them to court maybe. Not an attack still.
- anigbrowl 2mo ago
  Fine, then let's refer to the initial data collection/training as 'compilation attacks' going forward. ...or maybe we stop defaulting to adversarial paradigms for every conceivable situation.
- nextaccountic 2mo ago
  We could call it distillation learning A model is teaching another here Everyone wins

Agreed. I think when it comes to light that Claude has been known to say “I’m DeepSeek” that everyone has had their hand in that cookie jar. Moreover, paying for API calls hardly seems like an attack; ToS violation to be certain but not in the same category of law as criminal activity like hacking.

idiotsecant 2mo ago
wait, is there evidence of this? I've not observed it. It sounds like the kind of thing that I want to be true because it would be hilarious but that makes me suspicious.
- petu 2mo ago
  LLMs can't reliably answer what they are (w/o getting that info from system prompt/tool call/etc), so yea. https://xcancel.com/teortaxesTex/status/2026130112685416881 https://xcancel.com/teortaxesTex/status/2026130112685416881 I think I've seen same happening with some European languages as well.
- snovv_crash 2mo ago
  Ask it in Chinese

__MatrixMan__ 2mo ago

Agreed, "distilled variants" might be more suitable.

overfeed 2mo ago
Calling them variants is also inaccurate when the pretrained base and architecture are completely different.

halJordan 2mo ago

Why on earth wouldn't you? It's clearly a forcible, aggressive, non-consensual attempt to take something. That's an attack in any other terms. It's totally fair if you approve of the attack, and want the attack to succeed. But your preference doesn't stop it from being what it is.

Tostino 2mo ago
"They are using and paying for an API I am selling...But they save the data and use it for something I don't like! I'm being attacked."
egeozcan 2mo ago
> It's clearly a forcible, aggressive, non-consensual attempt to take something Distillers are not taking anything, they are just making their model learn from better ones - isn't that the whole AI training doesn't violate IP argument? They just aren't using the tool in compliance with the terms of service. Anthropic could ban them or take them to court maybe. Not an attack still.
anigbrowl 2mo ago
Fine, then let's refer to the initial data collection/training as 'compilation attacks' going forward. ...or maybe we stop defaulting to adversarial paradigms for every conceivable situation.
nextaccountic 2mo ago
We could call it distillation learning A model is teaching another here Everyone wins