3 ms·
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
by 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 agoFine, 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 agoWe could call it distillation learning A model is teaching another here Everyone wins