6 ms·

Moonshot serves Claude instead of Kimi and collects exchanges for model training

67 points by MrBuddyCasino 21d ago

https://xcancel.com/DavidAgranovich/status/2098168522862215449 https://xcancel.com/DavidAgranovich/status/20981685228622154...

Laurel1234 21d ago
So?
ahsillyme 21d ago
This is weird. I can't think of a better compliment that is simultaneously safer. They'll always trail on data generation then, no? So I can't see the point. Best case for moonshot they get to lie about benchmarks that are gamed regardless, is how I see it.
okokwhatever 21d ago
Expected
OutOfHere 21d ago
There is absolutely nothing ethically wrong with other models using GPT and Claude for training. Heck, GPT-Sol even helped train GPT-Luna. There also is nothing wrong with using customer data for training, since millions if not billions of other users benefit from it. Again, even the big players recognize its relevance and do it.
- nojito 21d ago
  They are using stolen api keys and credentials.
  - OutOfHere 21d ago
    They probably have no choice because they're not allowed to pay for its use. If they were allowed to pay for a Claude or Codex subscription, they probably would. Also, it is essential for the model's responses to be without censorship. In reality, responses sent to China by flagship models are known to be weaker.
  - nickthegreek 21d ago
    I haven't seen evidence of this. Care to link?
    - nojito 21d ago
      it's in the actual report. https://www.anthropic.com/threat-intelligence-report-september-2026 https://www.anthropic.com/threat-intelligence-report-septemb... >In one instance, over a ten-day period, Moonshot relayed almost 300,000 customer requests to Anthropic, the vast majority of which were routed to Opus. Moonshot used a proxy service network of 5,380 fraudulent accounts, most of which appeared to be located in Singapore and Japan.
      - sejje 21d ago
        That says fraudulent, not stolen. That means they made up the names, basically.
        villish 21d ago
        > these proxy services create thousands of new accounts using false identities, fake or stolen credit cards, and stolen API keys. They will often use stolen API credentials belonging to legitimate companies or individuals to give unauthorized entities access to US frontier models.
        OutOfHere 21d ago
        It is a direct result of restricting access to these models. Access to them should never have been restricted. The restriction leaves users with no choice but to use unusual means to obtain access. We have completely forgotten what free trade means and why it is optimal, and we will pay the price for it.
        villish 21d ago
        Unusual means? It’s illegal to steal accounts and credit cards. Completely sanctioned by PRC. No other country can compete since they must follow the law, hence mistral not even trying anymore.
- mrngld 21d ago
  [flagged]
  - neuroticnews25 21d ago
    Violating terms of use is not illegal.
nacs 21d ago
Claude/OpenAI etc have taken and continue to take literally all data from the internet, printed books, image, audio, and video humans have created in all of existence without permission to train their models. But when same AI company gets "distilled" or it's own AI-generated content used to train other models, it's suddenly immoral or illegal?
- ratelimitsteve 21d ago
  no matter how shitty OpenAI is I don't want to be lied to. Completely separate issues.
  - cindyllm 21d ago
    [dead]
  - deleted 21d ago
    [deleted]
- mrngld 21d ago
  People keep saying this without attribution. Meta and others got caught, and brought into court, over using torrented files. But those models trained on that data have long since been retired and replaced with new models based on new from-scratch training runs. OpenAI, Anthropic, etc all pay studios, newspapers, Reddit and others for access to data for training. They scrape the open web, but if that's illegal a court hasn't said so. The open web is open, after all. And they don't seem to be stealing books, they seem to be buying physical copies and scanning. Seems legit, that's what a human would do to learn from a book. They also pay big bucks for commercially curated data and training sets. Just feels like there's enormous CCP effort to put their labs on equal moral footing with everyone else when it's not demonstrably the case. They want the West to hate themselves so we're happy to squander our technological lead.
  - rsstack 21d ago
    > they seem to be buying physical copies and scanning. Seems legit, that's what a human would do to learn from a book There’s still the open question on learn vs copy/mimic/repeat. As a human, I can read a book I bought. I’m definitely not allowed to scan it and post its pages online and upload them to an archive of scanned PDFs without the authors’ and publishers’ permission. IIRC the Meta legal case wasn’t even about LLMs, they just torrented and shared pirated files, whether with strangers or among employees. Those may or may not have been later used for training, but it was already illegal to just share among employees.
segmondy 21d ago
So how come super genius Fable and Mythos didn't stop them?
- piyh 20d ago
  >Zhipu initially attempted to target the cyber capabilities of Anthropic’s Fable model. Fable—Anthropic’s top generally accessible model—has strengthened cyber safeguards, making it more difficult for would-be distillers to target Fable’s cyber capabilities. Zhipu eventually gave up trying to target Fable after Anthropic’s cyber safeguards degraded Zhipu’s attacks.
nojito 21d ago
We also get a glimpse into what those models are being used for. >PLA-affiliated surveillance activity. One user that we assess was likely affiliated with the PLA used what they thought was Moonshot’s Kimi model to load surveillance data from a CCTV archive about a single targeted individual. The user asked Kimi to analyze the CCTV data to understand whether the tracked person was behaving abnormally. The CCTV data included video surveillance from hundreds of cameras in Chengdu, including cameras outside PLA facilities, institutes affiliated with the China Electronics Technology Group Corporation, and a major state-owned enterprise (SOE).
- epsylon 17d ago
  How dare the Chinese government use mass surveillance against its own citizens.
deleted 21d ago
[deleted]
tancop 21d ago
So we're randomly getting free Claude and helping China beat America at the same time? The only problem with it is they might have worse security than Anthropic and your personal info gets leaked, but I don't think it can happen that easy.
AlanYx 21d ago
The open question here is how is Anthropic retaining these exchanges? If Moonshot is using the API, normally Anthropic would not retain the exchanges, at least that's the promise. If Anthropic is consistently retaining all exchanges from a class of customers because they're "flagged" but not notifying those customers, how can an average customer trust it won't happen to them? If Moonshot is buying accounts and using those rather than the API, wouldn't they set the "no training on my data" flag in the settings so as to go undetected for longer? If so, we get back to the question of why would Anthropic be retaining the exchanges?
- Shank 21d ago
  > If Moonshot is buying accounts and using those rather than the API, wouldn't they set the "no training on my data" flag in the settings so as to go undetected for longer? If so, we get back to the question of why would Anthropic be retaining the exchanges? I would like to briefly draw your attention to this part of the Terms of Service [0]: > We may use Materials to provide, maintain, and improve the Services and to develop other products and services, including training our models, unless you opt out of training through your account settings. Even if you opt out, we will use Materials for model training when: (1) you provide Feedback to us regarding any Materials, or (2) your Materials are flagged for safety review to improve our ability to detect harmful content, enforce our policies, or advance our safety research. From the privacy policy [1]: > We use your personal data for the following purposes: > To prevent and investigate fraud, abuse, and violations of our Usage Policy, unlawful or criminal activity, unauthorized access to or use of personal data or Anthropic systems and networks, to protect our rights and the rights of others, to protect your safety or that of any other person, and to meet legal, governmental and institutional policy obligations; Anthropic does offer a truly no data retention service, which is their "zero-data retention" agreement, which you have to sign and provide more documentation for than simply using either a normal consumer or API account. I doubt Moonshot did that, so by their terms, they can retain your data and use it for training if it's part of abuse prevention. [0]: https://www.anthropic.com/legal/consumer-terms https://www.anthropic.com/legal/consumer-terms [1]: https://www.anthropic.com/legal/privacy https://www.anthropic.com/legal/privacy
  - 21d ago
deleted 21d ago
[deleted]
monneyboi 21d ago
I can't be the only one that is getting tired of this. Framing learning from observation as somehow bad. Something literally everybody is doing, model and human alike. It's the process this whole industry is built on. Pretending that this is bad because the other people are also doing what you have been doing, is hypocritical and childish. Meanwhile I'm sitting here looking at some "Flibbertigittering" spinner like some sort of caveman, unable to steer the model when it misinterprets my ambigious prompt because I'm not allowed to see 80% of the output tokens I'm paying for.
- villish 21d ago
  > Framing learning from observation as somehow bad. How about hacking accounts, using stolen credit cards, and sending data to the US silently? > Pretending that this is bad It is. This makes AI a 2 horse race because European labs cannot legally compete. I find it strange that people from EU cheer for that, it prevents you from having frontier level AI sovereignty.
  - taskforcegemini 17d ago
    Prisoners dilemma.
- DonsDiscountGas 21d ago
  This is the first I'm hearing of a model provider just providing a different model without telling you. Anthropic came close (and with a much better justification) but they disclosed their intention at least.
ChrisArchitect 21d ago
[dupe] Discussion on source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49647300 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49647300
jst1fthsdys 21d ago
Why is this taken at face value when it’s from a company that routinely lies about their model killing all humans someday? Especially when the bad actors just happen to be the US enemies.
kadoban 21d ago
Can these big companies that want to distill not just get the models? Like how many machines at how many different providers are running Opus 5? Nobody is just throwing the model on a thumb drive and taking it home, or grabbing an old drive that somebody was too lazy to scrub or whatever? That would be vastly more illegal, but would it even matter? What would the practical downside be?
- pwinnski 21d ago
  One imagines that they're trying. I work at not-a-frontier-lab and my company still ended up hiring someone who apparently wasn't aware that we track system access. He was turned over to the federal authorities after trying to exfiltrate a lot of user+system data to North Korean IPs.
wren6991 21d ago
K3 is served with full reasoning traces available. Anthropic models aren't. If you were served an Anthropic model instead of K3, it would be blatantly obvious. I have little reason to believe this, and Anthropic have every reason to lie about it.

67 points by MrBuddyCasino 21d ago

https://xcancel.com/DavidAgranovich/status/2098168522862215449 https://xcancel.com/DavidAgranovich/status/20981685228622154...

Laurel1234 21d ago

So?

ahsillyme 21d ago

This is weird. I can't think of a better compliment that is simultaneously safer. They'll always trail on data generation then, no? So I can't see the point. Best case for moonshot they get to lie about benchmarks that are gamed regardless, is how I see it.

okokwhatever 21d ago

Expected

OutOfHere 21d ago

There is absolutely nothing ethically wrong with other models using GPT and Claude for training. Heck, GPT-Sol even helped train GPT-Luna. There also is nothing wrong with using customer data for training, since millions if not billions of other users benefit from it. Again, even the big players recognize its relevance and do it.

nojito 21d ago
They are using stolen api keys and credentials.
- OutOfHere 21d ago
  They probably have no choice because they're not allowed to pay for its use. If they were allowed to pay for a Claude or Codex subscription, they probably would. Also, it is essential for the model's responses to be without censorship. In reality, responses sent to China by flagship models are known to be weaker.
- nickthegreek 21d ago
  I haven't seen evidence of this. Care to link?
  - nojito 21d ago
    it's in the actual report. https://www.anthropic.com/threat-intelligence-report-september-2026 https://www.anthropic.com/threat-intelligence-report-septemb... >In one instance, over a ten-day period, Moonshot relayed almost 300,000 customer requests to Anthropic, the vast majority of which were routed to Opus. Moonshot used a proxy service network of 5,380 fraudulent accounts, most of which appeared to be located in Singapore and Japan.
    - sejje 21d ago
      That says fraudulent, not stolen. That means they made up the names, basically.
      - villish 21d ago
        > these proxy services create thousands of new accounts using false identities, fake or stolen credit cards, and stolen API keys. They will often use stolen API credentials belonging to legitimate companies or individuals to give unauthorized entities access to US frontier models.
        OutOfHere 21d ago
        It is a direct result of restricting access to these models. Access to them should never have been restricted. The restriction leaves users with no choice but to use unusual means to obtain access. We have completely forgotten what free trade means and why it is optimal, and we will pay the price for it.
        villish 21d ago
        Unusual means? It’s illegal to steal accounts and credit cards. Completely sanctioned by PRC. No other country can compete since they must follow the law, hence mistral not even trying anymore.
mrngld 21d ago
[flagged]
- neuroticnews25 21d ago
  Violating terms of use is not illegal.

nacs 21d ago

Claude/OpenAI etc have taken and continue to take literally all data from the internet, printed books, image, audio, and video humans have created in all of existence without permission to train their models. But when same AI company gets "distilled" or it's own AI-generated content used to train other models, it's suddenly immoral or illegal?

ratelimitsteve 21d ago
no matter how shitty OpenAI is I don't want to be lied to. Completely separate issues.
- cindyllm 21d ago
  [dead]
- deleted 21d ago
  [deleted]
mrngld 21d ago
People keep saying this without attribution. Meta and others got caught, and brought into court, over using torrented files. But those models trained on that data have long since been retired and replaced with new models based on new from-scratch training runs. OpenAI, Anthropic, etc all pay studios, newspapers, Reddit and others for access to data for training. They scrape the open web, but if that's illegal a court hasn't said so. The open web is open, after all. And they don't seem to be stealing books, they seem to be buying physical copies and scanning. Seems legit, that's what a human would do to learn from a book. They also pay big bucks for commercially curated data and training sets. Just feels like there's enormous CCP effort to put their labs on equal moral footing with everyone else when it's not demonstrably the case. They want the West to hate themselves so we're happy to squander our technological lead.
- rsstack 21d ago
  > they seem to be buying physical copies and scanning. Seems legit, that's what a human would do to learn from a book There’s still the open question on learn vs copy/mimic/repeat. As a human, I can read a book I bought. I’m definitely not allowed to scan it and post its pages online and upload them to an archive of scanned PDFs without the authors’ and publishers’ permission. IIRC the Meta legal case wasn’t even about LLMs, they just torrented and shared pirated files, whether with strangers or among employees. Those may or may not have been later used for training, but it was already illegal to just share among employees.

segmondy 21d ago

So how come super genius Fable and Mythos didn't stop them?

piyh 20d ago
>Zhipu initially attempted to target the cyber capabilities of Anthropic’s Fable model. Fable—Anthropic’s top generally accessible model—has strengthened cyber safeguards, making it more difficult for would-be distillers to target Fable’s cyber capabilities. Zhipu eventually gave up trying to target Fable after Anthropic’s cyber safeguards degraded Zhipu’s attacks.

nojito 21d ago

We also get a glimpse into what those models are being used for. >PLA-affiliated surveillance activity. One user that we assess was likely affiliated with the PLA used what they thought was Moonshot’s Kimi model to load surveillance data from a CCTV archive about a single targeted individual. The user asked Kimi to analyze the CCTV data to understand whether the tracked person was behaving abnormally. The CCTV data included video surveillance from hundreds of cameras in Chengdu, including cameras outside PLA facilities, institutes affiliated with the China Electronics Technology Group Corporation, and a major state-owned enterprise (SOE).

epsylon 17d ago
How dare the Chinese government use mass surveillance against its own citizens.

deleted 21d ago

[deleted]

tancop 21d ago

So we're randomly getting free Claude and helping China beat America at the same time? The only problem with it is they might have worse security than Anthropic and your personal info gets leaked, but I don't think it can happen that easy.

AlanYx 21d ago

The open question here is how is Anthropic retaining these exchanges? If Moonshot is using the API, normally Anthropic would not retain the exchanges, at least that's the promise. If Anthropic is consistently retaining all exchanges from a class of customers because they're "flagged" but not notifying those customers, how can an average customer trust it won't happen to them? If Moonshot is buying accounts and using those rather than the API, wouldn't they set the "no training on my data" flag in the settings so as to go undetected for longer? If so, we get back to the question of why would Anthropic be retaining the exchanges?

Shank 21d ago
> If Moonshot is buying accounts and using those rather than the API, wouldn't they set the "no training on my data" flag in the settings so as to go undetected for longer? If so, we get back to the question of why would Anthropic be retaining the exchanges? I would like to briefly draw your attention to this part of the Terms of Service [0]: > We may use Materials to provide, maintain, and improve the Services and to develop other products and services, including training our models, unless you opt out of training through your account settings. Even if you opt out, we will use Materials for model training when: (1) you provide Feedback to us regarding any Materials, or (2) your Materials are flagged for safety review to improve our ability to detect harmful content, enforce our policies, or advance our safety research. From the privacy policy [1]: > We use your personal data for the following purposes: > To prevent and investigate fraud, abuse, and violations of our Usage Policy, unlawful or criminal activity, unauthorized access to or use of personal data or Anthropic systems and networks, to protect our rights and the rights of others, to protect your safety or that of any other person, and to meet legal, governmental and institutional policy obligations; Anthropic does offer a truly no data retention service, which is their "zero-data retention" agreement, which you have to sign and provide more documentation for than simply using either a normal consumer or API account. I doubt Moonshot did that, so by their terms, they can retain your data and use it for training if it's part of abuse prevention. [0]: https://www.anthropic.com/legal/consumer-terms https://www.anthropic.com/legal/consumer-terms [1]: https://www.anthropic.com/legal/privacy https://www.anthropic.com/legal/privacy
- 21d ago

deleted 21d ago

[deleted]

monneyboi 21d ago

I can't be the only one that is getting tired of this. Framing learning from observation as somehow bad. Something literally everybody is doing, model and human alike. It's the process this whole industry is built on. Pretending that this is bad because the other people are also doing what you have been doing, is hypocritical and childish. Meanwhile I'm sitting here looking at some "Flibbertigittering" spinner like some sort of caveman, unable to steer the model when it misinterprets my ambigious prompt because I'm not allowed to see 80% of the output tokens I'm paying for.

villish 21d ago
> Framing learning from observation as somehow bad. How about hacking accounts, using stolen credit cards, and sending data to the US silently? > Pretending that this is bad It is. This makes AI a 2 horse race because European labs cannot legally compete. I find it strange that people from EU cheer for that, it prevents you from having frontier level AI sovereignty.
- taskforcegemini 17d ago
  Prisoners dilemma.
DonsDiscountGas 21d ago
This is the first I'm hearing of a model provider just providing a different model without telling you. Anthropic came close (and with a much better justification) but they disclosed their intention at least.

ChrisArchitect 21d ago

[dupe] Discussion on source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49647300 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49647300

jst1fthsdys 21d ago

Why is this taken at face value when it’s from a company that routinely lies about their model killing all humans someday? Especially when the bad actors just happen to be the US enemies.

kadoban 21d ago

Can these big companies that want to distill not just get the models? Like how many machines at how many different providers are running Opus 5? Nobody is just throwing the model on a thumb drive and taking it home, or grabbing an old drive that somebody was too lazy to scrub or whatever? That would be vastly more illegal, but would it even matter? What would the practical downside be?

pwinnski 21d ago
One imagines that they're trying. I work at not-a-frontier-lab and my company still ended up hiring someone who apparently wasn't aware that we track system access. He was turned over to the federal authorities after trying to exfiltrate a lot of user+system data to North Korean IPs.

wren6991 21d ago

K3 is served with full reasoning traces available. Anthropic models aren't. If you were served an Anthropic model instead of K3, it would be blatantly obvious. I have little reason to believe this, and Anthropic have every reason to lie about it.