15 ms·

> He also notes that the proprietary AI labs didn’t ask permission when they vacuumed up as much human knowledge as they could to train their models. I think t

> He also notes that the proprietary AI labs didn’t ask permission when they vacuumed up as much human knowledge as they could to train their models. I think this should desactivate the moral high ground from which Anthropic is trying to speak. That they would want to make distillation orderly IMHO is fair, but to make it illegal is very rich from any AI frontier lab, really.

toomuchtodo 20d ago
YC does better if its startups get open weight frontier benefits. Garry’s just advocating for his book, which is his job. Consider how much capital YC portfolio companies would have to burn until liquidity if they have to pay OpenAI and Anthropic, versus relying on open weight frontier capabilities.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 20d ago
  If someone proposes the right thing for selfish reasons, do we call that bad? Or do we call it proper incentive alignment?
  - deleted 20d ago
    [deleted]
  - dofm 19d ago
    We used to call it enlightened self-interest.
- visarga 19d ago
  > versus relying on open weight frontier capabilities ahem.. it happens even today, you can use open weight models directly and even fine tune
deleted 20d ago
[deleted]
sobellian 20d ago
I reflected on this myself recently. Model distillation seems to be at least as fair a use as distilling a book.
- causal 20d ago
  More than fair if you consider that the tokens are paid for.
  - dathery 20d ago
    Both labs even explicitly promise the customer owns the outputs. It feels like they want to have their cake (ensure enterprises don't get spooked away from using as many LLMs as possible) while eating it too (still arguing some level of control over the outputs). > Ownership of content. As between you and OpenAI, and to the extent permitted by applicable law, you (a) retain your ownership rights in Input and (b) own the Output. We hereby assign to you all our right, title, and interest, if any, in and to Output. https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use/ https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use/ > As between the parties and to the extent permitted by applicable law, Anthropic agrees that Customer (a) retains all rights to its Inputs, and (b) owns its Outputs. Anthropic disclaims any rights it receives to the Customer Content under these Terms. Subject to Customer’s compliance with these Terms, Anthropic hereby assigns to Customer its right, title and interest (if any) in and to Outputs. https://www.anthropic.com/legal/commercial-terms https://www.anthropic.com/legal/commercial-terms Obviously there is some bad behavior going on in the distillation scene with gray-market token resellers but that is "just" normal fraud.
    - zenoprax 20d ago
      > Both labs even explicitly promise the customer owns the outputs. > to the extent permitted by applicable law, you (a) retain your ownership rights in Input and (b) own the Output If the argument is that the model itself is under copyright protection then "as permitted by applicable law" would be doing some heavy lifting. Assuming that were true, given that locally-run LLMs exist, what would be illegal: the distillation itself or the provision of service of the distilled model?
Bluestein 20d ago
Also, as said elsewhere: "Lab" is rich here, for outfits that, facing these giant, energy swallowing black boxes have really no clue what's going on inside.- The moniker gives them an air of scientific, knowledgeable, tranquil, pro-social, pro bono work.- Of course they are entitled to kill off a few mice, or pillage the commons to forward their "lab" work.-
- danny_codes 19d ago
  Obviously lab just means company. They use it because it confuses the public into thinking they are doing research primarily. Which of course is nonsense.
- travisgriggs 20d ago
  We also associate laboratories with evil scientists and Frankenstein and the like. I can just hear Boris Karloff (er Bobby Picket) uttering “I was working in the lab late one night. When my eyes beheld an eerie sight… … … …the monster mash”. If anything, I associate _uncertainty_ with labs. The result is never known up front, they’re a place of discovery. But I get your meaning. What should they be called instead? AI Sausage Factories maybe (cue Upton Sinclair?)?
  - whatshisface 19d ago
    By that definition, wall street would be a lab, and so would be a casino. I guess we could call them, "data refineries."
    - Bluestein 19d ago
      Refinery makes a lot of sense. I like it particularly because it raises the question of whose (whose) "oil" (data) it is they are purloining.-
  - Avicebron 20d ago
    > What should they be called instead? AI Sausage Factories maybe (cue Upton Sinclair?)? That's actually great? Slaughterhouses killing off the collective genius of humanity and grinding it into a bland paste for mass consumption.
deleted 20d ago
[deleted]

toomuchtodo 20d ago

YC does better if its startups get open weight frontier benefits. Garry’s just advocating for his book, which is his job. Consider how much capital YC portfolio companies would have to burn until liquidity if they have to pay OpenAI and Anthropic, versus relying on open weight frontier capabilities.

SOLAR_FIELDS 20d ago
If someone proposes the right thing for selfish reasons, do we call that bad? Or do we call it proper incentive alignment?
- deleted 20d ago
  [deleted]
- dofm 19d ago
  We used to call it enlightened self-interest.
visarga 19d ago
> versus relying on open weight frontier capabilities ahem.. it happens even today, you can use open weight models directly and even fine tune

deleted 20d ago

[deleted]

sobellian 20d ago

I reflected on this myself recently. Model distillation seems to be at least as fair a use as distilling a book.

causal 20d ago
More than fair if you consider that the tokens are paid for.
- dathery 20d ago
  Both labs even explicitly promise the customer owns the outputs. It feels like they want to have their cake (ensure enterprises don't get spooked away from using as many LLMs as possible) while eating it too (still arguing some level of control over the outputs). > Ownership of content. As between you and OpenAI, and to the extent permitted by applicable law, you (a) retain your ownership rights in Input and (b) own the Output. We hereby assign to you all our right, title, and interest, if any, in and to Output. https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use/ https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use/ > As between the parties and to the extent permitted by applicable law, Anthropic agrees that Customer (a) retains all rights to its Inputs, and (b) owns its Outputs. Anthropic disclaims any rights it receives to the Customer Content under these Terms. Subject to Customer’s compliance with these Terms, Anthropic hereby assigns to Customer its right, title and interest (if any) in and to Outputs. https://www.anthropic.com/legal/commercial-terms https://www.anthropic.com/legal/commercial-terms Obviously there is some bad behavior going on in the distillation scene with gray-market token resellers but that is "just" normal fraud.
  - zenoprax 20d ago
    > Both labs even explicitly promise the customer owns the outputs. > to the extent permitted by applicable law, you (a) retain your ownership rights in Input and (b) own the Output If the argument is that the model itself is under copyright protection then "as permitted by applicable law" would be doing some heavy lifting. Assuming that were true, given that locally-run LLMs exist, what would be illegal: the distillation itself or the provision of service of the distilled model?

Bluestein 20d ago

Also, as said elsewhere: "Lab" is rich here, for outfits that, facing these giant, energy swallowing black boxes have really no clue what's going on inside.- The moniker gives them an air of scientific, knowledgeable, tranquil, pro-social, pro bono work.- Of course they are entitled to kill off a few mice, or pillage the commons to forward their "lab" work.-

danny_codes 19d ago
Obviously lab just means company. They use it because it confuses the public into thinking they are doing research primarily. Which of course is nonsense.
travisgriggs 20d ago
We also associate laboratories with evil scientists and Frankenstein and the like. I can just hear Boris Karloff (er Bobby Picket) uttering “I was working in the lab late one night. When my eyes beheld an eerie sight… … … …the monster mash”. If anything, I associate _uncertainty_ with labs. The result is never known up front, they’re a place of discovery. But I get your meaning. What should they be called instead? AI Sausage Factories maybe (cue Upton Sinclair?)?
- whatshisface 19d ago
  By that definition, wall street would be a lab, and so would be a casino. I guess we could call them, "data refineries."
  - Bluestein 19d ago
    Refinery makes a lot of sense. I like it particularly because it raises the question of whose (whose) "oil" (data) it is they are purloining.-
- Avicebron 20d ago
  > What should they be called instead? AI Sausage Factories maybe (cue Upton Sinclair?)? That's actually great? Slaughterhouses killing off the collective genius of humanity and grinding it into a bland paste for mass consumption.

deleted 20d ago

[deleted]