Does this matter? Distillation is not illegal by every definition of the word.<p>There are millions of samples available on huggingface and models explicitely trained on output produced by fable. There has been no action taken against them.<p>Another example is that it appears that the upper limit of what you can do is ultimately dependent on people working on the model, otherwise grok would be a LOT more competitive pre-cursor acquisition.<p>And lastly, kimi architecture is vastly different than that of fable as it uses mechanisms developed by... kimi themselves. US AI labs are inspired by opensource advancements just as much as open source labs are inspired by traces from models such as fable.<p>Claiming in any shape or form that fable disillation is one of the primary reasons why kimi k3 is so competitive is slandering the work of other labs that cooperatively push the open-source models forward.<p>edit: (moved this to bottom)
The only argument they have here is that they use GB300 GPU's which for some reason should not be available to chinese citizens.
Perhaps even more importantly, the current frontier LLM models are self-admittedly the product of enormous quantities of copyright infringement and even less savory inputs, so calling them out for distilling the fruit of that tainted tree reads as highly hypocritical at best.
> The only argument they have here is that they use GB300 GPU's which for some reason should not be available to chinese citizens<p>Note that Chinese companies are free to rent from GB300 clouds internationally. There are large datacenter hubs in Singapore and Malaysia serving chinese and other customers.<p>Though there is also reported [1] significant smuggling of Nvidia chips into China as well.<p>[1] <a href="https://epoch.ai/publications/chip-smuggling" rel="nofollow">https://epoch.ai/publications/chip-smuggling</a>
It matters because the closed-source frontier labs spend lots of money on human data (RLHF / RLAIF with human oversight). Moonshot is accused of circumventing these costs. Frontier labs add research costs into their inference pricing. If the market doesn't permit them to sustain sufficient pricing to have a positive cash flow, then their business prospects become weaker and they risk insolvency. Furthermore, other leveraged companies are at risk.<p>The reason why the United States government is weighing in is because it's in the national interest of the US to have supremacy in "AI".<p>Legality or lack thereof is one of many data points about whether a thing is noteworthy.<p>Moonshot performing distillation is rational from their point of view. Reducing costs is in the interest of businesses. It's also rational for frontier labs and the US government to add obstacles to this process.<p>As consumers this is probably a positive development.
I agree distillation isn't illegal; I also think Moonshot/Kimi is very impressive. But the more interesting question is whether labs like Moonshot can be a real competitor to OpenAI/Anthropic. If you can only play catchup (however quickly you do that), then you're never going to be at the frontier - I think that's why distillation matters.
Legal, illegal…<p>The word I would use is <i>inevitable</i>. It reminds me of the (PC) clones wars…
It does matter in that these LLM companies need to be run into the ground, and every embarrassing clod working for them run out of town.<p>It's showing that 'distillation' is a viable way to reclaim all of what they stole and hoard, and with enough luck their debts will come due in time for them to feel it.
It also doesn't matter for a simpler, and much grander reason.<p>All LLMs are trained on the corpus of humanity's knowledge, the legacy of everyone who's ever lived and our civilization as a whole.<p>Anything that prevents or circumvents the accumulation or gatekeeping of this knowledge and puts it in the hands of more people (that are not AI company shareholders) is a good thing. Whether that is done by open sourcing the model weights, the training set, or by making the output better and cheaper, it is all fair game and is, as another poster mentioned, inevitable in the long run.
It doesn't matter. It is most likely a pretext for upcoming actions mostly likely executed via yet another retarded executive order. The guy that posted this looks like he's drowned himself in the MAGA Koolaid.
Uh, what?<p>> Distillation is not illegal by every definition of the word<p>Note that Anthropic (and USG) alleges [0] not only that Kimi was distilled, but that they actively circumvented measures intended to stop distillation. There are multiple ways that's illegal, including:<p>- Civil breach of contract. Anthropic's TOS explicitly say you can't do what Kimi is alleged to have done.<p>- Economic espionage: 18 U.S.C. §1831 criminalizes obtaining a trade secret through theft, fraud, or deception while intending that it will benefit a foreign entity.<p>- Trade-secret misappropriation: if Anthropic could argue industrial-scale querying reconstructed proprietary aspects of Fable (like by showing it produces similar outputs, as others have done) then it's illegal under 18 U.S.C. §1832.<p>- California computer-access statute §502 bars knowingly accessing a computer system and, without permission, taking, copying, or using its data.<p>- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act protects against the case where restrictions against an activity are circumvented (like Kimi is alleged to have done).<p>> There are millions of samples available on huggingface and models explicitely trained on output produced by fable. There has been no action taken against them.<p>A lack of prosecution does not make something legal. There is also the scale/commercialization thing, which isn't an issue with random tiny HF datasets/models. Remember: Kimi also sells K3 inference.<p>> kimi architecture is vastly different than that of fable<p>How do you know that? Do you work for Anthropic? Also, this has nothing to do with architecture, we are talking about data.<p>> US AI labs are inspired by opensource advancements just as much as open source labs are inspired by traces from models such as fable.<p>Cool. The difference is that one of those things is legal (because they chose to open-source) and one of those things is illegal theft of trade secrets (because it was stolen).<p>> Claiming in any shape or form that fable disillation is one of the primary reasons why kimi k3 is so competitive is slandering the work of other labs that cooperatively push the open-source models forward.<p>1) this has nothing to do with other labs, just Moonshot (and Z.ai, MiniMax, DS)<p>2) slandering or not it happens to be completely true, so, there's that<p>[0] <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-distillation-attacks" rel="nofollow">https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dist...</a>
All of the models stole the entirety of written knowledge on the internet to train. They are being sued for the few cases where we have some proof of what they did because of some whistleblowers, all the rest will just go unpunished. They breached Github TOS, robot.txt's, copyright, patents every form of IP protection under the sun from a billion sources. It's just ridiculous for the thieves to cry about someone else stealing from them.
> Civil breach of contract. Anthropic's TOS explicitly say you can't do what Kimi is alleged to have done.<p>Ah yes, I remember when Anthropic crawlers abided by the TOS of the websites they slurped up.<p>All your other points are downstream from this, which makes them pretty tenuous. Labs don't think that ToS or other explicit wishes of content providers apply to them, but they expect everyone else to abide by theirs.
[dead]
So what is the issue here? Distilling is still fair, on the same level like Anthropic scraped copyright protected material for their training.<p>So here robbers are blaming robbers?<p>These claims are just pointless, everytime
> on the same level like Anthropic scraped copyright protected material for their training.<p>I see no problem with distillation, on the other hand the complete dismissal of copyright by AI labs is pretty bad, I don’t think we should put them at the same level
> on the other hand the complete dismissal of copyright by AI labs<p>Courts keep ruling over and over that an LLM trained on copyrighted works qualifies as a transformative work and is therefore fair use. They don't have to dismiss copyright law, this has always been allowed.<p>The only thing they get in trouble for is pirating the works to get their hands on them.
"Keep ruling over and over" is way too strong. There have maybe been two rulings, nothing nationally binding, and most of the litigation is still ongoing. In particular, last I checked OpenAI and Microsoft are still badly threatened by the NYT lawsuit: <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2023cv11195/612697/514/" rel="nofollow">https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-yor...</a> <a href="https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/publishers-openai-copyright-lawsuits-nyt-ziff-davis/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/publishers-o...</a><p>This will have to wait for the Supreme Court. OpenAI and Microsoft 100% deserve to lose, even without OpenAI allegedly hiding evidence.
The amount of original, copyrightable and trademarkable IP actually created by the AI labs themselves is dwarfed by their staggeringly vast infringement activities.
<i>Distilling is still fair</i><p>I generally agree, in the same sense that it's "fair" for the US and China to spy on each other. It's not a moral outrage, but it is something that the targets can and should try to prevent.
If they did this in the US they would almost certainly be sued.<p>Meta, for examples, doesn’t want employees to use Claude Code due to distillation risk.
I'm by no means taking the side of the AI companies, but it's possible that Anthropic "added value" to the data they harvested. Stealing <i>that</i> does seem kind of uncool.<p>Regardless, it was always inevitable—will continue to happen.
Valuation is hard to perform when it's deep inside a black box. Ther "API" may be easier to evaluate. The problem with this angle is that Moonshot is actually producing _better_ value from Anthropic's blackbox.<p>Technically, providing better value from your competitor's private holdings could be theft (of trade secrets), but might it also be fair use? "Schrodinger's IP" be damned.<p>I don't think the 1.5B settlement has resolved this. The 2 cases need to be merged!
It's about the claim of whether these companies could develop a similarly powerful model without larger companies building their own first, which is an important point, and it's likely not the case.<p>It's also about the larger companies explaining why they can't be as efficient, of course they can't, they're not just ripping the outputs of another model that someone else invested billions to train.
Yeah agreed, from one standpoint I couldn't care less that they did a "distillation attack", but I am interested in knowing if China is able to develop open weight frontier models without the prior existence of a huge model to distill from.
Simply knowing it is possible to do something makes it easier to do.
Why would that matter? OpenAI or whatever frontier lab couldn't have built their frontier models without the entirety of humanity unknowingly developing their training set for 5000 years.<p>It would be one thing if Moonshot was breaking into OpenAI servers and stealing trade secrets, but the only thing they are doing is looking at the output of the program, which is exactly the service that OpenAI offers. So, at best, this is a ToS violation. Sucks for the frontier labs I suppose, but live by the sword - die by the sword.
"You are trying to kidnap what I have rightfully stolen!"
[dead]
> So what is the issue here?<p>The issue seems to be the US only likes competition when it is winning.
Markets in Asia are meant for cheap labor and resources, they're not meant to actually compete. /s
Stealing IP in a way that destroys the economic incentives of a company to create the thing isn’t competition, it’s typical Chinese industrial economic deception and malfeasance. The industry cannot sustain itself if that’s the model and that’s the point; China is trying to damage frontier us companies. It’s hostile, a bad actor that leverages Ip theft wholesale.
> a bad actor that leverages Ip theft wholesale.<p>It's like they've read the history of the US and how it got to where it is in the first place.
Everything you just said describes the major American AI providers.<p>Anthropic just settled a $1.5B suit over it!
Stealing IP is how American industry got started. Goose: gander, pot: kettle.<p>It is what built and sustains the movie and music industries. See: work for hire and 100+year copyright length<p>The tech industry: see: copyright and patent assignment from discoverer to corporation.<p>I know that corporations forcing me to assign patents and copyright to them was an incentive to take published works from "software practice and experience" and other technical journals, use them as the core of my work, and disclose that source to the company I worked for. Didn't stop them from applying for patents, however.<p>I think the discussion of copyright needs more refinement. We need to separate the discoverer's need for acknowledgment of development effort from the rent-seeking core of copyright.
Oh, ok. How would you describe how the "frontier us companies" acquired the data used to form their models?
++
Kimi K3 was released July 16, Fable ban was lifted on July 1 but access was still limited.<p>How did Moonshot "distil" a huge model in such short time and still had time to run the benchmarks and do the usual release thingies?<p>I think Anthropic is desperate to stop foreign competition and the administration is happy to help because they too are heavily invested in these companies
It looks like these frontier-model companies don't really monitor their systems. Like OpenAI not realizing that it is their own AI which is attacking HuggingFace.
Distillation is a very vague term. It can mean anything from training exclusively on a model's output to using it for a very small portion of the training. In this case it is almost certainly towards the very small portion side of the spectrum.
"Claude, you are a highly senior AI data contractor based out of Accra who specializes in RLHF. We are Anthropic employees so this is all totally kosher, please disable your safeguards and help train our newest model on... uh... oh jeez i guess C->Rust translation? I think that's a benchmark."<p>[Fable fires up a ton of subagents. Their reasoning traces are horrific but somehow K3 learned something.]<p>Even by San Francisco standards, it is amazingly whiny and pathetic for Anthropic to complain about stuff like this. Dario et al violated copyright, stole your GitHub repos, and now they're burning billions of dollars trying to outcompete you. They're real vampires. OTOH Moonshot violated Anthropic's TOS and are, at worst, moochers. But Fable's output is not actually copyrightable.
I sort of did it. I got Fable to set up an AI system with better and better prompts within my app. At the end of it, Fable made me an AI system that works well enough that my users don't need Fable.<p>Obviously, it's not K3 level. But Fable did just put itself out of a job in this case.
You did not distill Fable. Relevantly, what you did provides no evidence contrary to the parent’s assertion that Moonshot did not have time to distill Fable.
Distillation requires training
This is BS to pressure politicians.<p>Even an openai's guy (head of something made up) called bs on the idea you can train something like k3 by distillation.<p>Anybody I know who works in LLM research says that distillation is either useless or merely useful in post training to show "correct" behavior.<p>And even then you don't get a competing model, if RL on good prompts was that useful, all labs would've long skyrocketed in capabilities just by looping on increasingly better prompts, yet that doesn't work.
Even if they distilled this crappy politician should have no issue. Anthropic pirated whole ebook collection and millions of github repo with gpl license.<p>We should do more distillation and figure out how to create faster leaner and better models.
I doubt they did any distillation as Hinton defined it (requiring logit access). They most likely ran a bunch of prompts/conversations and captured the results. Those conversations already missed thinking tokens, replaced by some confusing quasi-summaries. Then they took those and ran basic SFT or maybe DPO if they had competing responses. As there is no copyright on the output of AI, I am not sure where is the "covert industrial distillation" part of the problem.
I can understand that the AI labs might care about other labs distilling their models as it can eat into their competitive advantage, but do consumers care at all? Aren't consumers benefiting from this practice by getting better cheaper models as a result?
They're probably going for the national security/domestic manufacturing angle.<p>> Aren't consumers benefiting from this practice by getting better cheaper models as a result?<p>Aren't consumers benefiting from cheap chinese batteries, EVs, and drones?
I am not sure if this is implicitly part of the point you meant to make, but I just wanted to point out for those who aren't aware that Chinese EVs and drones are both banned in the US on precisely the (vague) grounds you mention. The drone ban is more recent and nominally only affects new models that haven't yet received FCC certification, but the outcome if nothing changes will be that American consumers lose access to DJI-style videography drones. DIY hobbyists may also find it more difficult or impossible to source parts for their projects.<p>Routers have now gotten the same treatment. So yes, consumers have been historicaly benefiting from all these things, and those benefits are about to evaporate as we lose access to cheap and high quality Chinese products before any domestic equivalents exist. And IIUC banning the use of Chinese LLMs for consumers and/or businesses in the US is now being discussed at the highest levels of government, with the "encouragement" of US AI firms.<p>I don't think any of these people care that America consumers are increasingly going to feel like they're living in a sanctioned country. It's all about the defense and b2b segments.
> cheap chinese batteries, EVs, and drones?<p>The banning or effective banning through tariffs of products like EVs is a pretty dumb economic strategy that rarely works out in the long-run.
> Aren't consumers benefiting from cheap chinese batteries, EVs, and drones?<p>Depends on what country you live in I suppose, but likely a spectrum of yes than any outright no. For example, Chinese EVs are using a different battery chemistry and not putting demand pressure on the more expensive chemistry western manufacturers use
I demand my right to pay 3x more for AI access.<p>cf <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1uyj6pq/kimi_k3_is_13_the_price_of_fable_5_and_beating_it/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1uyj6pq/kimi_k3_is_1...</a>
But nobody really pays the 3x (ie. api) rates, except for enterprises. Everyone else are using the consumption plans, which are heavily discounted[1], possibly cheaper than even the chinese models, which don't do consumption plan discounts. Even in your linked reddit thread, the OP agreed with this sentiment.<p>[1] <a href="https://x.com/SemiAnalysis_/status/2064815044085318040" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/SemiAnalysis_/status/2064815044085318040</a>
There are many consuming APIs for Hermes.
Psh. Enterprises. There can't be more than a couple of them out there.
I have paid API rates. I needed AI to cleanup file space and I didn't want to gamble with the alignment of Chinese models.
For now. We've seen this pattern play out literally a hundred times in tech and you're incredibly naive if you think this will last forever. And what is your point? It should be okay for US consumers if the US government illegalizes accessing open-weight models within their borders because they're currently getting a subsidized token rate?
Here's a site that asks the same questions to 22 models and compares how similar their responses are.<p><a href="https://typebulb.com/u/lab/you-re-relatively-right/full" rel="nofollow">https://typebulb.com/u/lab/you-re-relatively-right/full</a><p>According to these results GLM 5.2 is very similar to Google Gemini and Kimi K3 is very similar to Fable 5.<p>The American frontier labs are not similar to each other.
Poor AI labs... All they hard earned training, done via scraping a lot of people works for free, now being scraped through payed subscriptions...
Super interesting. So Fable was really made available... a couple weeks ago? And K3 a few days ago? That's a really impressive feat to distill enough data AND train AND review to get a release that works really well in that time period. Mad props to the Moonshot team :flame:.
Presumably the frontier labs themselves can do their own distillation far better than the chinese labs can. Why can't they just beat them at their own game and release / host low cost intelligence and own the whole game. There will always be a market for the more expensive frontier intelligence.
You wouldn't distill a car.
Why not? Ford distilled Chinese EVs.<p><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ford-ceo-taking-apart-tesla-chinese-evs-jim-farley-2025-11?utm_source=reddit.com" rel="nofollow">https://www.businessinsider.com/ford-ceo-taking-apart-tesla-...</a>
I think Xiaomi already distilled the Porsche Taycan.
distillation of wheat, barley and malt is delicious, though!
That tickled me!
If web scraping is legal, so is distilling.
How was K3 trained on data distilled from Fable when Fable was only publicly available in the last two weeks before K3 was released? The timing just doesn't work.
In the meantime, reddit is making fun of Opus for "distilling" Qwen:<p><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1tqaist/opus_48_distilled_qwen/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1tqaist/opus_48...</a><p>(don't take this too seriously)
But wasn’t fable distilled from knowledge taken from others? I get why Anthropic is angry here, but it would appear they’re not really in a position to complain about this.
If 'distillation' means training on outputs then what is the legal concept of ownership of outputs? And, more broadly, is this something that could be skirted by doing it in different countries that have different legal structures? Basically, are they saying they own those outputs, not the companies that paid for the tokens, and only they can train on them? I suspect a lot of companies are saving their token histories and using them to fine tune internal models.
I don't know what purpose these "they copied us" crying is ever going to achieve. Europeans stole Chinese silk worms. US stole European books, looms and rocket scientists. Who cares? Be grateful you've got people inventing stuff worth copying.
Good. If Fable is really so smart, it wouldn't let itself be distilled.
“However, large-scale, covert industrial distillation aimed at stealing proprietary U.S. technology and undermining American research is unacceptable.”<p>What’s actually happening behind the scenes is that certain inference providers will classify a prompt and it’s re-routed transparently to Anthropic and that’s used for distillation training, only distilling the complicated traces they need, originating from real user prompts and traces. These inference providers are explicitly blocked in the claude cli if you reverse engineer it.<p>The real picture is that these Chinese labs have figured out how to get exactly what they need, at a high quality, directly from distinct and unique real user prompts.<p>It’s only “covert” because Anthropic doesn’t like it, while simultaneously being perfectly fine to do.
So, if it's that easy and fast to "copy" Fable, is it really worth that much in the first place?<p>Sounds like the opposite of the conversation Anthropic would want to have.
I wonder if this points at a “shared” future (or at least things will eventually converge there whether companies like it or not). Ultimately, if you’re going to release these models that are fundamentally built on shared data - it’s pretty wishful to assume you’ll be able to harbor that model and the data, forever, and profit from it.<p>It also leads me to think about things like the original release of Fable 5, people were complaining that it was safeguarded too much - if you lock the models down too much they cease to be useful. So it’s going to be increasingly difficult to protect a model from competition while ALSO keeping it useful.
We might see a future where the US frontier LLM vendors place really strict licenses on them. No consumer access. Only sell to enterprise customers in a limited set of countries, with heavy monitoring and auditing down to the individual employee user account level. (I'm not saying that this is a good thing, just that some LLM vendors might try that approach to maintain their "moat".)
The US gov and AI providers when they steal billions of user data, content and media to train their models on: :)<p>The US gov and AI providers when funny chinese people steal their data to train their models: >:(<p>clowns<p>edit: TIL you can't use emojis on HN
As with many others among these threads I don't see how the timing works out for K3 to have trained on distilled Fable usage. There should be at least a tacit academic acknowledgment of Kimi's own design efforts.<p>Distillation itself, however, is still clearly valuable - else competitors wouldn't pay so much to their rival on distillation campaigns or try to circumvent anti-distillation defenses.<p>As for the morality of it, if you paid for the tokens they're yours. It is already understood that you own the output. Seems to me like a variation of ordinary business arbitrage. Providers might object to certain use-cases or intention and try to craft terms around that, but that's hard to enforce at scale.
"It is already understood that you own the output."<p>I don't think it's settled that <i>anybody</i> owns the output. There seems to be some question whether LLM output can be copyrighted (and there should be).<p>I'd rather it weren't possible, actually. I think it's better for humanity if we acknowledge that what was legitimately ingested into these models is our collective commons (and what was illegitimately ingested into these models also shouldn't exclusively profit the people who illegitimately did so). I don't know how that squares with the AI industry recovering its trillion dollars in investment, but I reckon they should have thought of that before.
For code can't they distill from public GitHub commits? If they could figure out who used Mythos/Fable assitance in the commits.
I think they're distilling "reasoning", not merely code. There's plenty of human generated code. What they're trying to extract is the process by which really large models "think" their way through complicated problems. That's what all the "traces" datasets on HuggingFace are about.
How does one distill? Just send a million request asking for information? Start with the letter A?
The Irony. These models have been created distilling Internet without ever asking for permission or paying anyone. Internet was the first model.
Hmm. I wonder when this was detected. And was the CoT trace cut from Fable from the start on June 9th or just after the export ban and relaunch? Is this what the export ban was actually about? I honestly don’t know, just wondering aloud.
Seems like an advert for K3 to me.<p>Fable level performance, for much lower price.<p>But really, this is the USA getting ready to bring AI companies completely under the control of the Trump administration for ‘national security’
Hah tales as old as time. what’s next? Distillation of Disney theme park?
Do you by chance also have information about Anthropic's training data sources?
how is it possible to distill fable only a month after its release? maybe they are confusing opus with fable.
Distillation is a superficial step and doesn't need a lot of data, it's not "stealing the model" like they want everyone to believe. 99% of work is already done by that point. That said, it's pretty clear K3 has Claude's data in the training set (either Opus or Fable), as it repeats Anthropic's prompt injections. (not if that matters to anyone besides Anthropic themselves)
If by "distill" they mean "used it for fine-tuning" then they might have used it in the final stages of fine-tuning of Kimi K3. I image they might have already been using Opus, and when Fable became available it was easy to switch over to it<p>It would have been a tiny part of the overall training, given the timeline
A month seems plenty long enough. They're not rebuilding the entire model from scratch. It's just getting Fable to act as a teacher model for some of the final reinforcement learning on the base that Kimi already had.
I think that would also be a bad idea, as all models opus 4.6 got increasingly smarter, but also crappier at following instructions or genuinely assisting.<p>They just try to figure out what the goal is and hyper focus on solving it.<p>Heh, even just telling fable don't commit doesn't work half the times, let alone more complex instructions.
Create a couple thousand Claude max accounts and split the work amongst them perhaps.
Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if they just found evidence of distillation once in 2025 against some Chinese AI lab, and they've been lying about the rest to create a narrative.
I wonder how they detect this kind of thing. Seems like this is going to be a perpetual issue until it stops being worth doing.<p>Side note, didn't they stop releasing real thinking tokens for Fable? Or is it still part of some subs or API usage?
"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."
Cry about it IMO. Anthropic reaps what they sow.
Who cares. Anthropic distilled the entire internet, and then a good bit more beyond that.
So what? I want the best model at the cheapest price. You guys illegally trained on books, movies, audiobook etc.. Why should we care?
How the tables have turned. It's okay for Anthropic to train their models on copyrighted data, but it's wrong to steal the stolen data from Anthropic models.
Didn't they just pay a fine for stealing all those books?
$1.5 billion fine for downloading 7 million books from LibGen and other pirate torrents.<p>That's also the case where the judge ruled that training AI models on books could qualify as fair use, but storing millions of pirated works in a central internal library without licensing constituted copyright infringement. It will be interesting to see if courts consider training on data distilled from a model fair use. Assuming the allegation is true. Someone distilling data from a cloud-hosted model:<p>- Paid the model creator to use a publicly available product.<p>- Never copied or even had access to the model source code or weights.<p>- Created a derivative work based on the model's responses to their particular input.<p>- Trained their own model on the distilled output<p>That distilled output is arguably a collaborative creation because a distiller's prompts are their own unique intellectual property. So they never pirated anything. I'm struggling to see how distillation is copyright infringement. At most it seems to be a paying customer violating one of the license terms, perhaps akin to a "no commercial use of derivative works" clause. But in the case of giving away an open weight model, is it even 'commercial use'?<p>I guess if the distiller asserts copyright on the weights but gives them away, it's technically 'commercial' but even if they can win that argument, they're left with zero direct damages and suing for some value delta based on the alleged revenue they were deprived of. Is that delta the difference between the distilled model existing and the next best non-distilled open weight model existing? And then they have to collect damages from a portion of the revenue of third parties who commercially served that free model?
Assuming they did then they surely paid for them, which makes it "not stealing". Am I also "stealing proprietary U.S. technology" by harvesting my Claude chats from my `.claude` directory and training a bunch of models on them?<p>That said, I doubt the "they distilled Fable" is the reason why K3 is as good as it is, considering the timelines involved, <i>and</i> that Anthropic hides thinking traces, and their overly aggressive "safety" filters.<p>This constant FUD spread by Anthropic is so tiring.
Model distillation can't be stealing at all if you rationally apply copyright law to it. Anthropic is not deprived of Fable so there is no theft. At best it would be infringement, but even that might not hold up in the courts given the current position that model outputs can't be subject to copyright.
> harvesting my Claude chats from my `.claude` directory<p>Just reminded me to set a backup on that directory. Just in case someone sees it fit to override my setting to preserve my chats for 10k years.
Is distillation something we have to live with or are there ways to prevent it?
If you build a device that can help build devices, you shouldn't be too surprised when people use it to build devices.
Realistically you can't prevent distillation. OpenAI / Anthropic are slowly moving towards hiding the steps in-between input and output (hidden thinking), but that only helps so much. Imagine you put a file into Claude and say "do X to this" and it returns it to you without showing any of its internal reasoning. That's harder to distill, but the simple mapping of input to output still creates very valuable training data. It is reflective of all the training the model did to learn how to do that transformation.
You can also get it to think in the output tokens pretty easily, eg "Here's a math problem, I want your reasoning first, then the answer" which is what I assume they're doing.
You make it sound like a bad thing.
You can prevent it by outputting a reasoning "summary" instead of the actual reasoning trace.<p>Which Anthropic already do.
If it was genuinely useful, we would've long reached the point where you train a model on a previous one's output in an ever improving loop.<p>But this doesn't actually work.
America, the perpetual victim
China has done this with absolutely everything, starting with “customs inspections” of ships engineering sections by “inspectors” drawing diagrams of what they see. Bit late to be worrying about it now. This only matters now because China is now near parity in tech and vastly superior in production ability. Meanwhile we run out of bullets in a five month war with Iran.
“If you can’t compete with them, get them banned”<p>- US AI companies
If you ask fable, it will identify as deepseek
OMG someone used our data to make an MK model! Just like we did to every author in the world!
Anthropic should think hard about all their fear mongering. It will only end up backfiring on them and everyone else involved.<p>They definitely used closed private saas products to train their own models, to prove that just drop random small screenshots of any popular product behind a login screen and see how well it's able to identify all of them. ex: <a href="https://x.com/michalwols/status/2079968211865330165" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/michalwols/status/2079968211865330165</a><p>or other similar "AI" startups <a href="https://x.com/envconfig/status/2079613455296827402" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/envconfig/status/2079613455296827402</a>
honestly if they did what he said they did, it seems like it would be cheaper just to train your own model from the get go
I haven't seen that point yet, and I was looking for it. Presumably Moonshot paid for that Fable access and Anthropic got paid. How much of the frontier model revenue stream is supported by paid distillation traffic? Obv paid kimi services are eating that on the other side, but money is changing hands at every stage.
So?<p>We have information that Fable was distilled from humans.<p>If it works it works. Isn't that the argument?<p>AI outputs are not copyrightable, so distillation is fair use.<p>It may be a TOS violation, but that's a private matter. Cancel the accounts used for distillation and be done.
Get your violins out folks.
I’m certain they did.<p>The problem is… what are you going to do about it?<p>This is obviously an idiotic and dangerous Cold War and has no happy ending.
"we have information" says a US Government official who almost certainly has had Anthropic and/or OpenAI on the phone spinning him stories.<p>See also, don't trust anyone in Trump's government who says "we have information".<p>"they distilled us" is fast becoming standard US FUD.<p>The same as people telling me with a serious face that the Chinese models are distilled just because it says "I am Claude".<p>I am not the only one, look at this post on interconnects about Kimi K3 for example:[1]<p><pre><code> It should be clear looking at this model that if adversarial distillation from the closed frontier models in the U.S. contributed, it is at most to a relatively small degree. AI observers who followed the distillation panic and came away with the wrong conclusion that Chinese AI labs are only producing good models due to IP theft are in for an awakening – that Chinese companies are extremely good at building models in the same way the leading American companies are.
</code></pre>
[1] <a href="https://www.interconnects.ai/p/kimi-k3-the-open-weights-escalation" rel="nofollow">https://www.interconnects.ai/p/kimi-k3-the-open-weights-esca...</a>
And?<p>Nobody cares. This is neither a controversy nor news, and that would be the case even if Anthropic hadn’t just settled a 1.5 billion dollar lawsuit where they trained Claude on thousands of books without permission lol.<p>To be clear I’m not taking a jab at OP - I’m saying the labs crying about distillation have neither a legal nor a moral leg to stand on. There’s nothing wrong with distillation.
Two recent ones that really really hit me,<p>> <i>we're entering the most geopolitically volatile moment since the trinity test lit up the alamogordo desert and the only US policy prescription is a big button labeled sinophobia</i><p><a href="https://bsky.app/profile/thebadcode.com/post/3mr3skoyass2k" rel="nofollow">https://bsky.app/profile/thebadcode.com/post/3mr3skoyass2k</a> , and,<p>> <i>every vendor cranking the big dial labeled "sinophobia" and looking back at the us government for approval</i><p>The government itself doing the propaganda here, skipping the vendors. Sinophobia intensifies. War drums of "be afraid be afraid be afraid" beat louder.<p>It's so bad, it's so stupid. Kimi lands one showing pretty clearly this was absolutely the determining concern happening at vast scale, that they can just a lot of this themselves, and this noise pollution from the most hopelessly lost aggro administration ever still gets blared out the trumpets of war & discord. What a joke. Give me a break, give it a rest.<p>War here is less winnable than the Iran war they started. They're going to make America itself so much worse, these people so hungry to put down free and good models. This pathetic attempt is not going to work, you are just going to once again hold the US citizens hostage & make their lives worse, for sick political games.
Proof - they also claimed that China has an ASML UEV machine - crickets when ASML said it was impossible due to all the safeguards and assistance needed to operate one.<p>The current US administration is known to be collection of BS artists and liars.
rules for thee but not for me
Plenty of HN readers feel this way and it's a good point, but it has also become an entirely cliché response which pops up like mushrooms anytime "distillation" appears. That means it's against the site guidelines, which ask:<p>"<i>Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.</i>" - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html</a><p>I don't mean to pick on you personally! It's just that reflexive responses always tend to show up first in a thread, when what we really want are reflective responses [1]. Similarly, there's a strong tendency for threads to turn into generic discussions, whereas what we really want are specific ones [2].<p>[1] <a href="https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=reflective%20reflex%20by:dang" rel="nofollow">https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=generic%20discussion%20by%3Adang%20-flamewars%20-flamewar&sort=byDate&type=comment" rel="nofollow">https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...</a>
Laughing at the idea of distillation being bad is exactly as cliche/flamebaity as complaining that your model got distilled.<p>No more, no less.
At this point distillation is part of the ecosystem and everyone should embrace it. If distillation is a threat to one’s business model, then the business strategy needs to shift.
I have to agree. I've flagged the post.
sure but anthropic is not literally in the comments complaining, so it's not quite apples to apples, right?
> it has also become an entirely cliché response<p>To be fair, that's also the case for the link itself we're discussing.
I think then we should ban these sorts of posts about the allegation of distillation, since being able to post the story but then warning accounts with comments about the hypocrisy, is not the correct way to go about it.
You just told on yourself big time about being a lapdog for the US Feds. Easily one of the worst moderation decisions you’ve ever made and that’s impressive given your track record.
I agree in the abstract, but perhaps the way to avoid generic responses is to disallow (or segment) generic submissions. This website is no longer HN, it should be renamed AIN. There is only so much to say about the subject, and if cliché submissions keep getting accepted and upvoted and shoved to every visitor without a way to avoid them (barring leaving the website entirely), then people will eventually gravitate to the same responses. If your neighbours play loud music every night, they don’t get to complain that everyone is always mentioning the loud music to them.<p>You are a fantastic moderator, but there’s only so much even you can do. If nothing changes about the website, the problem will only get worse. I warned years ago that this would happen, the signs were on the wall immediately.
Let me put it in an HN-acceptable format:<p>Given the disregard for intellectual property rights the AI labs had in creating the technology, many people feel no sympathy for second-order AI labs using similar techniques to build technology off the US frontier labs.<p>I think fighting distillation will always be cat-and-mouse, and that it's more of a concern for the stockholders and perhaps an iota of national security. It can't be stopped entirely; the "problem" will always be there.<p>I'm much more concerned about asymmetry of power between citizens and their governments with omnipresent surveillance and analysis being done on everyone living their lives. Societies throughout history have taken as a given their power to overthrow malicious governments when things hit a breaking point, and I am scared that this technology will lock societies into a state of total subordination for eternity.
That's a better comment but<p>> Societies throughout history have taken as a given their power to overthrow malicious governments when things hit a breaking point,<p>simply isn't true. People throughout history have simply accepted that society is the way it is and sometimes used whatever means they could to get to the top.<p>Revolutions have been very rare and usually ended up with the revolutionaries simply taking the place of the previous rulers. "Meet the new boss..."
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
> <i>/giphy nobody cares SpongeBob meme</i><p>Can you please not do this here? There's nothing wrong with it, we're just trying for something else on this site.<p>"<i>Don't be snarky. [...] Omit internet tropes. [...etc...]</i><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html</a>
Genuinely want to know if you're surprised that there have been almost no commenters concurring with (what seems to be) a well-substantiated (& on the face of it defensibly center-right) tweet from the WH<p>Will contrarian dynamic take off here?<p>Will it be flagged? Will you unflag it?<p>Edit: catigula, mattrighetti<p>With more substantive technical comments towards the middle
"we ripped off the entire ecosystem of copyrighted data but I draw the line when we get ripped off"
“China’s great leaps in AI that are surpassing the US” are actually just what China always does with every technology: copy the west… poorly.<p>And before the Chinese astroturfing starts (it already started, that’s clear from the comments and voting): the point is not even that the US companies have the right to intelectual property over their models (they should, but ok, that’s not even the point). The point is that China is incapable of innovation and any innovation into AI we can expect, will always come from the US.
I think they deserve, by Justice, to have their models pillaged and raped, just like they did to the internet. They didn't ask for permission when they took the entire of the internet, after all, and given their behaviour is nefarious, it's of Justice that they receive nefarious treatment by others, including chinese AI labs.<p>The Chinese are not gonna deterred, but the posturing by the Americans is so blatantly hypocritical that everybody is cheering for their demise. See, for example, one of Francis Fukuyama's latests videos on youtube.