Comment by boondongle
7 hours ago
Almost all markets depend on some form of regulation whether its as simple as "leave everyone alone but no stealing" or "every participant has to source every object through mountains of red tape."
Thus far the US has not really chosen to go the Chinese rare-earth method yet. The problem with distillation attacks is the end result is everyone who is not doing them is going to deal with some kind of regulation whether it's complete loss of access, or the amount of control you'll have to give up to access them will be ridiculous.
Sort of like the "stealing music is fine" but "lets freak out now that it's producing visual art", in the end the entire thing is a social construct. Whether this is treated as theft or "business as usual" is entirely societal.
Eventually the gap will close, unless there's a major breakthrough that hasn't been made yet.
Given these models could not have been trained in the first place if they had to license every line of random fan fiction on the internet, I think distillation also being fair game is a tradeoff everyone should be willing to take (unless they want to decelerate, but that's a different conversation).
Us models didnt pay for licenses too
We're still in the early days of the AI industry timeline(relative to traditional industries). Not everything has yet been litigated.
Taxes on AI subscriptions or AI capable hardware, to financially compensate IP holders for (potential) IP theft, could very well arrive in the near future, once the industry is mature.
If this shocks you and sounds preposterous, I'll remind you that in several EU countries, we still pay extra taxes on any and all storage mediums and on devices with built-in storage (tapes, CDs, DVDs, HDDs, SSDs, tablets, phones, etc) simply because they can be used to store pirated content, decisions based on laws from 50-100 years ago, and the money goes to the national unions and associations of music and arts IP holders. It's basically a lobby pushed and government legalized extortion racket that no voter agrees with or can change but has no choice but to conform either way.
So I guarantee you in the future, it will be the same for AI subscriptions and hardware capable of running LLMs locally. Every time you purchase a Claude or ChatGPT subscription, an Nvidia GPU, Intel/AMD SoC PC or an Apple/Qualcomm powered smartphone, you'll pay a government enforced tax to the likes of Sony, Axel Springer, etc. for licensing their IP, whether you want to or not. In the EU at least. US maybe not.
2 replies →
That is incorrect. Anthropic paid $1.5 billion in compensation to copyright holders for use of their content in training data. OpenAI pays hundreds of millions per year across 150+ licensing deals for access to copyrighted data. Meta and Alphabet have similar arrangements.
Under the settlement, Anthropic was forced to delete the pirated data they were training on.
Chinese labs can still train on pirated data. I doubt the Chinese models operate under similar licensing agreements.
20 replies →
How is distillation an "attack" but gigascraping the Internet to the point of crashing servers and everyone needs Cloudflare and Anubis now not an "attack"?
I'm not aiming for a what about kickflip here: I'm saying we need to either agree on some rules or stop crying foul. Maybe the coherent legal theory is that neural networks and intellectual property don't interact. That would be weird but it would be consistent, a market could price it, I could do coding stuff and know if I was illegaling.
But this weird gerrymander that no judge will really rule on in an emphatic way is like, bad for the planet, bad for markets, bad business.
There are a lot of reasons to look forward to DeepSeek Huggingface drop kicking the unambiguous frontier weights in like, November, but I think my favorite one will be "who's distilling now bitch?"
I think you've basically got the legal theory. Training a neural network isn't prohibited by copyright law so if you can legally get your hands on something (e.g. by sending a GET request to someone with rights to serve the contents of their web page, or by buying a book) without signing a contract to not train on it, you can train on it.
But the American AI companies only let you query their models if you first sign a contract to not train on the output.
It's hypocrisy and unfair, but I think there's a strong legal argument for it.
Of course China can simply decline to assist in enforcing that contract... But I would expect US courts to do their best to.
> to someone with rights to serve the contents
Now THAT'S doing some heavy lifting lmao. The vast, vast, VAST majority of the original datasets were from pirated books and the like. Also, arguably a robots.txt is the exact mechanism to follow to do the mass GET-ing, yet the AI cos choose time and time and time again to simply ignore it and be as abusive as they possibly fucking can
3 replies →
Contract law is never going to prevent this.
2 replies →
> It's hypocrisy and unfair, but I think there's a strong legal argument for it.
That right there is the problem.
> but I think there's a strong legal argument for it.
Maybe today. I doubt it tomorrow. Legal and not legal, largely, has to answer to the population sooner or later. Ultimately, humanity decides legality. And I don't think the frontier labs will get a pass from humanity in the midterm, let alone the long term. I think you'll see the rules change towards something more "intent" driven. And there's absolutely no difference in intent between Frontier labs and everyone chasing them.
Frontier labs just want the door closed behind them, as do their investors, because they know the money will never be recouped if others can do the same magic tricks.
Eh, I think you've done a pretty good job summarizing a collection of settlements with a few narrow bench rulings for seasoning. I'm not sure I follow you to it being a coherent legal theory. Buying a book in a bookstore is sure legal, and excerpting from it for e.g. literary criticism is pretty settled. Downloading every torrent of all e-books ever is pretty clearly illegal (or at least it fuckin would be if I did it). Pretty sure like, multiple labs have been popped for that though.
Situation right now seems more like a fragile detente: if you got a Hill staffer drunk and hounded him long enough he'd probably be like "God damnit the market will fucking tank if we don't get these two IPOs out north of a trillion. And don't even get me started on how I'm going to sell Chinese AI to a Senate that still calls people Nipponesians when no one is looking. We're doing the best we can alright, get off my back man."
We have a situation, but it's not exactly A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster.
5 replies →
Knowlege should not have ownership. Training and distillation should be allowed
Granting people some form of control over knowledge only serves the public interest inasmuch it provides incentive to create more of it. Mass media, effortless duplication, and copyright extensions had already broken this to the point where control of knowledge was suppressing creation of new knowledge more than it facilitated.
The world has changed, we need a mechanism that works for the public interest that applies to the facts as they now are.
I think it's worth stepping back here and pointing out the obvious. Y'all waging war on math. And I'm sorry, but that's the computing equivalent of legislating gravity.
Apologies for repeating myself here, but what you call "distillation" is function approximation.
I feel for the teams at Anthropic and Open AI, but unlike startups from prior eras; Anthropic and OpenAI have decided to be in the business of selling compute. Not creating a product that uses compute, but a product that's math running on compute. This is different from what Google is (or, rather was. As always, RIP Google 1998-2019).
Google's algorithm might be math, but Google search isn't. Google search is a process that's continuously operating in the background. Google crawls pages. Google stores and indexes what it finds. Google then exposes this to retrieval via its algorithm. User uses algorithm.
Now, let's compare that to AI models. When Anthropic serves Mythos / Opus etc, they're taking input or x from their user, doing compute, and then serving the result of the Mythos / Opus function, i.e.,
Where f is a continuous function, https://www.turing.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2025-11/languag...
According to Stone-Weierstrass, given enough values of y for f(x), anyone can approximate this function.
The fidelity and sophistication of this approximation definitely requires a lot of cleverness and effort, and it is arguably an imposition on Anthropic and OpenAI. But on a long-enough timeline, they don't even have to poll Anthropic or OpenAI. As the internet is flooded by PRs, content, emails written by Mythos / Claude, and just people otherwise sharing the results of Claude prompts, then there's an ever increasing set of data to approximate the f(x) that's f_Claude.
Eventually, in the future, anyone will be able to create a good enough approximation of the f_Mythos. Which is Anthropic's product.
Anthropic and OpenAI can now wage war on mathematics and the open-ended compute. Or, they can adapt and build a better product.
Choosing Option B was the Silicon Valley option / choice. I think the OG large-scale Valley lobbying effort, the Semiconductor Industry Association, was unique in that it prioritized and chose to do real research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_Industry_Associa...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_Research_Corpora...
This helped the industry to survive and outcompete the pressure they were facing (at the time).
This is nothing like music piracy.
American labs have ripped everything out of the internet. And now they cry someone else is “stealing” from them. Cry me a river.