> on the same level like Anthropic scraped copyright protected material for their training.

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

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 that does seem kind of uncool.

Regardless, it was always inevitable—will continue to happen.

Distilling is still fair

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.

Meta, for examples, doesn’t want employees to use Claude Code due to distillation risk.

"You are trying to kidnap what I have rightfully stolen!"

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.

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.

> So what is the issue here?

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

[dead]

++