Regardless, fuck AI.
The legal questions are getting interesting tho.
The copier whines that its copies are being copied by another copier. News at 11.
Quite literally the entire history of copyright. Each generation of robber barrons angry at the next generations upstart criminals skimming their rent.
Kinda like how very AI company in silicon valley was scrambling to figure out Deepseek worked when it released for free?
As long as the Chinese are releasing their AI as open source, I really honestly don’t give a shit.
They’re releasing it open weighs mostly, not open source necessarily.
Not all that different from the freeware model, where you get a binary that you can run, but you don’t really have the building blocks to make it yourself.
Yeah, for me, I am very strict about that. If it is not open source, I will not use it.
I’m aware of the difference between open weight models and open source models, and I will not use open weight models because they are not open source.
Before I learned that I should care, I used closed source software and so now have some closed source software that I still use because of the fact that I got used to it and can’t really easily get rid of it.
AI is the very first technology where I can draw the line immediately and say I will never use a closed source system.
I have switched to open source software and operating systems as much as possible, but because of the fact that I used operating systems and software before I cared about open source, I still have some dead weight to drag around. And with AI, I’m hoping to avoid that issue.
For example, every application on my phone is open source, except for one, and I find that app useful enough that I cannot get rid of it.
source includes the training data. If i gave someone the full source code of a wasm interpreter and a wasm blob that contains all of the logic of the actual application, with no way of building that blob yourself, and call that open source, I’d be laughed out of the room.
“open source” models usually do exactly this
That is true, and so I suspect the only truly FLOSS models we will ever see will be highly specialised to a particular task; which is, in the long run, fine by me. A coding llm that comes with a huge corpus of open source training code, maybe even just in a specific language, a speech to text model with a corpus of transcribed creative commons audio, probably a single language or pair of languages if its for translation, etc. That way the datasets, while still huge, could actually be curated by a single community.
I use olmo from AI2 which also includes the training data.
“They’re using their plagiarism machine to plagiarize our plagiarism machine!”
Good. Fucking clankers.
Like other Chinese companies, Alibaba tapped into Anthropic’s technologies through tens of thousands of unauthorized accounts, according to the letter, which was viewed by The New York Times. Then it used the data it collected to train its own A.I. systems. Anthropic asked the lawmakers, who lead a Senate committee that was about to hold a hearing on A.I., to explore ways of curbing China’s distillation.
Lmfao they are complaining about what’s basically the same thing as what they did to people to create their AI in the first place
Ahem, what they are still doing based on everyone’s overloaded webserver logs.
I still have logs from Anthropic bot not respecting robots.txt ddosing my home lab and stealing code. Where can I send them ?
Claude
No what the Chinese do is much more ethical because they actually pay for the tokens. Basically anthropic is complaining that companies use and pay for their product :'(
plus china is well known to MAKE faux-of everything why are they surprised.
I agree with this. They should’ve known. And at least chinese teams are coming out with new ways to make these models more efficient and smaller. They’re improving on the work they stole and then making it open source which I love to see.
Do you know something? When Chinese copy AI they open source it but your American companies would never do that
It’s more like a freeware computer program than open-source (or “open” weights or whatever language they attach to it). They won’t show you the source for many reasons. One of the reasons here is that the source is Anthropic, which I find hilarious personally
Us strategy is to chase the latest frontier model and while they burn money to get to that economy solving model they just plant to get everybody hooked, so they can ramp up prices later and make mega profits. Chinese just see the AI as a productivity multiplier and expect the money to be made elsewhere, their models are open and their Ai companies work on a loss. US plan really expects that there is eventually A) no competition, and B) their shit can actually be so useful that soon nobody can live without them. Everything the Chinese do is just poison to US AI companies.
Robin Hoods of AI?
american ones like the EVS, WANTS TO gouge people thats why.
Tiny violin company in shambles again, have a hard time facing demands.
lol. lmao, even.
I’d say rofl too
They’re ripping off our plagiarism machine!!
So wait, a technology built on stealing Intellectual Property suddenly has a problem with Intellectual Property theft?
Yes, because most of the stock market is tied to the few AI companies. It’s the only thing keeping up the facade of a growing economy. The last thing they need is someone showing investors how unimpressive and easily copied the tech is, especially when they’re all looking to go IPO and cash out.
Weird argument they’re making, since distillation doesn’t give you the AI. It just gives you the style of the AI.
If you distilled Google’s newest Gemini into a GPT-2 model, all it would do is just sound like it. Your GPT-2 model isn’t suddenly going to be as capable as the model you distilled.
It can speed up training and reduce the amount of training data needed. Well, at least if you have access to the output vector, which I guess you don’t over the API. I think most “distilled” models you see for download don’t do full backprop training, because it takes enormous amounts of compute, and instead use low-rank methods. The low rank methods really only change the style. Alibaba has the compute to do proper training.
