I don't expect Tan's position to be based on any kind of real moral high ground, but his conclusion is correct.
I love the "illicit distillation attacks" framing from the incumbents. There's nothing illicit. There's no attack. You just don't like it because it threatens your market position and business model.
Similarly, AI companies should be required to allow distillation at a fair price. Fair Use doesn’t make sense as a social contract if it only cuts one way!
Preventing token-consumers from developing competing products should be litigated as anti-competitive behavior.
Garry Tan and Sam Altman recently did this interview together. They seemed pretty friendly with each other during it. Wonder what Sam Altman would say about Tan advocating for OpenAI’s models to be distilled.
Then again this is the same OpenAI that has gotten into legal trouble recently regarding Apple’s IP so who knows
They know it won't happen, so arguing for it is 'effectively free' and purely personal marketing.
A bullshit game played by politicians and wannabes.
TheJCDenton•1h ago
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•59m ago
SOLAR_FIELDS•42m ago
sobellian•57m ago
causal•47m ago
dathery•41m ago
> 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/
> 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
Obviously there is some bad behavior going on in the distillation scene with gray-market token resellers but that is "just" normal fraud.
zenoprax•12m ago
> 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•39m ago
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.-
travisgriggs•15m ago
But I get your meaning. What should they be called instead? AI Sausage Factories maybe (cue Upton Sinclair?)?
Avicebron•8m ago
That's actually great? Slaughterhouses killing off the collective genius of humanity and grinding it into a bland paste for mass consumption.
Den_VR•11m ago