Hacker News Reader

Comment by DonsDiscountGas | Hacker News Reader

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. Unless your training pipeline involves actively querying one of Anthropic models, no they can't. And if it does you're distilling their model.

View on HN

The crocodile tears of companies who've hoovered up everything possible, regardless of permissions or legality, now crying that someone else is stealing their hard work is comical.

I don't even think they can believe it themselves, it's in reality they are just trying to throw fear, uncertainty and doubt about potentially cheaper offerings.

> crocodile tears

Not what that means.

Crocodile tears "is a colloquial term used to describe a false, insincere display of emotion" [1]. Defending yourself against an attack vector you just exploited is between savvy and hypocritical.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile_tears

I think his use of crocodile tears is appropriate, anthropic is feigning a false sense of concern for safety when really it is anticompetitive behavior, and I think that selfish entitlement is related to the original act of intellectual property theft to use the worlds training data, most of which was not public domain, to distill the wisdom for their models. So why do they get to cry about people distilling the knowledge from their models that they themselves distilled from the worlds knowledge?

That is not what their policy states. It specifically says they will sabotage even non-distillation attempts, such as distributed training pipeline design. And given that they are so far very nonperformant in classification accuracy, expect it to randomly include far more topics wide of the mark.

The fun part is that you will never know if your neural net classification project is getting silently sabotaged because their classifier doesn't work!

You could try actually reading the code that it wrote

Good luck understanding it and finding malevolent inefficiencies if it’s already necessarily better at optimizing training pipelines than everyone except some Anthropic and OpenAI employees. Not a new thing either, see fast16.

Opus 4.8 (or a classifier in front of it) flagged my account and refused to comply when I told it to kill the process. Reasoning summary was complete bananas.

With this in mind, I don't want model to be proactively instructed and encouraged to sabotage without telling me.

Same here when I said to “nuke” a process.

Like if you're using claude code on a feature tangential to your training pipeline it's allowed to nerf itself and damage your AI work.

Read the examples Anthropic gave in the model card. They refer to extremely broad technology used across AI and ML.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com