(The White House, https://tinyurl.com/474tumcr; Public Domain, https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/)

When U.S. labs train models on the world’s writing, Washington calls it fair use. When Chinese labs train on U.S. outputs, it’s a “malicious attack.” It can’t have it both ways.

The post The AI model distillation paradox appeared first on MR Online.


From MR Online via This RSS Feed.

no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
7 comments in c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com view that post
[–] 39 points 3 weeks ago

Originally published: Lawfare on October 8, 2026 by Lisa Klaassen

Then post the original goddamn link! Some stupid blog site regurgitating stories from real news sites.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 4 weeks ago (5 children)

    i can't really articulate why but I don't think this should be in /c/piracy

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 weeks ago

    The entire training of US models has been an act of piracy the likes of which had never been seen so far. Then they claim it's fair use.
    Meanwhile, Anna's Archve and its admins are wanted fugitives. Aaron Swartz is still dead. Chinese AI training on other AI is malicious. And piracy is still stealing.

    I think it does belong.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    I can't really articulate why but I do think this should be in /c/piracy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    It would be like KFC saying you can’t try to figure out how we made this food by eating it and taking the food apart and tasting it and testing it. And, again in my opinion, contract law (i.e., the terms of use for using the models) also does not provide the companies a viable claim because of a weird section of copyright law that basically doesn’t allow state law claims, such as contract claims, to be brought when they are in effect basically copyright claims.

    This is what most people don't understand. Looking at a picture or looking at a web page is not stealing. Also, you can't compress the entirety of "the internet" into a 20-200GB model. The claim that the data they store are even close to exact representations is bunk.

    Oh, you're using this argument to claim that models shouldn't be considered confidential and "trade secrets". Well, yeah, but also that argument can be turned the other way. Fair use still stands.

    And I know you're an IP attorney and all, but I would be okay if LLMs end up destroying the entire framework of copyright. It is a system created by the rich, to be only abused by the rich. We're already seeing it slowly get dismantled first-hand with all of these decompiling experiments, and I'm sure that will be followed up with rich megacorps doing what they do best: playing the hypocrite by claiming one thing is infringing in their copyright, while what they do is totally legal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago

    Also, you can’t compress the entirety of “the internet” into a 20-200GB model.

    You clearly can, LLMs are just an extremely lossy method of compression. It does make one wonder at what point does a highly compressed version of an original work no longer qualify. If we compressed a licensed image enough that it was a blur that vaguely resembled the original, does that still count?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)