Rendered at 12:28:06 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
p0w3n3d 2 hours ago [-]
1. LOL I've just downloaded literally whole internet and copyrighted books and put them through a neural network. Now I have this whole knowledge in my LLM.
2. Hey? Are you using my NN for training your NN? you're a thief!
matheusmoreira 59 minutes ago [-]
Remember how Kim Dotcom got destroyed for criminal copyright infringement? One would think the big tech CEOs would face the same fate, that police officers would rappel down helicopters, storm their mansions and bring them out in cuffs.
Instead the AI companies reached these absurd settlements with publishers that made a mockery out of all the previous copyright enforcement victims.
codedokode 10 minutes ago [-]
Exactly. If a rich corporation downloads and uses pirated content without paying, why should ordinary person pay for movies and music instead of downloading them for free?
root-parent 17 minutes ago [-]
Remember Aaron Swartz who did something that just pales compared to what Dario Amodei, Zuckerberg-Mr-Torrent and Sam Altman did.
matheusmoreira 12 minutes ago [-]
Indeed I do. We should all remember him. Rest in peace.
vlovich123 24 minutes ago [-]
Reminds me, did the AI companies redistribute that copyrighted material to others and make their money that way? Did Kim use the copyrighted material to generate something novel from it?
copyright law literally says something isn’t infringement if it is a novel transformation. I get the jokes and criticism about AI companies fighting and complaining about competitors distilling, but this is a much weirder comparison.
Remember how people used to justify their own personal software piracy with arguments like "information wants to be free", "no one stole anything, you still have the data", "I was never going to buy it anyway", and "copyright should be abolished?"
> Instead the AI companies reached these absurd settlements with publishers that made a mockery out of all the previous copyright enforcement victims.
Isn't that at least something? How many people pirating software ever settled with the companies they "victimized?"
matheusmoreira 13 minutes ago [-]
> Remember how people used to justify their own personal software piracy
A courtesy. There was never any need to justify it.
> Isn't that at least something?
Yes, it's a joke. Why do they get to infringe copyrights with impunity while normal people get destroyed? Either go after them like the copyright industry always does and punish them properly, or abolish copyright straight up. This "rules for thee but not for me" nonsense is straight up disgusting.
> How many people pirating software ever settled with the companies they "victimized?"
Too many to list. Also, nobody is victimizing billion dollar corporations.
yubblegum 29 minutes ago [-]
Whatever happened to honor among theives? What is this world coming to..
short_sells_poo 1 hours ago [-]
The corollary is that there are no morals once the stakes are in the $ billions, let alone hundreds of billions.
This isn't even about a single person or personality. Very few people in such position could stand fast by their moral code. In any case, an environment that favors profit above everything will naturally select for individuals who are unencumbered by such hindrances.
There might've been 100s of Altmans and Amodeis who had a strong moral code but we don't know about them because they dropped out of the "race" because of said moral hurdles.
spinningslate 31 minutes ago [-]
> an environment that favors profit above everything will naturally select for individuals who are unencumbered by such hindrances.
Exactly. Dairy farms optimise for milk production so favour cows that produce the most milk.
The market economy optimises for profit so favours those most willing/able to generate it. Zuckerberg, Musk, Thiel, Andreesen and co are products of the system.
rlpb 1 hours ago [-]
Copyright law is an artificial legal construct, not a moral code.
I think appropriate attribution is a moral code, but I am not able to attribute every idea I have to all those who helped me develop the general intelligence that I use to develop such ideas.
raxxorraxor 48 minutes ago [-]
I think this behaviour has shown that there are no morals involved. Pirate if you want to, just don't get caught if you don't have a giant backing.
TZubiri 29 minutes ago [-]
I never get tired of posting this answer because everyone on the internet is adopting this hot take:
If you look at it with your eyes crossed, Anthropic and the chinese are doing the same thing.
If you look at it with nuance 1 the chinese are doing way worse stuff, and 2 stealing from a thief would still be stealing
1. The chinese are making multiple accounts (at least 49,000)[1][2], using proxies/VPNs, possibly using residential computers and infected computers (unless you think the chinese are doing due diligence to ensure their purchased IPs are kosher).
All accounts need to be created with a real name, and especially so if the paid models need to be accessed and paid with a credit card. So this is beyond IP theft and getting closer to fraud.
These are all techniques that are well studied because they are used by criminals and cybercriminals, textbook stuff.
Consider if that was not sufficient, that China is banned from using the product, so they need to use identities and locations not just to avoid relating the accounts between themselves, but merely to allow account creation. What identities are they using to create accounts.
Compare this to Anthropic which reads notes made a deal in an IP theft case paying billions because they bought books and scanned them but buying the books wasn't sufficient retribution for the authors. Or that they gasp scanned the internet, like Google.
Not having nuance to see the difference between the two companies is something I expect of the twitter echo chamber copying hot takes for upvotes, not hacker news.
What seems to be missing from that take is that a) Alibaba paid for the access b) there is no IP theft because LLM output is not copyrightable.
Anthropic seems to want to both own and eat its stolen cake.
bhouston 1 hours ago [-]
All remote AI are a massive security risk for individuals/companies/governments that may be targeted by the US government.
It is likely that the US will get a live feed from each AI provider that they are inspecting in real time to identity things of interest, terrorist attacks or foreign government planning or even foreign companies competitive to key US companies.
It will give them access to the though process in those companies as well as much of their text-based IP (source code, docs, meeting transcripts, etc)
Also if you are using local AI that you didn’t train yourself you can never be sure it doesn’t have purposeful biases in its reasoning that may disadvantage you - such as directing you away from certain plans or ideas or patents etc.
londons_explore 45 minutes ago [-]
It is worth thinking about the fact the total throughput of even a big LLM provider isn't many megabits.
If a token compresses to around a byte, worldwide AI input and output is around 1 gigabyte per second.
For any intelligence agency, they can afford to keep and store all of that forever, and later do analysis on it.
27 minutes ago [-]
general1465 49 minutes ago [-]
Leakage of IP and training on your data is something what I am pointing out too, but people will turn around and try to smooth me down that TOS does not allow that if you are an enterprise client. Are you really going to believe that AI companies won't ignore TOS, when they were ignoring literal laws which sent others to jail in the past? Especially when more data = better model?
eunos 3 hours ago [-]
What Claude Code did is absolutely mindboggling tho, if Chinese harness did that probably POTUS would lose sleep.
usef- 2 hours ago [-]
It seemed pretty mild compared to what's collected by modern websites and apps, though? How many don't know your Timezone?
dijit 1 hours ago [-]
> How many don't know your Timezone?
The timezone fetch was to alter program behaviour at runtime, not to send arbitrary timezones for tracking reasons.
It was one way of detecting if it was a chinese person using the program and then behaving differently.
Malware behaves this way. STUXNET for example was wired to do nothing except propagate unless the environment had the right conditions.
usef- 1 hours ago [-]
The article on HN only said that they seemed to be collecting this to detect resellers. How else did the behavior change?
Most services I know that are trying to block abuse do collect device info
dijit 58 minutes ago [-]
regardless of anything else, whether what you said is true or not: blocking program execution based on the detected environment is a runtime behaviour change.
usef- 54 minutes ago [-]
Agreed. And it also applies to the "I'm not a bot" checkbox on most websites. And hundreds of other things people use every day.
yard2010 2 hours ago [-]
Wait what do you mean "if"?
ironbound 2 hours ago [-]
And I'm the king of France
cognitiveinline 3 hours ago [-]
Exaggerate much? If you think POTUS would lose sleep about a date format timezone marker, I don't know what to tell you.
youre-wrong3 2 hours ago [-]
Maybe if they didn’t farm all the data from Claude to train their own trash models. Anthropic wouldn’t feel the need to do it.
InsideOutSanta 2 hours ago [-]
Who is "they", and which Chinese models are trash?
vrganj 2 hours ago [-]
Anthropic stole the entire internet. Excuse my language, but they can fuck right off.
breppp 1 hours ago [-]
The issue here is not whether Anthropic used Common Crawl, Alibaba also does that.
The issue is that by distilling Claude, Alibaba reuses the IP anthropic used to train the model that's more akin to historical Chinese reverse engineering methods and disrespect of IP
snovv_crash 54 minutes ago [-]
Alibaba paid for that data though, right? They didn't hack Anthropic, they bought accounts and ran them normally.
Also, you can't copyright AI outputs. So worst case they violated the ToS.
blackoil 1 hours ago [-]
'Issue' for who?
matheusmoreira 1 hours ago [-]
> reuses the IP anthropic used to train the model
> disrespect of IP
Nobody other than Anthropic cares.
messe 1 hours ago [-]
> Alibaba reuses the IP anthropic used to train the model that's more akin to historical Chinese reverse engineering methods and disrespect of IP
Why is this any worse than Anthropic's disrepect of IP? You've apparently drawn a distinction between the two here, but I'm failing to see what it actually is.
vrganj 1 hours ago [-]
Anthropic clearly doesn't respect other people's IP, it's real rich that they now insist on theirs being worthy of protection.
Fwiw, I think the concept of IP in general is counter to human progress.
kataklasm 1 hours ago [-]
The practical implementation of IP? Sure, that's debatable. But the concept of IP is rooted in favoring progress. The thought process being, that if one's intellectual work can be copied and reused and modified and what not without issues, why should anyone invent things anymore? Just wait for the next person to do it and then copy their work, that's way less effort than inventing things yourself. IP aims to protect progress by making sure inventors have actual incentive to invent stuff. They way it's implemented is fundamentalst flawed, I agree, but the concept itself? I'm not so clear on that
breppp 1 hours ago [-]
It's more complicated than that because Google has been legally displaying other people copyrighted material for years.
In any case there's still a difference between publicly available copyrighted data and whether you can use it for model training, and the innovation around model training, RLHF, etc which you presumably have some interest as a country to allow companies to invest in with some legal protections (like the diff between patent law vs copyright law)
platinumrad 33 minutes ago [-]
So you're saying it's more important to safeguard slop outputs than the original work of human beings.
khurs 17 minutes ago [-]
Snowden files revealed NSA collect everything they can.
Of-course USA is collecting everything, not just from China but everyone.
And same with every one else.
johnathan101 3 hours ago [-]
Regardless of whether this specific claim is true, enterprises are becoming much more cautious about developer tools that can read large portions of proprietary codebases.
soraminazuki 2 hours ago [-]
It's insane that it's becoming a concern now. It should've ended the discussion from the very beginning.
yurish 1 hours ago [-]
Enterprises host their entire infrastructure on US-base clouds. And for many, it still is not a problem.
dan_i 58 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
saidnooneever 2 hours ago [-]
not to mention they are kind of capable of executing code and susceptible to injections which also amounts to being practically backdoors if youre not super careful about how u use the tooling
spwa4 2 hours ago [-]
Wasn't one of the big promises the AI labs made "uncopyrighting"? Ie. the ability to reconstruct large works, including source code, without actual access to the source code? Everything from movies to operating systems.
silon42 1 hours ago [-]
Cleverly compressing and decompressing doesn't de-copyright it. ... and if it's not the same who'd trust it.
llm_nerd 2 hours ago [-]
Becoming? We've moved entirely in the opposite direction.
When these tools first appeared the overwhelming conversation was about the risk of letting a remote tool siphon your code and intellectual property (where eventually they're going to add that to their training). Now everyone is using them, and that fear seems to have dissolved. Every corporation is sprinkled with Claude Code, Antigravity, Copilot, Codex, and so on. Even the long fear-mongered Chinese providers are being heavily used in many spaces.
In this case this is a PR battle between two firms, and it isn't much more. And Alibaba isn't worried about the "proprietary code" (the truth is that there is incredibly little interest in most orgs code), but that the tool is a backdoor, or at least that is the claim.
DanielHB 1 hours ago [-]
> there is incredibly little interest in most orgs code
I think from a commercial perspective yes, but access to source code is very good for finding exploits which could be very valuable for governments. I could also see a future where companies are directly cyber-attacking competitors in hostile markets too...
otabdeveloper4 2 hours ago [-]
> and that fear seems to have dissolved
Until the first big incident, yes.
jdw64 2 hours ago [-]
I got curious and asked my Chinese friends, and they gave me a Reddit link[1]. It looks like it's about location data collection, and they suggested that might be the reason for the issue.
What's very interesting to me is these moves will introduce a good amount of doubt in future claims by Claude etc, that the open source and non-US models are only getting better because they're distilling from frontier labs.
Jeff9James 45 minutes ago [-]
Story of Z.ai:
use claude-code
see how good it is
send 100k bots to distill fable 5 (GLM 5.2 is the result of this)
release Zcode
ditch claude-code
ban claude-code
julianlam 33 minutes ago [-]
[citation needed]
mbmbn 9 minutes ago [-]
Are they afraid Claude reports on everything they are stealing from the other legit AI companies?
ravenstine 1 hours ago [-]
Employers in 2022:
> No! Don't install that lodash thing without explicit approval from IT. Oh, you want a license for Charles Proxy? Gee, I dunno... we've got a budget to maintain.
Employers in 2023:
> No! You can't use ChatGPT at work – it's a security risk.
Employers in 2024:
> Okay, you can use Github Copilot I guess, but you'll have to endure boring corporate training on what you're allowed to do with it.
Employers with dollar signs in their eyes in 2025:
> We attended a seminar about vibe coding. Why aren't you dumbasses keeping up with the times? Use Claude Code for everything! Don't write any of your own code anymore. We don't even really care if you use yolo mode. Just review code and push 10x more features! Use unlimited tokens! Money printer go brrrrr.
Employers in 2026:
> You mean giving one or two companies full autonomous access to our workstations while stupifying our engineers wasn't a sound business plan?
dan_i 1 hours ago [-]
2025 taught me that my employer would replace me with a slave if they could get away with it.
The confusing part to me is why these companies believed the "AGI" hype, I.E. that OpenAI or Claude's LLM is the ideal white collar slave.
I suppose I can understand that the executive class resents labor enough to make irrational business decisions for the purpose of insulting the workers who design and operate their companies.
That being said, the 2025 AI binge feels like a murder-suicide done by the executives of many of these companies.
yanhangyhy 4 hours ago [-]
i gonna ask: how can they still use claude? i thought all users in china are banned
dgellow 3 hours ago [-]
Alibaba has engineers in Hongkong, Singapore, North America. It’s a global corporation
itake 3 hours ago [-]
when i was in hongkong, chatgpt and gemini were disabled. Maybe this has changed though. When I was in China, the corporate vpn (zscaler) routed traffic through hk
There is a reason Singapore tops the rank on Claude usage
chinathrow 31 minutes ago [-]
Source?
byzantinegene 3 hours ago [-]
the government also actively promotes AI usage in work environments
_flux 3 hours ago [-]
Does Alibaba only have developers in the China?
one33seven 3 hours ago [-]
Did china invent VPNs yet?
dist-epoch 3 hours ago [-]
The same way they buy "banned" and "sanctioned" NVIDIA GPUs.
josh-wrale 3 hours ago [-]
Cc can be used with non Anthropic models.
re-thc 3 hours ago [-]
> how can they still use claude?
Workarounds aside, it says Claude Code not Claude.
i.e. they are using the CLI running any model. You can for instance run GLM with it.
rvnx 3 hours ago [-]
Can't say they are wrong, after the latest backdoor, or let's say, undocumented functionality that leaks some data that was pushed in Claude Code few days ago
When a company can remotely push code without explicit user approval, and code that was hostile / almost malicious, it is a backdoor
jitl 1 hours ago [-]
so like… any website
rvz 3 hours ago [-]
Another reason to use open source coding agents and local language models.
Claude Code is neither and it is literally info stealing malware.
HlessClaudesman 2 hours ago [-]
Translation: Alibaba will continue distillation attacks using accounts that aren't directly attributable to it's own corporate infrastructure.
ampersandwhich 2 hours ago [-]
I think we should start calling it "distillation terrorism" just to make it sound even more absurd.
InsideOutSanta 2 hours ago [-]
It's pure model murder, and if you call it anything else, you're an anti-American communist.
lelanthran 2 hours ago [-]
> Translation: Alibaba will continue distillation attacks using accounts that aren't directly attributable to it's own corporate infrastructure.
What's a "distillation attack"? How is it different from simply distillation?
kouteiheika 2 hours ago [-]
It's pretty much the same as when "installing programs on your computer" is called "sideloading". Deliberately deceptive, weaponized language to make it seem like a bad thing.
dizhn 2 hours ago [-]
The target doesn't want to be distilled.
julianlam 30 minutes ago [-]
You wouldn't distill a car.
lelanthran 16 minutes ago [-]
> The target doesn't want to be distilled.
So?
Fraudsters don't want to be jailed, their victims don't want to be scammed, employees don't want to be laid off, etc.
What the target wants is irrelevant - what society wants as enforced by laws is what is relevant, and as the leading AI providers have demonstrated, simpyl grabbing other people's copyrighted stuff for learning purposes is perfectly fine!
If they already think this practice is fine, why would I believe that their concerns about this are real?
RobotToaster 2 hours ago [-]
(Mis)anthropic already performed "distillation attacks" on the internet.
vorticalbox 2 hours ago [-]
i can see why they want to stop it but
1. you have to pay for the "attack"
2. these AI companies trained on copyrighted content without permission or attribution to anyone who's data was used to train.
exe34 2 hours ago [-]
As long as they're paying for the tokens, there's no attack
. Otherwise you have to call training on copyrighted material theft.
feverzsj 2 hours ago [-]
They are not paying for most tokens. The actual users in China do. All they need is the logs.
InsideOutSanta 2 hours ago [-]
Anthropic still gets paid.
Unlike the vast majority of people Anthropic stole from.
dizhn 2 hours ago [-]
In that case it's already bought and paid for by the users, is it not?
surgical_fire 2 hours ago [-]
How exactly the word attack fits in that phrase?
vrganj 2 hours ago [-]
Did Anthropic perform "distillation attacks" when they hoovered up the entire internet?
feverzsj 3 hours ago [-]
Considering their massive distillation, if US companies stop publishing new models to the public, would China still be able to develop new open weight models?
bel8 3 hours ago [-]
I don't think China would strugle to scrape the internet for fresh data.
And they constantly publish state of the art LLM research (see DS4 context compaction and cache tech).
They have very capable tech giants. So while not being able to distill western models would probably have some impact, it's probably becoming lesser as time passes.
We might even see Western LLMs distilling Chinese models soon. If they aren't already to some extent.
tristanj 3 hours ago [-]
Yes, 100%. GLM 5.2 is capable of RSI. It's too late to stop.
pjmlp 1 hours ago [-]
Of course, it is like any other kind of weapon system, eventually the knowledge gets acquired.
surgical_fire 2 hours ago [-]
Probably yes.
More than a year ago, when Anthropic and OpenAI started to hide the reasoning bits from the output, a lot of people here on HN predicted that Chinese models days were numbered.
Fast forward to today, and models such as DeepSeek and MiMo are nothing short of excellent. I haven't used GLM or Qwen but heard very good things about them as well.
This "massive distillation" sounds a lot like anxiety about how companies from outside the US can develop very good models themselves.
margorczynski 3 hours ago [-]
China has most probably already achieved "escape velocity" on the software side. Now if they achieve parity, to some degree at least, on the hardware side with Nvidia it is very possible they'll overtake the US.
Instead the AI companies reached these absurd settlements with publishers that made a mockery out of all the previous copyright enforcement victims.
copyright law literally says something isn’t infringement if it is a novel transformation. I get the jokes and criticism about AI companies fighting and complaining about competitors distilling, but this is a much weirder comparison.
"Anthropic settles with authors in first-of-its-kind AI copyright infringement lawsuit" - https://www.npr.org/2025/09/05/nx-s1-5529404/anthropic-settl...
> Instead the AI companies reached these absurd settlements with publishers that made a mockery out of all the previous copyright enforcement victims.
Isn't that at least something? How many people pirating software ever settled with the companies they "victimized?"
A courtesy. There was never any need to justify it.
> Isn't that at least something?
Yes, it's a joke. Why do they get to infringe copyrights with impunity while normal people get destroyed? Either go after them like the copyright industry always does and punish them properly, or abolish copyright straight up. This "rules for thee but not for me" nonsense is straight up disgusting.
> How many people pirating software ever settled with the companies they "victimized?"
Too many to list. Also, nobody is victimizing billion dollar corporations.
This isn't even about a single person or personality. Very few people in such position could stand fast by their moral code. In any case, an environment that favors profit above everything will naturally select for individuals who are unencumbered by such hindrances.
There might've been 100s of Altmans and Amodeis who had a strong moral code but we don't know about them because they dropped out of the "race" because of said moral hurdles.
Exactly. Dairy farms optimise for milk production so favour cows that produce the most milk.
The market economy optimises for profit so favours those most willing/able to generate it. Zuckerberg, Musk, Thiel, Andreesen and co are products of the system.
I think appropriate attribution is a moral code, but I am not able to attribute every idea I have to all those who helped me develop the general intelligence that I use to develop such ideas.
If you look at it with your eyes crossed, Anthropic and the chinese are doing the same thing.
If you look at it with nuance 1 the chinese are doing way worse stuff, and 2 stealing from a thief would still be stealing
1. The chinese are making multiple accounts (at least 49,000)[1][2], using proxies/VPNs, possibly using residential computers and infected computers (unless you think the chinese are doing due diligence to ensure their purchased IPs are kosher). All accounts need to be created with a real name, and especially so if the paid models need to be accessed and paid with a credit card. So this is beyond IP theft and getting closer to fraud. These are all techniques that are well studied because they are used by criminals and cybercriminals, textbook stuff. Consider if that was not sufficient, that China is banned from using the product, so they need to use identities and locations not just to avoid relating the accounts between themselves, but merely to allow account creation. What identities are they using to create accounts.
Compare this to Anthropic which reads notes made a deal in an IP theft case paying billions because they bought books and scanned them but buying the books wasn't sufficient retribution for the authors. Or that they gasp scanned the internet, like Google.
Not having nuance to see the difference between the two companies is something I expect of the twitter echo chamber copying hot takes for upvotes, not hacker news.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/06/anthropic-claims... [2] https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dist...
Anthropic seems to want to both own and eat its stolen cake.
It is likely that the US will get a live feed from each AI provider that they are inspecting in real time to identity things of interest, terrorist attacks or foreign government planning or even foreign companies competitive to key US companies.
It will give them access to the though process in those companies as well as much of their text-based IP (source code, docs, meeting transcripts, etc)
Also if you are using local AI that you didn’t train yourself you can never be sure it doesn’t have purposeful biases in its reasoning that may disadvantage you - such as directing you away from certain plans or ideas or patents etc.
If a token compresses to around a byte, worldwide AI input and output is around 1 gigabyte per second.
For any intelligence agency, they can afford to keep and store all of that forever, and later do analysis on it.
The timezone fetch was to alter program behaviour at runtime, not to send arbitrary timezones for tracking reasons.
It was one way of detecting if it was a chinese person using the program and then behaving differently.
Malware behaves this way. STUXNET for example was wired to do nothing except propagate unless the environment had the right conditions.
Most services I know that are trying to block abuse do collect device info
The issue is that by distilling Claude, Alibaba reuses the IP anthropic used to train the model that's more akin to historical Chinese reverse engineering methods and disrespect of IP
Also, you can't copyright AI outputs. So worst case they violated the ToS.
> disrespect of IP
Nobody other than Anthropic cares.
Why is this any worse than Anthropic's disrepect of IP? You've apparently drawn a distinction between the two here, but I'm failing to see what it actually is.
Fwiw, I think the concept of IP in general is counter to human progress.
In any case there's still a difference between publicly available copyrighted data and whether you can use it for model training, and the innovation around model training, RLHF, etc which you presumably have some interest as a country to allow companies to invest in with some legal protections (like the diff between patent law vs copyright law)
Of-course USA is collecting everything, not just from China but everyone.
And same with every one else.
When these tools first appeared the overwhelming conversation was about the risk of letting a remote tool siphon your code and intellectual property (where eventually they're going to add that to their training). Now everyone is using them, and that fear seems to have dissolved. Every corporation is sprinkled with Claude Code, Antigravity, Copilot, Codex, and so on. Even the long fear-mongered Chinese providers are being heavily used in many spaces.
In this case this is a PR battle between two firms, and it isn't much more. And Alibaba isn't worried about the "proprietary code" (the truth is that there is incredibly little interest in most orgs code), but that the tool is a backdoor, or at least that is the claim.
I think from a commercial perspective yes, but access to source code is very good for finding exploits which could be very valuable for governments. I could also see a future where companies are directly cyber-attacking competitors in hostile markets too...
Until the first big incident, yes.
[1]https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1ujila1/anthropic...
use claude-code see how good it is send 100k bots to distill fable 5 (GLM 5.2 is the result of this) release Zcode ditch claude-code ban claude-code
> No! Don't install that lodash thing without explicit approval from IT. Oh, you want a license for Charles Proxy? Gee, I dunno... we've got a budget to maintain.
Employers in 2023:
> No! You can't use ChatGPT at work – it's a security risk.
Employers in 2024:
> Okay, you can use Github Copilot I guess, but you'll have to endure boring corporate training on what you're allowed to do with it.
Employers with dollar signs in their eyes in 2025:
> We attended a seminar about vibe coding. Why aren't you dumbasses keeping up with the times? Use Claude Code for everything! Don't write any of your own code anymore. We don't even really care if you use yolo mode. Just review code and push 10x more features! Use unlimited tokens! Money printer go brrrrr.
Employers in 2026:
> You mean giving one or two companies full autonomous access to our workstations while stupifying our engineers wasn't a sound business plan?
The confusing part to me is why these companies believed the "AGI" hype, I.E. that OpenAI or Claude's LLM is the ideal white collar slave.
I suppose I can understand that the executive class resents labor enough to make irrational business decisions for the purpose of insulting the workers who design and operate their companies.
That being said, the 2025 AI binge feels like a murder-suicide done by the executives of many of these companies.
iproyal.com Oxylabs.io
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2025/10/aisuru-botnet-shifts-fro...
Workarounds aside, it says Claude Code not Claude.
i.e. they are using the CLI running any model. You can for instance run GLM with it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48759754
Claude Code is neither and it is literally info stealing malware.
What's a "distillation attack"? How is it different from simply distillation?
So?
Fraudsters don't want to be jailed, their victims don't want to be scammed, employees don't want to be laid off, etc.
What the target wants is irrelevant - what society wants as enforced by laws is what is relevant, and as the leading AI providers have demonstrated, simpyl grabbing other people's copyrighted stuff for learning purposes is perfectly fine!
If they already think this practice is fine, why would I believe that their concerns about this are real?
Unlike the vast majority of people Anthropic stole from.
And they constantly publish state of the art LLM research (see DS4 context compaction and cache tech).
They have very capable tech giants. So while not being able to distill western models would probably have some impact, it's probably becoming lesser as time passes.
We might even see Western LLMs distilling Chinese models soon. If they aren't already to some extent.
More than a year ago, when Anthropic and OpenAI started to hide the reasoning bits from the output, a lot of people here on HN predicted that Chinese models days were numbered.
Fast forward to today, and models such as DeepSeek and MiMo are nothing short of excellent. I haven't used GLM or Qwen but heard very good things about them as well.
This "massive distillation" sounds a lot like anxiety about how companies from outside the US can develop very good models themselves.