There's reproducible evidence of Kimi K3 spontaneously identifying itself as Claude https://x.com/denisewu/status/2077984660211269870

This behavior is exactly what you'd expect from a model distilled from Claude.

Someone even took the time to analyze Kimi's ambiguous identity, in great detail: https://github.com/rgreenblatt/which_claude_is_k3/blob/main/...

And there's an entire Reddit thread discussing this https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1m2w5ge/did_kim...

That doesn’t prove Anthropic’s specific 3.4m-session allegation, but calling it “zero evidence” is no longer credible.

Kimi K2.5 was worse in a hilarious way, it identified itself as Claude and referenced Anthropic's Constitutional AI as some of its guiding principles https://huggingface.co/moonshotai/Kimi-K2.5/discussions/38

▲

staticman2 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> This behavior is exactly what you'd expect from a model distilled from Claude.

This is not at all what I would expect because it's trivial to change the training data to replace Claude with Kimi. In fact I'd argue it's almost certainly not saying that due to distillation.

▲

tristanj 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I encourage you to review the links before committing to a position. The writeup on K3's anomalous trans-model identity is very comprehensive.

K3 reproduces Claude's internal model identifier when prompted, something which the real Claude models themselves do not emit. This is highly suggestive that K3 was trained on Claude metadata (API logs, tagged synthetic data), rather than Claude's chat outputs.

And it's well documented that Chinese labs are buying large amounts of raw Claude metadata https://www.chinatalk.media/p/how-to-buy-cheap-claude-tokens...

	▲	staticman2 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		For context you just asked me to read a document that starts with: "Caveat: fully AI-generated research." And that you quoted or paraphrased directly.

▲

kamranjon 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

By evidence I mean logs, I mean IP addresses, I mean timestamps. They claim millions of requests, let’s see literally any of them?

I don’t consider a tweet by Denise Wu, who works at Anthropic, to be reproducible evidence.

I don’t consider “Caveat: fully AI-generated research.” To be someone taking time to analyze anything in great detail.

Because two AI models produce vaguely similar front-end styles when generating similar prompts I also do not consider to be of much value?

I think this is what I mean when I say the U.S. has its head in the sand. The Chinese labs are releasing ~60 page research reports with citations and analyses and evidence and Anthropic is throwing up defensive blog posts with zilch. I’ve seen more detail in a tech blog from Uber than anything I’ve seen from Anthropic.

▲

tristanj 8 hours ago | parent [-]

You've backtracked significantly here.

"Zero evidence" as you claimed earlier isn't accurate. You've moved the goalposts from "evidence" to "raw internal logs I can independently audit," which is a different and very high standard. Sure Anthropic didn't publish logs, IP addresses, timestamps, or account IDs of the accounts involved. But that's true of any cybersecurity breach/abuse disclosure ever made. Companies are furtive to reveal how they detect fraud, because doing so exposes the signals used to detect bad actors, and makes future abuse easier. Not revealing the "evidence" you're asking for is industry standard practice. You're complaining that Anthropic is following industry standard practice, and conveniently defining the "evidence" you need as something Anthropic is never going to publish.

> I don’t consider a tweet by Denise Wu, who works at Anthropic, to be reproducible evidence.

Is the issue here that she works at Anthropic? Because Denise Wu doesn't work there.

> I don’t consider “Caveat: fully AI-generated research” to be someone taking time to analyze anything in great detail.

The experiments were run by Ryan Greenblatt, who is a real AI safety researcher (at Redwood Research).

The identity experiments and Greenblatt analysis are trivially reproducible. The methodology, code, and metrics are all there in the Github repository. You can ask your preferred AI to independently replicate these results, and it will give you a result within an hour.

You’ve also reduced the evidence to “two models producing vaguely similar front-end styles,” which is not what either analysis shows.

From the analysis, Kimi K3 identifies itself as Claude 15% of the time. How do you explain that? Qwen and GPT identify themselves as Claude 0% of the time.

If a long document is too much analysis for you, someone else made a simple chart which measures the KL divergence between Kimi K3 and other major models. They found K3 is unusually similar to Fable 5 & Opus models. That is, Kimi K3 has an very similar style and phrasing to that of Anthropic models. That behavior is expected from a model distilled from Claude.

https://typebulb.com/u/lab/you-re-relatively-right/full

	▲	Paradigma11 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		"From the analysis, Kimi K3 identifies itself as Claude 15% of the time. How do you explain that? Qwen and GPT identify themselves as Claude 0% of the time." Qwen and GPT have special guards that trigger when asked to identify, Kimi doesnt. I dont understand the argument. Kimi is an LLM and does not know what it is. It will give you the most likely answer which sometimes is Claude.
	▲	kamranjon 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I wouldn’t say I’ve backtracked- I think I’ve been incredibly consistent here. Chinese labs are releasing open weight models, research and analysis. Anthropic is not. They haven’t produced any actual evidence of distillation themselves and what they have presented is tenuous at best.