If Moonshot offered a "mystery model" tier with a note that my requests might reach whomever, I would have zero qualms about this

Pretending to customers like they are serving Kimi while actually proxying Claude is however a bad thing to do, bordering on fraud. I can see at least three issues

- data privacy. I might not want Anthropic to have my data. Even agreeing to Moonshot training on the data is not the same as giving them the right to send it to a completely different jurisdiction to do whatever

- it distorts model performance. If I evaluate Kimi based on their API, but the benchmarks happen to get sent to Claude, that gives the wrong impression. Or the other way around, if I evaluate based on the real Kimi and then my "production" requests get sent to Claude

- people build applications about the behavior of the model they are targeting. The models are nondeterministic, but they do have "flavors" and typical response patterns. Just switching out the models for a completely different model family is likely to lead to unexplained breakage

All of those apply to hobby applications and personal use just as much as to professional use

▲

gpt5 2 days ago | parent [-]

If this was a regular topic on an American company so blatantly violating user data and lying, people would be pissed.

Unfortunately, hacker news is being so heavily astroturfed that I counted dozens of comments just justifying this behavior appearing very quickly as this post appeared on the front page, together with its position being clearly suppressed.

▲

tomasphan a day ago | parent [-]

I agree with you, but suggesting Astroturf is apparently against the rules here. I like it because it needs less water for football fields.

▲

gumby 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Unfortunately it emits methane and a lot of other toxic chemicals, as well as not providing a permeable surface for rainfall.

Whether you meant the attitude product or were jocularly using it a relevant metaphor for AI decanters both your comment and mine apply!

▲

rcxdude a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Mainly because it's not very helpful for a useful discussion. If it's true, the discussion is already dead, if it's false, all it does is annoy the accused.

▲

gpt5 a day ago | parent [-]

It’s useful to raise awareness. The rules were made during a different period, where motivated state actors astroturfing were not that prevalent.

▲

rcxdude a day ago | parent [-]

I think it's only useful as awareness that it's a thing that could happen. evidence for specific instances tends to be tenuous.

	▲	gpt5 a day ago \| parent [-]
		For a specific post it’s always a guess. When it’s as recurring and consistent as it is here across all posts, it has crossed the point of preponderance of evidence. And highlighting when it happens is exactly what helps people realize it’s not a one off.