The evidence we have so far points to LLMs becoming commodities. I can’t think of a technology in the last 30 years where so many companies are within ankle biting distance of the leader. There seems to be no data aggregation moat like with Google.

▲

user43928 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I think people often underestimate how far behind most of the competition is.

Isn't the first open model that likely surpasses original Mythos from February this week's Kimi K3.1 Pro?

Nothing compares to September's Opus 5.5 yet.

Now the question is whether Anthropic is preparing another phenomenal upgrade with Fable 5.5, or if the progress eventually slows down and competitors catch up.

▲

Tuna-Fish 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Distilling just works too well. It costs much more to aggregate the data in the first place and train the first model, but once that exists and you are selling access, the second guy can train their model by using the first model to generate the training data.

The only ways to fight this is trying to either: 1. Block it by cutting off access, which is pretty tough because it basically means you cannot offer unmonitored access which is a no-no to a lot of customers, and even then the workload looks very similar to actual real workloads and if the company doing the distilling is a bit sneaky and using intermediaries etc it's almost impossible to stop, or:

2. Try to use IP law to block the practice, which is pretty gross given how they got the data in the first place, and so far no court has supported them on this. And even if they can make it illegal, it won't actually help because there are countries that see having top-tier AI as a national priority and will actually support their companies breaking laws to get there.

People misunderstand why Anthropic is being so stingy about granting access to their top models. It's not some kind of marketing ploy, they know that if they release them fully openly then there will be a Chinese open-weights model in 3 months that is just as good. Also the reason why they try to hide chain-of-thought and the probability distributions.

▲

butlike 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> the second guy can train their model by using the first model to generate the training data

Isn't this somewhat akin to a model learning from its own inputs? Doesn't that behavior lead to model collapse? Either the model is trained on pristine data, in which case it stagnates, or it's distilled from another model, which leads to model collapse.

	▲	sfblah 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think the better analogy is kick-starting. Yes, you'd get model collapse eventually, but you can kick-start a new model by cloning an old one and then you start training it like a normal model from then on out.

▲

cmiles8 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Given Anthropic is basically just “distilling” the IP of others they’re in no position to cry foul when others run the same playbook on Anthropic IP. They can pound sand on that front.

▲

jacquesm 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Indeed, the hypocrisy is cringe worthy but the lack of proof makes it a transparent play to stop giving their users the ability to audit the token counts. "Here is your bill. You spent 20% more than last month, but we're not going to show you what you spent it on."

	▲	6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

jacquesm 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Anthropic has made a lot of noise about this but has not offered a shred of proof. CEO about to do IPO is not a trustworthy source.

▲

the_sleaze_ 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> has not offered a shred of proof

Pardon me? You cannot be serious...

https://media.defense.gov/2026/Sep/08/2003992823/-1/-1/0/CSA...

	▲	jacquesm 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You have a very low standard for proof. Independent verification from non-aligned entities would be a minimum for something like this. Note how in spite of all of the claims not a single lawsuit has been filed.
	▲	tehjoker 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		These are more claims of the same kind from an aligned institution. There is no evidence offered. You cannot believe intelligence agencies when they do not offer proof. Their job is to provide (reputationally but not factually) authoritative story lines that protect big business interests from competition overseas. Sometimes they protect US business by bombing their competitors.

▲

koolba 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The interface being arbitrary text makes the moat even looser. The cost of experimentation with alternatives is getting lower and lower.

It’s going to be hard for companies to justify paying $1000s per month to frontier providers when they see what’s doable with open versions.

	▲	htrp 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		multiple thousands per employee sure.... but you will be surprised how much non-compensation employee expenses can be