[ahmedehab_01]

Frankly, I don't see this as the concerning behaviour the article describes. It is fine to try to protect against distillation through a technique like this. This will also allow them to, instead of blocking the distillation agents, respond with a poorer result/model, hindering the progress of distillation, momentarily at least.

I would guess that's their first line of defense; they should have more techniques to identify distillation because that's a very simple way of detecting the host and can be easily spoofed.

[applfanboysbgon]

> This will also allow them to, instead of blocking the distillation agents, respond with a poorer result/model,

i.e. this will allow them to literally commit fraud against paying customers

[SubiculumCode]

1st, this technique is not fraud, and fraud is a separate accusation. 2nd, paying customers can legally and legitimately be banned and monitored for breaking terms of service, which probably includes things like using the model against U.S. export restrictions.

[applfanboysbgon]

> 2nd, paying customers can legally and legitimately be banned and monitored for breaking terms of service

Yes, I said that. If a user is breaking your terms of service, ban them. Continuing to charge them while not providing the service they're paying for is, in fact, literal textbook fraud.

[solenoid0937]

No, it's totally legal to provide degraded quality of service to those breaking your ToS.

In any case this is not what is happening, but it is legal.

[applfanboysbgon]

Banning is completely different than charging for a service you're silently not providing.

[SubiculumCode]

Evidence?

[skeptic_ai]

So if I change my timezone to Shanghai I deserve to get banned? Or get shitty model instead of what I’m paying for?

[SubiculumCode]

Evidence?

[ahmedehab_01]

Do paying customers distill? Is it fraud to protect against distillers?

[chadgpt3]

That's what capitalism is all about, baby! Especially if the customers don't notice.