Corporations need to consider how much IP they expose to AI labs
Simoudis says claims about Chinese models obtaining knowledge from U.S. models have implications beyond competition among U.S. labs. He says this makes corporations consider carefully how much of their intellectual property they expose to these labs.
Supporting evidence
Original excerpt
That has implications, frankly, for where my mind went: everything that is happening with Chinese models, or what is being claimed about Chinese models—that they are taking, whether through distillation or other means, knowledge from U.S. models. So this is what makes this story extremely important to me, with implications not only for what’s happening in the competition among U.S. labs, but for what’s happening more broadly. And that makes corporations, to your point, think very carefully about how much of their IP they open up to those neo-labs.
Context
So here’s why it’s fascinating. As you know, I take the corporate approach a lot. There has been so much noise about the quality and performance of Anthropic’s models, why they are being adopted more broadly, how that has implications for Anthropic’s revenue, and how it makes the company ready to become public before the end of the year. Yet here you have two researchers, one of whom is clearly associated with Anthropic, using OpenAI’s Codex. That’s point number one. Point number two is the fact that OpenAI is taking these prompts, as you say, and using them to improve their model. I mean, they started accepting some of that narrative.