From what I’ve read, it seems like a lot of the companies monitor API calls and will posion responses for suspicious traffic. This basically means they’ll modify the output to be harmful to the scrapper.
Outside of that they can block accounts/IPs, limit what is returned (just the final answer vs all reasoning steps, etc.). However it’s a bit like all cyber security and an evolving game of cat and mouse.
I’m not caught up on all the details, but as I said this has been an ongoing game of cat and mouse with people looking to leverage other models to improve their own (this isn’t just a qwen vs Claude thing and everyone if pointing fingers at everyone). If I had to guess it’s only been more recently that AI companies are actively fighting these issues, but even then I imagine they’re not 100% effective.
I see. Is there some way to protect models from being trained on them aside from just removing it from the market?
From what I’ve read, it seems like a lot of the companies monitor API calls and will posion responses for suspicious traffic. This basically means they’ll modify the output to be harmful to the scrapper.
Outside of that they can block accounts/IPs, limit what is returned (just the final answer vs all reasoning steps, etc.). However it’s a bit like all cyber security and an evolving game of cat and mouse.
How was Qwen previously able to train on Claude? Prompt injection?
I’m not caught up on all the details, but as I said this has been an ongoing game of cat and mouse with people looking to leverage other models to improve their own (this isn’t just a qwen vs Claude thing and everyone if pointing fingers at everyone). If I had to guess it’s only been more recently that AI companies are actively fighting these issues, but even then I imagine they’re not 100% effective.