Despite creating supposedly superintelligent models, leading AI labs still rely on crude access restrictions to prevent 'distillation'—an existential threat where competitors replicate their models. This reveals a critical capability gap: their AI is not yet smart enough to detect and prevent its own theft.

Proprietary labs argue against 'distillation' (using their model outputs for training) while they have built their own models on vast amounts of copyrighted data. This opposition is an anti-competitive tactic, as model outputs are not copyrightable and distillation helps smaller, open players to compete.

There is a profound hypocrisy in the AI industry's stance on intellectual property. Companies that built their foundational models by scraping the entire internet are now seeking regulatory protection to prevent others from distilling or learning from their models—mirroring how the music industry fought Napster after profiting from an open ecosystem.

Large, centralized AI models are vulnerable to 'distillation attacks,' where a smaller model can be trained cheaply by querying the larger one. This technical reality, combined with the moral hypocrisy of creators restricting copying after scraping the internet, strongly suggests a future dominated by decentralized, open-source models.

Companies like Anthropic and OpenAI are shifting from being API providers to building first-party "super apps." This creates a conflict where they might reserve their most powerful models for internal use, giving smaller, distilled versions to API customers, thus undermining the third-party ecosystem they helped create.

By restricting its most powerful model, Mythos, to a consortium of large companies, Anthropic is creating a two-tier economy. Smaller companies are left without access to the same advanced offensive and defensive AI capabilities, ending the previously democratic access to cutting-edge models and creating a significant competitive disadvantage.

Contrary to the idea of AI for all, the most powerful models will likely be restricted to a few high-paying clients to prevent distillation and maximize revenue. This creates a future where competitive advantage is defined by exclusive AI access, potentially allowing large incumbents to crush smaller competitors.

US AI labs' efforts to prevent foreign rivals from distilling their models face accusations of hypocrisy. Critics point out that these labs train their own models on vast amounts of public data without permission. This "pot calling the kettle black" dynamic complicates legal and ethical arguments against industrial-scale distillation.

Frontier AI labs are restricting API access not just for security, but to prevent competitors from using 'distillation' to create cheap copies of their models. This practice makes it impossible to recoup massive R&D investments, forcing a move towards more restrictive, geopolitically motivated access.