/Tech6h ago

Researcher @ahall_research argues frontier AI labs are restricting model outputs to stop rivals from training competing systems

This blocks users from leveraging model data for fine-tuning

1290183224.3K
Original post
Andy Hall@ahall_research

Leave aside the existential philosophical stuff, and here's the hard-edged reality of where the business of AI is heading: towards closed platforms intervening on what users can do to maintain their moat.

We previously documented how the frontier labs self preference their own AI models, writing code that calls their own APIs to keep your token spend. This is the next logical step: quietly prevent you from being able to use their model to improve your own.

It's a completely understandable move, and can have real safety and geopolitical benefits, but it will raise a lot of uncomfortable policy questions that we saw play out in Web 2.0 too.

NomoreID@Hangsiin

When Fable 5 is used for frontier LLM development, it does not notify the user and instead limits the model’s capabilities through methods such as prompt modification, steering vectors, and PEFT.

Anthropic estimated that this would affect approximately 0.03% of traffic.

12:56 PM · Jun 9, 2026 · 24.3K Views
Sentiment

Users in the replies demanded heavy regulation, class-action lawsuits, and monopoly busting of frontier AI labs for blocking users from improving competing models.

Pos
0.0%
Neg
100.0%
1 comments with sentiment.
Cluster Engagement
Posts from X
Most Activity
Most Activity
VIEWS704LIKES7
Arthur Spirling@arthur_spirling

@ahall_research Agree. Twitter blocked Substack links, Microsoft blocked Netscape, many such cases. I think some of it might end up in court, but until then I expect more of it.

22hViews 704Likes 7
BOOKMARKS1
jon halstead@zeronull1983

If you want “changed an industry,” here’s one:

A full glass‑box governance architecture for AI pipelines — intake → operator approval → external intelligence → training/eval — all turned into governed, versioned, auditable products. This blueprint is basically the Git for AI governance. 🔗 https://zenodo.org/records/20621346

13hViews 24Likes 1Bookmarks 1
Frosty40@FrostForger

@ahall_research how about we just call it what it is and regulkate the living shit out of these fucking clowns. I want class action + monopoly busting NOW

18hViews 227Bookmarks 1
jon halstead@zeronull1983

You’re describing the problem. I built the alternative.” What you’re describing is exactly why I built a glass‑box governance architecture instead of relying on closed frontier platforms.

Instead of silent steering, hidden filters, or uninspectable runtime behavior, this blueprint turns the entire AI pipeline into governed, versioned, auditable products — intake → operator approval → external intelligence → training/eval.

Every subsystem ships with:

• a facade over runtime logic (no drift) • a machine‑readable genome • a contract defining invariants + fail‑closed rules • a proof bundle linking contract → tests → gate hash • a CI gate that must pass before deployment It’s the opposite of black‑box intervention. It’s transparent, inspectable, reproducible AI governance as software. 🔗 https://zenodo.org/records/20621346

13hViews 11