Cloning Gemini: The Real Play Behind Google’s 100,000-Prompt Warning
Cut through the noise for a second: Google is claiming that attackers, apparently looking for a payday, used over 100,000 prompts to try and clone Gemini. They're painting a picture of total chaos, making it sound like they're under siege by rogue states and elite hackers. But when you look at the details, you have to wonder. Is this actually an admission that their system is fragile, or just a strategic move to keep outsiders away from their tech, disguised as a helpful security alert?
Look at the actual incentives here. Google's Gemini is basically high-value intellectual property wrapped in a fragile shell, even if it's ostensibly open to anyone with a browser. As soon as those outputs went public, people were going to poke at it, scrape it, and try to distill it. That isn't some rare, high-level phishing operation; it's just what happens when you release a general-purpose AI for anyone to play with.
Google's warning—covered by NBC News—paints "distillation attacks," where thousands of prompts are used to reverse-engineer the system, as something close to flat-out IP theft. They claim the culprits are commercial firms and rival researchers. But these aren't some mysterious villains. They're exactly who you'd expect to show up when you let a valuable machine roam free in the wild. [NBC News]
OpenAI accused DeepSeek of distillation attacks last year, but there isn't much proof of a complete replication beyond Gemini's situation. Usually, people aren't trying to rebuild the entire underlying logic from scratch anyway. It's much more common to see attempts at tricking AIs into sharing forbidden info or poisoning the models while they're still being trained.
So what is Google actually trying to protect? First, they're guarding their model weights: the ultimate prize for rivals and a massive legal liability. Second, they want to maintain this illusion of control, acting like guardrails can stop replication when the real weakness is built right into the architecture. Third, there's the reputational hit. If Gemini looks like it's too easy to copy, the product seems weak, the company looks like it doesn't know what it's doing, and the whole investment gets called into question.
By playing up the drama, Google gets to act like a victim or a guardian. It's a way to hide the truth: every single player in this race is dealing with the same problem. You need to be open to reach a global commercial scale, but that very openness is exactly what makes the model vulnerable to being stripped down and rebuilt by others.
Let's look at the actual reality here. No company has actually managed to stop prompt-based extraction attacks, no matter what their marketing says. The OWASP Top 10 for LLMs lists prompt injection and model theft as major issues, but the solutions they offer are pretty limited. Things like detecting attack patterns or rate-limiting users are just band-aids that can be bypassed.
There aren't any documented cases of a commercial model being perfectly protected by these guardrails. Mostly, they just make it a bit more annoying for the attacker. If someone is patient enough and has enough proxies, they'll keep scraping until it's no longer worth the effort or the data gets too noisy. There is really only one way to stay safe: keep the model weights private and lock down the API. But that goes completely against the marketing dream of a public assistant that can do everything for everyone.
Cloning isn't even the biggest issue here. The real fight is about who gets to decide what counts as a 'new' AI and who actually gets to build the next generation of models. When Google treats data scraping as something criminal or unethical, they're basically setting the stage for legal moves against smaller competitors. It's a way to pull the ladder up and protect their lead by using cybersecurity as an excuse for what is essentially regulatory capture.
To put it bluntly, when you release these massive models to the public, you're basically asking for them to be picked apart. The secret's out and the security measures are pretty thin. Most of the loud complaining you hear is just a distraction from a basic reality: you can't sell access to something and expect to keep it totally locked down at the same time.
Comments ()