> On Sept. 17, NIST’s Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI) published its own assessment of GLM-5.3’s cyber capabilities. CAISI found that GLM-5.3 is “the most cyber-capable open-weight model released to date” and that it lags the US frontier by about four months on an aggregate of CAISI’s cyber benchmarks.

To translate: "This free model, you can host yourself, is at max 4 months behind Anthropic - as confirmed by Anthropic and the US Government - and it won't reject your requests"

Interesting play before an IPO...

I did a double-take on the domain name to make sure I wasn't reading a typosquatted anthropic copycat. It was a glowing review too, I didn't know GLM 5.3 was that good at cyber.

I bet the reason Dario wants to meet with the Australian government, is because he feels like he can convince them to ban open source AI models. Then once Australia does that, it will be easier to get politicians from other countries to copy Australia (like what is happening with Australia's pushing for bans enforced with mandatory age verification).

There was this incident that seemingly flew under the radar (52 days ago): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49216185

For instance, one regulation which really puts American AI companies at a disadvantage is IP law. It shouldn’t be a surprise that most of the best of the text-to-video models are Chinese.

Similarly, the legal grey area around model distillation gives Chinese labs a major advantage. This one I feel better about relaxing.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7515521-william-roper-so-no...

It's worth noting that the overwhelming majority of people who use Chinese models don't do this. Yes, it is nice to have the option, and there are US-based inference providers that claim to not send your data to China and maybe indeed don't, but in the grand scheme of things, we need to remember the adage that became popular during the social media era: if something is free (or, in this case, close to free), you are the product.

Anthropic has been telling everyone that these models are dangerous. OpenAI and Anthropic failed to contain their tests.

Given the history, this testing is extremely reckless. I think it is criminal, it endangers others.

Anthropic has no authority here and they are going too far. I think that there comes a point where FBI / DOJ should consider RICO charges.

That is not what they are doing. They are calling out specific providers who release powerful models without safeguards.

In addition, said providers are not "building models for free for the public." They are doing it to hamstring America's dominance in AI, primarily by undercutting the frontier labs.

if models can find and exploit bugs this fast, anything sitting on a public IP is going to get tested harder and faster.

soon, you'll just have to live under the assumption that an attacker could theoretically get into your infra - so all your precautions will need to have that as a baseline

hence, betting on "undiscoverable resources" as the next big enterprise push!

Getting DS4 to run at a reasonable speed was pretty tricky, GLM 5.3 a lot trickier because if you don't want to have a model that is quantized too far down that is a fortune in VRAM and GPUs at today's prices.