Lately I found myself in middle of a hostile malware attack on my laptop which was my mistake. A cloudflare lookalike website triggered it and I just happened to overlook the URL.
In panic I headed to Claude and first request was denied. Not looking beyond scope.
Desperate - I fired opencode with DeepSeek v4 Flash (not even 4.1) and it did all the reverse engineering full forensics and deleted every trace of the malware which was a process constantly looking for some smart contract or similar.
So no, GLM 5.3 is fine. Thank you for the free advertisement.
> 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"
This completely ignores the world we are creating here. We are setting ourselves up for a massive cyber disaster. The safeguards on US models are insufficient but at least there are safeguards. The fact there are open weight models floating around that are capable of wrecking the economy is a genuine problem! One that Anthropic is doing us a service by warning us about.
When someone wielding a non-safeguarded model deletes the money in everyone’s bank account, I look forward to the HN comments claiming it’s an attempt by Anthropic to pull off regulatory capture.
> capable of wrecking the economy is a genuine problem
> model deletes the money in everyone’s bank account
If one were to actually believe this is the threat -- that open models pose an existential threat to human life (because that's what "wrecking the economy" means) -- then the response would be much more potent than mere "safeguards".
In that situation, the you'd have to: implement a secrets classification regime comparable to TS/SCI/SAP/Q; bring all computing manufacturers under strict controls on process and quotas, comparable to arms and pharma; implement a strict licensing regime and confiscate all computing with the capability to train or run models; implement strict controls on all hardware to enforce code execution; implement strict controls and licensure of all software development; and on and on and on.
Again, assuming the threat model you describe is plausible, any proposal less than this is just a regulatory capture grift.
wg0 · · focus · HN ↗
Lately I found myself in middle of a hostile malware attack on my laptop which was my mistake. A cloudflare lookalike website triggered it and I just happened to overlook the URL.
In panic I headed to Claude and first request was denied. Not looking beyond scope.
Desperate - I fired opencode with DeepSeek v4 Flash (not even 4.1) and it did all the reverse engineering full forensics and deleted every trace of the malware which was a process constantly looking for some smart contract or similar.
So no, GLM 5.3 is fine. Thank you for the free advertisement.
gravypod · · focus · HN ↗
> 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...
adriand · · focus · HN ↗
When someone wielding a non-safeguarded model deletes the money in everyone’s bank account, I look forward to the HN comments claiming it’s an attempt by Anthropic to pull off regulatory capture.
abtinf · · focus · HN ↗
> model deletes the money in everyone’s bank account
If one were to actually believe this is the threat -- that open models pose an existential threat to human life (because that's what "wrecking the economy" means) -- then the response would be much more potent than mere "safeguards".
In that situation, the you'd have to: implement a secrets classification regime comparable to TS/SCI/SAP/Q; bring all computing manufacturers under strict controls on process and quotas, comparable to arms and pharma; implement a strict licensing regime and confiscate all computing with the capability to train or run models; implement strict controls on all hardware to enforce code execution; implement strict controls and licensure of all software development; and on and on and on.
Again, assuming the threat model you describe is plausible, any proposal less than this is just a regulatory capture grift.