Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 184 posts

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#121

Post by ch4s3 »

avaer wrote: post #113
giwook wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because while you may be a good actor, there are just as many bad actors out there. How does Anthropic or OpenAI differentiate between the two? Once you solve that, you can get access to Mythos ;)

More importantly who gets to decide good or bad? Remember all of these models are based on unimaginable levels of copyright infringement. Is OpenAI a bad actor, that they use their models to infringe on the rights of others? This isn't a moral argument. This is all about power and money, not good or bad. That includes the Mythos ban. Good vs bad actors is political theater designed to distract from what's actually go…

> unimaginable levels of copyright infringement

This isn't how copyright works. The models don't wholesale encode literal information from original works and are substantive transformations. Now, you yourself as a user can use the models and weights to infringe on a copyright.

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#122

Post by tacoooooooo »

armenarmen wrote: post #115
infecto wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does paying for the max plan build the expectation that you get access to everything?

“Max” leads me to believe I have the maximum level of access

you'll need the Max Plus plan for that, buddy

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#123

Post by re-thc »

giwook wrote: post #110
taspeotis wrote: post #11

I don't know what the solution to this is, but I find it somewhat unfair that I pay money to Anthropic, and I pay money to OpenAI, and neither of them will let me use their best models for securing the software I work on. Admittedly Opus 4.8 xhigh does a good job, but are my customers not entitled to have more security from a Fable/Mythos or GPT-5.5-Cyber audit over the codebase? Or I guess the inverse question: why…

Because while you may be a good actor, there are just as many bad actors out there. How does Anthropic or OpenAI differentiate between the two? Once you solve that, you can get access to Mythos ;)

> How does Anthropic or OpenAI differentiate between the two?

So if they can't why do some companies still get access today? Just 1s much bigger than "us".

It's the equivalent of saying a company like Amazon or Cloudflare should block access to web hosting or "illegal hosting". The argument back then was they aren't gatekeepers? But now they are?

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#124

Post by frabcus »

ch4s3 wrote: post #121
avaer wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More importantly who gets to decide good or bad? Remember all of these models are based on unimaginable levels of copyright infringement. Is OpenAI a bad actor, that they use their models to infringe on the rights of others? This isn't a moral argument. This is all about power and money, not good or bad. That includes the Mythos ban. Good vs bad actors is political theater designed to distract from what's actually go…

> unimaginable levels of copyright infringement This isn't how copyright works. The models don't wholesale encode literal information from original works and are substantive transformations. Now, you yourself as a user can use the models and weights to infringe on a copyright.

There have been some US cases about this, but it isn't generally settled internationally. "Fair use" is a US specific thing. Even in the US there are ongoing cases.

Paper about how weights are a derivative work of the training data: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.13493

Currently in progress law suits about AI copyright: https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/the-rise-o...

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#125

Post by re-thc »

MrOrelliOReilly wrote: post #20
taspeotis wrote: post #11

I don't know what the solution to this is, but I find it somewhat unfair that I pay money to Anthropic, and I pay money to OpenAI, and neither of them will let me use their best models for securing the software I work on. Admittedly Opus 4.8 xhigh does a good job, but are my customers not entitled to have more security from a Fable/Mythos or GPT-5.5-Cyber audit over the codebase? Or I guess the inverse question: why…

I'm not sure I follow your logic. Paying for a service does not mean you get access to all potential services a provider offers. Providers can choose to keep some services internal. Silly example: I pay Netflix for their most basic plan, so I get ads. Just because I already pay them money, doesn't mean I have a right to no ads! It also doesn't mean I have a right to 8k streaming; maybe Netflix reserves that for their…

> Paying for a service does not mean you get access to all potential services a provider offers. Providers can choose to keep some services internal.

The problem most people have is "the logic".

Sure you can keep it internal. Sure you can not offer it to everyone.

No then it is not for "world security", "world peace" or some other "explanation".

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#126

Post by Dilettante_ »

armenarmen wrote: post #115
infecto wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does paying for the max plan build the expectation that you get access to everything?

“Max” leads me to believe I have the maximum level of access

And the prostitute really does love you and Your Call really Is Important To Us.

That's a little snarkier than strictly appropriate in this forum but you cannot seriously and in good faith say that this is the first time you've seen advertisements 'exagerrate' the truth.

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#127

Post by toufka »

mentalgear wrote: post #19

No one commenting on the fact that oAI is releasing a Claude Mythos-class model - with apparent 0 restrictions or concerns by the US government, while Anthropic's (their competitor) model has been pulled weeks prior by the administration for 'security' reasons. It certainly has nothing to do with openAI's co-founders donating to the current administrations election fund, are actively supporting the DoW war efforts of…

Also the fact that the president’s daughter, son in law, and his brother have a significant amount of their net worth invested in OpenAI via Thrive.

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#128

Post by armenarmen »

infecto wrote: post #119
armenarmen wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Max” leads me to believe I have the maximum level of access

Maybe that’s just a naming problem then. But even if they called it “Ultra Max Super Pro,” I still wouldn’t assume it means access to every future capability, every internal tool, or every restricted model they ever build. To me, “Max” means the highest tier of the product they’re currently offering to that customer segment, not an unlimited claim on everything the company possesses. Again, for me this has just been…

But it did give us access to frontier models through the history of the plan, and up until what a week ago now

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#129

Post by akmiller »

ben_w wrote: post #33
taspeotis wrote: post #11

I don't know what the solution to this is, but I find it somewhat unfair that I pay money to Anthropic, and I pay money to OpenAI, and neither of them will let me use their best models for securing the software I work on. Admittedly Opus 4.8 xhigh does a good job, but are my customers not entitled to have more security from a Fable/Mythos or GPT-5.5-Cyber audit over the codebase? Or I guess the inverse question: why…

While I appreciate the desire to have the best: > Or I guess the inverse question: why aren't they allowed that audit? There's undeniably a lot of unsecured software in the world. Given that ID verification is hard and these companies are clearly new at it (or don't understand the implications of it, cough Worldcoin's eye-scanning orbs cough), which is worse: (1) sufficiently good AI* is released to everyone: critica…

1 assumes that some "private entity" gets to decide what is crucial infrastructure and what is not, what gets the opportunity to be patched and what doesn't.

I'm not ok with that and don't know why anyone would be.

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#130

Post by [deleted] »

lionkor wrote: post #3

This is how you do it when you're not AS childish. You go "here's a model for cybersecurity" and put a price on it. I know they're releasing it to some vendors first, etc. but the lack of a clown spectacle is nice. The whole "it's too dangerous to release!" is complete hogwash. A person can take a hammer, walk out in the street, and we can count how many people he can kill with the hammer before he is stopped. My loc…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN