131–140 of 184 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like when you buy a top of the line camera or car, and then they release a new one, you are entitled to the now-top-of-the-line camera or car. What the heck come on.
Buying a camera or car is different from paying a subscription, right? Different expectations
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…
It creates a two tier system - those who have access and those who do not. Worse, it’s some corpo making the decision
I see a lot of knee-jerk comments to this, but I highly recommend running a scan ( https://openai.com/daybreak/codex-security-plugin/#codex-cli ) in your projects so you can evaluate it yourself. It found a real security issue in a project of mine, with very few false-positives. Its built-in resume mechanism didn't work after it crashed when running out of my 5 hour session limit, but Claude Code was easily able to r…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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...
That said, I would prefer a situation where hyper-scalers make an effort to compensate sources of good data, e.g. newspapers and so on.
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…
If a criminal organisation (include here some countries) want to be deterred. We should all have access so we can improve security of our products.
Because the people that want to do evil, will do it anyway. They will build a myths, fables, and cyber clone.
I dislike the hypocrisy of it. Oeh ah it’s too dangerous, criminals can make use of this. But at the same time they themselves stole a whole lot of data to be trained on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think using open weight models will solve this. I believe they are nearly caught up and much of the gains are in the harnesses or properly orchestration of subqueries. (I'm no expert, just my opinion). When the open weight models catch up, if they don't get lobbied and banned by OpenAi and Anthropic, then you'll be able to use them to properly secure your software.
I'm no cyber expert, maybe one can weigh in. Are there zero days that only a true genius can discover? Or can a smart-enough model, run over the codebase for enough time, discover them all? Like as we get smarter and smarter models do we expect each new generation to keep finding vulnerabilities, or to plateaue?
To your second question, a clear plateau would be a piece of software that is 100% secure, without vulnerabilities. Since that’s impossible for anything more than a trivially simple program, particularly when you consider an ecosystem, I think there won’t be a plateau. If you use model A to secure program Dog, smarter model B could find a vulnerability in Dog or just skip to attacking Dog’s OS, firmware, etc.
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 ;)
> 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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think using open weight models will solve this. I believe they are nearly caught up and much of the gains are in the harnesses or properly orchestration of subqueries. (I'm no expert, just my opinion). When the open weight models catch up, if they don't get lobbied and banned by OpenAi and Anthropic, then you'll be able to use them to properly secure your software.
Pretty sure the secret sauce is in the summarised thinking. Maybe better though process… But I have a feeling it’s server side tools and a scratch space to prepare the reply. Sometimes the summarised thoughts include stuff that makes no sense unless it’s got a workspace on the server. Stuff like “I am now writing x to file y”.