OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

Post by ch4s3 » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 5:48 PM UTC

ch4s3 wrote: post #136

frabcus wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Yeah, I'm familiar with that argument re derivative work, but weights aren't really what's being shipped or sold, and I think it's reasonable to argue that the generated tokens aren't derivative but substantively transformed. 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.

Post by freedomben » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 5:53 PM UTC

neural_thing wrote: post #162

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 pay United airlines the price of an economy ticket, it's so unfair I don't get to fly in first class

Post by re-thc » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 6:03 PM UTC

pixl97 wrote: post #139

re-thc wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

This is really odd taking two completely different things and trying to apply law against them. Hosting was somewhat protected by previous rulings, selling AI services is not.

Post by infecto » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 6:05 PM UTC

civet_java wrote: post #160

infecto wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the Chinese models rip IP just like everyone else before them. Your argument is moot. This was a problem for 5+ years ago. Nobody cares or at least the majority voice does not care across the world. Cat is out of the bag and there is no way to put it back in. EDIT: Worth noting that I have long held the belief that if you put data out on the public sidewalk that you should have low to no expectation that it’s IP.…

> And the Chinese models rip IP just like everyone else before them. The difference is the Chinese models return to the same system that they feed from (indirectly); people get access to model weights even if the entire model isn't open source. The same can't be said for OpenAI, Anthropic, Google etc (who also benefit from Chinese models and train on them). Further, Chinese models are significantly cheaper and the co…

Post by freedomben » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 7:42 PM UTC

neural_thing wrote: post #168

freedomben wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want this analogy be correct, then you need to rewrite it to a world where you are not allowed to buy first class tickets at any price. Only people who work for a giant corporation that is blessed are allowed to buy first class, well you are only sold a coach seat. That doesn't sound very fair to me

You can pay anthropic enough money to be part of project glasswing. Some people here just can't accept that there's something coding related they can't afford.