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

171–180 of 184 posts

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#171

Post by akmiller »

pixl97 wrote: post #143
akmiller wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because it's their property. Now you can try to make an argument that it's stolen IP and that matters in some way, but that's just more likely to ensure no one has access. Even more so they are getting push back from the government (good job electing idiots) that said models are a security risks. But until then the company can charge/give access to whoever they want for however much they want except in the cases the…

> Because it's their property. Now you can try to make an argument that it's stolen IP and that matters in some way, but that's just more likely to ensure no one has access

The knowledge of the world is their property? Or is it the model weights? Or is it the natural resources they are subsuming by buying politicians and political power and leaving residents with high bills (while securing cheap energy costs for themselves). Perhaps it's the equipment they lease causing drastic price spikes in RAM and GPU's for everyday normal people.

> And if you don't like it raise a trillion dollars and make your own.

Not the only solution here mate.

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#172

Post by ben_w »

akmiller wrote: post #170
ben_w wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The owner of a thing deciding to whom they wish to provide access to the thing they own, is a necessary consequence of the concept of private property. The only two alternative to a private entity making this decision are a government making this decision, or nobody making this decision, the latter of which is equivalent to both government and a private entity making the decision to do (1).

That's a complete false dichotomy. We create all kinds of consortiums to manage complex decisions that shouldn't be owned by one entity.

What, you mean like the US AI Safety Institute Consortium which Anthropic is a member of?

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/11/02/2023-24...

https://www.nist.gov/artificial-intelligence/nist-ai-consort...

Or the Coalition for Secure AI, ditto?

https://www.coalitionforsecureai.org/addressing-whats-next-i...

Or the Frontier Model Forum, of which they were a founding member?

https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/1095a748082bb69e714d1d550713e2...

Consortium are entities, and the CEOs of Anthropic and OpenAI at least are openly begging for feedback with all their efforts to handle this, openly asking everyone else to figure out what the rules ought to be. Even if you think that too is a cynical ploy, they're asking.

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#173

Post by ben_w »

akmiller wrote: post #171
pixl97 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's their property. Now you can try to make an argument that it's stolen IP and that matters in some way, but that's just more likely to ensure no one has access. Even more so they are getting push back from the government (good job electing idiots) that said models are a security risks. But until then the company can charge/give access to whoever they want for however much they want except in the cases the…

> Because it's their property. Now you can try to make an argument that it's stolen IP and that matters in some way, but that's just more likely to ensure no one has access The knowledge of the world is their property? Or is it the model weights? Or is it the natural resources they are subsuming by buying politicians and political power and leaving residents with high bills (while securing cheap energy costs for them…

> The knowledge of the world is their property?

No.

> Or is it the model weights?

Yes.

> Or is it the natural resources they are subsuming by buying politicians and political power and leaving residents with high bills (while securing cheap energy costs for themselves). Perhaps it's the equipment they lease causing drastic price spikes in RAM and GPU's for everyday normal people.

Yes to both. That is how free markets work and also why people object to free markets.

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#174

Post by ben_w »

baq wrote: post #65
ben_w wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the USACE was a private military company and local lords sometimes still did direct battle with each other without being told to stop by the king.

how do you think the states became united

They were told to stop by the king, the king was the one they didn't like.

But point made.

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#175

Post by Dilettante_ »

dpoloncsak wrote: post #142
Dilettante_ wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nobody said anything about it being the first time seeing it. You still get to be upset when lied to.

Except you knew it was a lie, and they knew that you knew it was a lie, and you knew that they knew that you knew it was a lie. There was exactly zero deception. At a certain point it's marketing, advertising, copywriting, not a Lie in the sense that anyone was made to believe something untrue.

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#176

Post by pizlonator »

freedomben wrote: post #164
pizlonator wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is super unfair It creates a two tier system - those who have access and those who do not. Worse, it’s some corpo making the decision

Remember when access for all used to be a high priority for AI? I do. I noticed they don't talk about that anymore

Right

That’s still in the OpenAI charter fwiw

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#177

Post by taspeotis »

gavinray wrote: post #157
taspeotis wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I got turned off the OpenAI form because it’s pretty heavily geared towards “enterprise” which I’m not. But I’ll have a stab at it later. What’s the equivalent form for Anthropic please? The closest I got from Google was Claude Security’s “contact sales.”

Equivalent of Trusted Access for Anthropic is "CVP" (Cyber Verification Program) https://support.claude.com/en/articles/14604842-real-time-cy...

Perfect, thank you

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#178

Post by lionkor »

estearum wrote: post #101
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…

Does your local store sell aerosolized anthrax?

No, because (and you're never going to believe this) there is regulation, laws, and it's being enforced.

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#179

Post by ahtihn »

treis wrote: post #149
ahtihn wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes the diagnosis "worth" $100? Right now it requires a highly paid human which sets a floor on the cost. If there's competition from LLMs it's going to drive down the cost.

>What makes the diagnosis "worth" $100? The opinion of the customer paying for it

And who is the customer?

Healthcare market is completely distorted. Price isn't linked to value because the person that uses a service is usually not the person directly paying for it. Worse, the price usually isn't known upfront, so no one is making a rational decision based on "value".

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#180

Post by estearum »

lionkor wrote: post #178
estearum wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does your local store sell aerosolized anthrax?

No, because (and you're never going to believe this) there is regulation, laws, and it's being enforced.

Right... which is (and you're never going to believe this) what Anthropic is asking for
Post reply on HN