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

GLM-5.3: Frontier coding with emergent cyber capabilities

z.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 626 posts

Re: GLM-5.3: Frontier coding with emergent cyber capabilities

#181

Post by zorked »

sscaryterry wrote: post #169
z4y5f3 wrote: post #128

Apparently they are scanning OSS and popular software at scale and disclosing the vulnerabilities they found: https://cvd.z.ai/ Most of these are under embargo, but it seems there are a lot of CVE here from a wide range of popular software, many considered critical or high. I understand the argument of "people are not actively looking", but isn't the cost for such a scan getting lower by the week, and Anthropic's Pro…

Interesting... So Chinese models are not so bad ?

There's a chance that the real reason why they want to ban Chinese models is that they are so good at fixing bugs and preventing exploits that intelligence agencies have been using for espionage and surveillance for a long time.

Re: GLM-5.3: Frontier coding with emergent cyber capabilities

#182

Post by zarzavat »

dhx wrote: post #161
Gigachad wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is going to be catastrophic. Whether AI works or is useful or not isn’t even the question anymore. It can fulfil every promise Sam Altman has been making and will still make no financial sense to justify these valuations.

I take it from [1] (transcript of recent DeepSeek CEO discussion with investors) that DeepSeek would disagree on the immediate catastrophic impact to the likes of OpenAI or Anthropic. The reason is even though technology parity mostly exists, only OpenAI, Anthropic et al have the inference capacity to gain market share and generate revenue. Chinese vendors don't have the chips needed to scale up inference and gain ma…

That makes them at best temporary middlemen.

It only justifies their long term valuations if they can leverage that temporary monopoly for technological superiority (they can't) or lasting market share (they can't).

Chinese models prove there's no technical advantage, and the software side is heavily commoditized so there's not much advantages to market share either.

Re: GLM-5.3: Frontier coding with emergent cyber capabilities

#183

Post by croon »

cromka wrote: post #175
sscaryterry wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting... So Chinese models are not so bad ?

Looks like they're going for good PR now, to avoid smearing by the "Western" models. Smart!

I'd love to live in a society where people and corporations do good things for PR.

Re: GLM-5.3: Frontier coding with emergent cyber capabilities

#184

Post by colingauvin »

deepllm wrote: post #38
aliljet wrote: post #5

This is absolutely still shy of Sol and Fable, but only just by a hair. Ridiculous results. There's still not a compelling economic reason to drop OpenAI courtesy of the ludicrous reset addiction that's taken place, but it feels like we're on the precipice. How are you all toying with running this kind of thing in a mega quantized way locally? Two weeks out from released weights, but this is still just GLM 5.2 with p…

Realistically, you're looking at least 2x DGX sparks to run this at a 2 bit quant, but quantization really lobotomizes models so it's just better to run DSv4 flash at full precision. 4x DGX sparks should let you run this at 4 bit at least and there are some folks who ran GLM 5.2 on this configuration in r/LocalLlama

For Flash there are some excellent Q2/Q4 hybrids. I know that model was QAT so it handles Q4 better but the meta on quantization seems to be shifting a little bit to be more intelligent about what exactly gets quantized.

Re: GLM-5.3: Frontier coding with emergent cyber capabilities

#185

Post by maipen »

zorked wrote: post #181
sscaryterry wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting... So Chinese models are not so bad ?

There's a chance that the real reason why they want to ban Chinese models is that they are so good at fixing bugs and preventing exploits that intelligence agencies have been using for espionage and surveillance for a long time.

Do you actually believe this?

Re: GLM-5.3: Frontier coding with emergent cyber capabilities

#186

Post by sscaryterry »

maipen wrote: post #185
zorked wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a chance that the real reason why they want to ban Chinese models is that they are so good at fixing bugs and preventing exploits that intelligence agencies have been using for espionage and surveillance for a long time.

Do you actually believe this?

Critical thinking says this is not only possible but likely too.

Re: GLM-5.3: Frontier coding with emergent cyber capabilities

#187

Post by chvid »

SyneRyder wrote: post #149
z4y5f3 wrote: post #128

Apparently they are scanning OSS and popular software at scale and disclosing the vulnerabilities they found: https://cvd.z.ai/ Most of these are under embargo, but it seems there are a lot of CVE here from a wide range of popular software, many considered critical or high. I understand the argument of "people are not actively looking", but isn't the cost for such a scan getting lower by the week, and Anthropic's Pro…

> ... Anthropic's Project Glasswing is supposed to find them quite a while ago? That was my thought too. For all of Anthropic's talk about their "adversaries", it seems Z.AI have been quietly offering fixes for single shot Remote Code Execution flaws in US software (Safari / WebKit) that Apple and Glasswing / Mythos missed, and that Apple would not attribute to GLM.

Who says they missed them? Could also be sitting pretty in CIA’s long list of ready to go Vault7-like exploits.

Re: GLM-5.3: Frontier coding with emergent cyber capabilities

#188

Post by davidlt »

tjwebbnorfolk wrote: post #40
wxw wrote: post #7

> Scaling post-training is all we did for GLM-5.3. Love this opening line. And wow, great results. > As agent capability improves, much of the difficulty in scaling post-training moves from the model to the environment.

does this suggest 5.3 is the same # of parameters as 5.2?

It's the same pre-training, they are just adding more (+ better) SFT, RL, etc. (post-training). Model internal knowledge cut-off is still the same.

It seems we are doing pre-training every 6 months, and post-training every 4-8 weeks now.

Re: GLM-5.3: Frontier coding with emergent cyber capabilities

#189

Post by gehsty »

vmware508 wrote: post #106

Apple will release M7 MacBook Pros / Mac Minis next year, and they will be able to run free LLMs locally at native speed. All software developer notebooks will be replaced to run local models, saving a lot by cancelling Claude Code subscriptions. Developers win. Apple stocks will be rocketing. Everything else will go down. You're welcome.

Local vs remote compute is a constant thread in tech history - mainframes and desktops then local and cloud compute (think Google Photos bs Apple photos - one indexes on device the other indexes in cloud). Now we have the next chapter local vs cloud LLM models.

There will always be a market for frontier labs in the cloud based models - these models will always be able to be bigger, and that will likely translate to doing things local models can’t.

Logically also we’ll likely get to a point where RAM drops in price as production ramps up, and local LLM is both capable and cost effective. This feels like it is coming for Siri / Gemini / Alexa personal assistant type use cases.

So I think the local LLM will become a thing in laptops and phones in a year or two, offering PA type use cases. Professional LLM services will likely remain at the frontier (and in the cloud) for the foreseeable.

Re: GLM-5.3: Frontier coding with emergent cyber capabilities

#190

Post by VulgarExigency »

maipen wrote: post #185
zorked wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a chance that the real reason why they want to ban Chinese models is that they are so good at fixing bugs and preventing exploits that intelligence agencies have been using for espionage and surveillance for a long time.

Do you actually believe this?

The CIA ran one of the world's largest cryptography companies, for DECADES[1]. Are you truly so naive that you believe intelligence agencies that have more to gain from stifling the discovery of vulnerabilities they know of and use wouldn't do so?

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/national-...

Post reply on HN