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

491–500 of 626 posts

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

#491

Post by [deleted] »

kouteiheika wrote: post #14
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…

> This is absolutely still shy of Sol and Fable Not sure about Sol as I haven't used it, but, at least for security work -- does it matter? It's not like you will be allowed to use Fable (or access Mythos) for anything cybersecurity-related unless your name is "Dario Amodei" or you are one of his rich friends. So regardless of how good Fable/Mythos is here it's a completely moot point for normal people, because they…

[deleted]

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

#492

Post by z4y5f3 »

stingraycharles wrote: post #239
SyneRyder wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... 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.

> That was my thought too. For all of Anthropic's talk about their "adversaries" It’s very likely they found all of them, but that the same happened that happened to Microsoft a couple of decades ago: NSA orders not to disclose / fix them so that they can put it in their collection of unfixed zero days.

Then "security through secrecy" is really bad mantra especially in the age of AI: others will find the same zero days very soon. If they attack you, then this loses the whole plot. If they propose a fix, then your arsenal becomes smaller.

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

#494

Post by rpdillon »

dominotw wrote: post #486
rpdillon wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on the fact that Claude Code is only optimized for Anthropic models, whereas Pi and Omp are optimized for a wide variety of models, including open weights.

they are not really optimized for 'wide variety of models' . what optimization did pi do for glm 5.3?

Tool calling success rate, in the case of omp.

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

#496

Post by [deleted] »

leobuskin wrote: post #305

I bought $18 GLM official subscription yesterday (5.2, but new model version was already leaking on some docs), set it up with Claude Code harness... and I’ve bumped to $80 plan almost immediately. It’s the first model that agreed on a proper security research (red team scenario), executed it seamlessly, including 0-days in WP plugins, RCE, 6.8 kernel exploit adaptation, etc - while playing against another GLM agent…

[deleted]

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

#497

Post by brynnbee »

spaceman_2020 wrote: post #242
112233 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should I apply for *cybersecurity* approval in order to have model debug a program it is writing itself? Anything related to memory safety, debugging, syscalls etc (meaning, "programming") somehow is cybersecurity now?

Your tools refusing to do your bidding is an absurd idea in the first place Imagine asking for permission to use your hammer

I mean I don't want autonomous cars to follow directions by humans that sound like "plow into this crowd of people". Even things like microwaves don't let you turn it on without the door closed. I don't see how this is any different.

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

#499

Post by segmondy »

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…

I can run this at home. No guardrails, this is not shy of Sol and Fable, this crushes them in my book. It's not just about evals, but what I can do with the damn model.

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

#500

Post by jewel »

weego wrote: post #489
rattlesnakedave wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should try a better harness. Try pi, or ohmypi if you want a good OOB experience

what is a harness? The comments below are mixing IDE/ADE but other suggestions are purely terminal things and I don't get what their value is over just a terminal. Is a harness like a loop where it's just a vague thing that everyone nods about but everyone is nodding at something different?

My understanding is that the harness is the set of function calls (or tool calls) that let the LLM interact with your codebase. It's independent of the IDE or CLI.

The tool calls will be, among other things, something like ReadFile, RipGrep, PatchFile, Shell.

When people talk about the value of different harnesses, they're also implicitly talking about the quality of the system prompt.

The same exact model, when given a different set of tools and a different system prompt, can behave differently.

Post reply on HN