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

581–590 of 626 posts

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

#581

Post by SXX »

embedding-shape wrote: post #284
andy_ppp wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who knows anything realises banning things is a) impossible and b) your enemies will use them anyway, you are just depriving your own side of the advantages.

> Anyone who knows anything realises banning things is a) impossible and Maybe "It's really hard" is more accurate? We (humanity) for most part basically agreed to ban the usage of various chemical weapons in wartime, which seems to have drastically reduced the usage of it, even though it's still used by shit actors today from time to time. But it's hard to deny that usage didn't decrease after banning it, which make…

Chemical weapons are not used not because some agreements - they just messy and only good for killing civilians. Also contaminate area and might also kill your own personnel.

If you look at all other banned weapons they are all used against Ukraine by Russia and nobody gives a damn.

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

#583

Post by epolanski »

Gecko4072 wrote: post #15

People familiar with the topic, how will models continue to get better? Post training it seems? Labs have already used up internet-scale data, so are there any limits to architecture improvements and post training or can we expect this trend to continue? ByteDance is training a 10T-parameter model. Here, GLM 5.3 outperforms models 3-4x its size of roughly 700B, so parameter count doesn’t seem to be a direct correlati…

Better math, algos, architecture, etc? It's not just about data and RL.

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

#584

Post by eru »

inigyou wrote: post #577
eru wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These crises are manufactured by the central banks. Compare and contrast how the dot-com bust did _not_ lead to global financial crises. Nor did Black Monday, nor the recent string of bank failures in the US. ('Manufactured' above means that central banks are responsible. I make no judgement on intent here. Around 2008 it was incompetence by the Fed and ECB as far as I can tell. The Fed started paying interest on exc…

The computer price crisis is also the fault of central banks, since they printed the money and gave it to the AI companies to buy everything with.

Not really. Central banks don't really control relative prices.

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

#585

Post by eru »

cheema33 wrote: post #569
eru wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is anything going to be catastrophic? Companies can go bankrupt without catastrophes for the rest of us. Happens all the time.

> Why is anything going to be catastrophic? Many believe, including myself, that the market is currently propped by a massive AI bubble. Nearly a US $1 trillion is being spent this year, and more is planned for next year. All of this is for a "build up". There is no pay out. The major AI companies are taking in massive losses in the hopes that they will eventually be able to cash out. The math is not looking good to…

Well, the dotcom bust wasn't all that bad for the wider economy. No financial crisis. A shallow recession (and even that could have been avoided.)

Btw, the dotcom bust was real, but there was no dotcom bubble. Skeptics back then said that the valuations only made sense if tech companies were to dominate the economy in the future. Well, that future arrived more than a decade ago.

(More formally, if you had invested in a broad index of tech companies throughout the dotcom boom years, and had held this, you would have done reasonably well over the next twenty years.)

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

#586

Post by cmrdporcupine »

dannyw wrote: post #558
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congrats def in order but as usual the proof will be in the pudding of actually running the thing. GLM 5.2 has token efficiency problems. It's not a stupid model, but it takes a lot of "thinking" to produce not-stupid results. ("But wait..."). Which makes its pricing deceptive. I tried to get by through the month of June on just GLM 5.2 and it was ... fine-ish for about two weeks. But the provider situation wasn't id…

Have you counted your thinking tokens for say Opus or Fable? It wouldn’t surprise me if frontier closed models “over-reason” just as much, but you don’t see it thanks to the summariser. (We do know GPT5.6 have adopted the caveman shorthand, which explains its token efficiency).

I have a $200 monthly Codex plan. I never run out of budget and it's... disturbingly smart. It's very hard for anything to compete with that right now.

I do occasional experiments where I cancel or downgrade that and try to live on open models only and it just never works out financially or skills wise. There's nobody offering K3 etc at rates that end up being significantly cheaper.

Yet.

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

#587

Post by infecto »

dominotw wrote: post #485
infecto wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vibes like your low quality comment? What’s the counter argument? pi and ohmypi are pretty fantastic. Of course like all developer tools it depends how you do your work but I am not sure what you are trying to achieve in your comment.

how would i comeup with counter argument if i dont know what original argument is. No one is disagreeing with your subjective experience, gp comment said 'better' without qualification.

So what’s your opinion on the matter or is it just vibes?

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

#588

Post by dhx »

Johnyjohnson123 wrote: post #327
dhx wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks for sharing. Is lack of inference chips due to the trading blocks by trump administration? What if Trump agrees to sell chips to china, would they collapse then? That's not a very strong position to be at

Most discussion in recent years about chip fabrication shortages, expansion, etc has focussed on leading nodes (The report at [1] is a good summary of long term trends for China's rise in domestic self-sufficiency for semiconductor manufacturing. The report predicts "At current pace, China may achieve self-sufficiency in semiconductor manufacturing by 2027-2028, though trailing at leading-edge nodes". By contrast, before the first Trump presidency in 2017, a chart shows China importing 30% of all globally manufactured semiconductors (and increasing). Other reports on semiconductor fabrication equipment sales show the means, which is China having been and continuing to be in number (1) position for expenditure on semiconductor fabrication equipment.

The reports at [2] and [3] are also a good summary of long term trends for semiconductor foundry capacity predictions to 2031. A prediction is made that China's current 12% global semiconductor foundry supply capacity (across all semiconductor categories) in 2025 will expand to ~30% by 2031.

[1] https://www.yolegroup.com/product/report/china-semiconductor...

[2] https://www.yolegroup.com/product/report/status-of-the-semic...

[3] https://www.yolegroup.com/press-release/the-global-race-for-...

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

#590

Post by bityard »

cjbprime wrote: post #545
badcafe23423435 wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one in their right mind would install software using `curl | bash`

Why not? The web uses TLS, how's it different security-wise compared to a package download?

It's less about malicious intent and more about predictability.

When I install software on my computer with apt, I trust that all the files will go to the right place and install scripts are going to do sane things relative to the rest of the system. And I can just uninstall the whole thing with one command later if I so choose.

If I curlpipe a script, I get none of those guarantees. I have seen curlpipes that put files in weird places, guess the wrong OS, and mess with config files that I didn't want them to touch. When they break or I want to uninstall, I have to sit down and understand a (possibly minified) script to clean things up manually.

Yes containers are a half solution to this, no I don't want to use containers 100% of the time.

Post reply on HN