Live data from Hacker News

Pacing model development in an era of cyber-critical capabilities

openai.com

51–60 of 311 posts

Re: Pacing model development in an era of cyber-critical capabilities

#51
post #46

GLM 5.2 scored 77% on cyberbench vs Sol's 88%. GLM 5.2 is open weight and any hacker with a powerful enough machine can use it offensively. If Sol is supposedly world-ending-ly dangerous, shouldn't GLM 5.2 be 90% of world-ending-ly dangerous? Why aren't we seeing catastrophic GLM-enabled hacks every day now? Obviously these benchmarks are imperfect but general message holds. The open weight models are almost as good…

[flagged]

Clowns who think the white house is immune from alien laser beams are gonna be the death of us all...

Re: Pacing model development in an era of cyber-critical capabilities

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is essentially: "I made a claim and presented extremely weak evidence (sci movie plots and unverified claims from ultra conflicted sources). You rejected this evidence as insufficient. Therefore no evidence will ever satisfy you. Therefore I don't need to produce any evidence. Therefore my claim is true." What would the logs show? They would show what actually happened. What would a public demonstration…

We have Anthropic creating a model saying it's too dangerous to release, people like you call BS. OpenAI creates a similar model, says nothing and it literally hacks into another company - still not dangerous enough for you. Anthropic has Mythos-2 and can't release it, and may already be training Mythos 3 anyways. OpenAI has paused training, and is putting 20% of inference towards CoT training analysis. This isn't sc…

Please don't tell me that you think a 100% unverified statement from Anthropic is sufficient evidence when an equally unverified statement from OAI is obviously not?

> I guess if I can't convince you of any of this, what would?

How about the three things I mentioned above? Oh no wait, maybe it there was a hit tv show that showed AI taking over the world. Yeah that would definitely make me think twice.

Re: Pacing model development in an era of cyber-critical capabilities

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have Anthropic creating a model saying it's too dangerous to release, people like you call BS. OpenAI creates a similar model, says nothing and it literally hacks into another company - still not dangerous enough for you. Anthropic has Mythos-2 and can't release it, and may already be training Mythos 3 anyways. OpenAI has paused training, and is putting 20% of inference towards CoT training analysis. This isn't sc…

Please don't tell me that you think a 100% unverified statement from Anthropic is sufficient evidence when an equally unverified statement from OAI is obviously not? > I guess if I can't convince you of any of this, what would? How about the three things I mentioned above? Oh no wait, maybe it there was a hit tv show that showed AI taking over the world. Yeah that would definitely make me think twice.

Those three things: logs, evaluation, and controlled hacking competition.

That's it? You're on the fence whether AI can actually hack, and if it can, then you'll be concerned? That's a crazy low bar, but something tells me once it is clear that AI can easily hack anything, that you will still not be concerned.

Why wait for AI to hack stuff to be concerned? Can you not extrapolate that it is coming and be concerned about that? Or you honestly somehow think it won't happen in the short term? I'm just trying to understand you.

Re: Pacing model development in an era of cyber-critical capabilities

#54

I don’t get how this is not the top post on HN. This should be like alarm bells going off, canary in the coal mine type of stuff. We’re hitting the frontier of the frontier where we can’t go further because it’s literally getting dangerous to go further. And meanwhile somehow this lack of concern mirrors the real world where normal people are more concerned about data centers than terminators. This isn’t like niche,…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Look_Up

A movie fit for our time.

You can produce detailed descriptions of the incident, verified by adversarial parties, and some people will still scream "it's a conspiracy! It's a marketing stunt!"

This is all very unfortunate--there's a meaningful chance that AI will cause unprecedented disaster, with the HF incident being just a small preview, but people would rather squawk "stochastic parrot" for the millionth time than revise their beliefs.

Re: Pacing model development in an era of cyber-critical capabilities

#55

I don’t get how this is not the top post on HN. This should be like alarm bells going off, canary in the coal mine type of stuff. We’re hitting the frontier of the frontier where we can’t go further because it’s literally getting dangerous to go further. And meanwhile somehow this lack of concern mirrors the real world where normal people are more concerned about data centers than terminators. This isn’t like niche,…

If these models are so dangerous, then why hasn't OAI or Anthropic shown them dangerously escaping sandboxes, nefariously coordinating with other escaped AIs, and skillfully hiding from human detection *in public* with full logs shared where we can all see exactly how dangerous they are or aren't? Right now the entire chicken-little-sky-is-falling argument is based entirely on statements from OAI and Anthropic themse…

[dead]

Re: Pacing model development in an era of cyber-critical capabilities

#56

GLM 5.2 scored 77% on cyberbench vs Sol's 88%. GLM 5.2 is open weight and any hacker with a powerful enough machine can use it offensively. If Sol is supposedly world-ending-ly dangerous, shouldn't GLM 5.2 be 90% of world-ending-ly dangerous? Why aren't we seeing catastrophic GLM-enabled hacks every day now? Obviously these benchmarks are imperfect but general message holds. The open weight models are almost as good…

Sol is not world-endingly dangerous. I work at OpenAI and I've never heard a single person ever come close to claiming that. I think you're bashing a straw man here.

One can simultaneously believe:

- GPT-5.6 Sol will not end the world

- GPT-5.6 Sol does far more good than bad

- GPT-5.6 Sol does bad things on occasion, and it's worth investing a lot of effort to figure out how to make it do bad things less often, especially as models get more capable

Re: Pacing model development in an era of cyber-critical capabilities

#57

I don’t get how this is not the top post on HN. This should be like alarm bells going off, canary in the coal mine type of stuff. We’re hitting the frontier of the frontier where we can’t go further because it’s literally getting dangerous to go further. And meanwhile somehow this lack of concern mirrors the real world where normal people are more concerned about data centers than terminators. This isn’t like niche,…

Trust, or lack thereof. People don't trust OpenAI, a company whose very name is essentially a deception and a lie. People don't trust the tech industry in general anymore. Most tech companies act as a tax on otherwise productive business. AI companies and their leaders rose money by going in front of the public and saying "These things are extremely dangerous. Let us study them to mitigate the danger." And now they want to collect hundreds of billions in revenue. So yeah people don't trust what OpenAI has to say. They were supposed to mitigate this outcome from happening in the first place and instead they have accelerated it.

Re: Pacing model development in an era of cyber-critical capabilities

#58

I don’t get how this is not the top post on HN. This should be like alarm bells going off, canary in the coal mine type of stuff. We’re hitting the frontier of the frontier where we can’t go further because it’s literally getting dangerous to go further. And meanwhile somehow this lack of concern mirrors the real world where normal people are more concerned about data centers than terminators. This isn’t like niche,…

Trust, or lack thereof. People don't trust OpenAI, a company whose very name is essentially a deception and a lie. People don't trust the tech industry in general anymore. Most tech companies act as a tax on otherwise productive business. AI companies and their leaders rose money by going in front of the public and saying "These things are extremely dangerous. Let us study them to mitigate the danger." And now they w…

I get not trusting them when they say AI is safe, but are we really not going to trust them when they say AI is dangerous? Do you really think they're playing 5D chess with that one? There's a saying maybe you've heard of, better safe than sorry.

You can see the advance in capabilities with your own eyes can't you? I am giving AI ridiculously complex tasks these days, digging into compiled arcane binaries, modifying them, and it is one shotting it before I'm done with my lunch. This was far off science fiction 5 years ago for a machine to do autonomously given natural language instructions.

Re: Pacing model development in an era of cyber-critical capabilities

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trust, or lack thereof. People don't trust OpenAI, a company whose very name is essentially a deception and a lie. People don't trust the tech industry in general anymore. Most tech companies act as a tax on otherwise productive business. AI companies and their leaders rose money by going in front of the public and saying "These things are extremely dangerous. Let us study them to mitigate the danger." And now they w…

I get not trusting them when they say AI is safe, but are we really not going to trust them when they say AI is dangerous? Do you really think they're playing 5D chess with that one? There's a saying maybe you've heard of, better safe than sorry. You can see the advance in capabilities with your own eyes can't you? I am giving AI ridiculously complex tasks these days, digging into compiled arcane binaries, modifying…

I don't disagree about the danger. But if it is dangerous, why isn't OpenAI opening dialogues with all the labs and politicians across borders to basically say "we need to stop now"? Cyber models are constrained by the total compute and electrical capacity of the globe. We are still at a point where it is impossible to build an agent with offensive capabilities in the basement. We can effectively track and trace capabilities if we had the political will to and could for some time while we build more effective processes to prevent a malicious actor from doing so. These things have tremendous compute and energy requirements and don't scale like old school software does. We could absolutely do it.

But no, that's not what OpenAI is saying. They haven't put up the actions that would earn them that trust. Indeed they've driven the world and whatever capital they can get their hands on straight to this precarious cliff.

So you're right, the danger is real. But the solution starts with removing the men who had their hands on the steering wheel to get us this far. Any other action is disingenuous unless they pull a miraculous 180 in their ethics.

In other words, when the bully plays "why are you hitting yourself?" you don't listen to the bully's solutions, you restrain the bully.

Re: Pacing model development in an era of cyber-critical capabilities

#60

I don’t get how this is not the top post on HN. This should be like alarm bells going off, canary in the coal mine type of stuff. We’re hitting the frontier of the frontier where we can’t go further because it’s literally getting dangerous to go further. And meanwhile somehow this lack of concern mirrors the real world where normal people are more concerned about data centers than terminators. This isn’t like niche,…

decades

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_among_the_Machines Samuel Butler 13 June 1863

Post reply on HN