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

GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

huggingface.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 296 posts

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#141

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

hkalbasi wrote: post #40

Is it possible to fine tune this model and unlock / extend its cybersecurity capabilities? I'm scared that maybe we are not ready for an open-weight model with high cybersecurity skills.

You can fine tune a model from a year ago to get extended cyber capabilities. Fine-tunes dramatically increase capability in specific use cases and don't require a lot of investment. Attackers have been doing this for a while now, they aren't waiting for someone else to make them a security model.

I get how you feel, but it's too late to be concerned. The cat's out of the bag. It's like being scared of moving from the bronze age to the iron age... when everybody already knows how to make iron, and the raw materials are everywhere. People are already making iron spears. We need to make iron shields.

We need open-weight models that are good at finding security holes so we can apply them to all of our software by default, and close every possible security bug, before the attackers find them. Every piece of software in the world should be held for release until it's scanned by a high-powered security model.

This is the same debate we had in the 1990's when strong encryption was considered a munition and not allowed to be exported. This just made the world less secure. And it was pointless anyway, because you can't really stop it being developed and shared. Eventually good sense prevailed and now we all have strong encryption. The same thing applies to security bugs.

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#142

Post by ignoramous »

hdfjkfgkkg wrote: post #128
barrenko wrote: post #69

A stake through Amodei's heart.

Amodeis wife was tight with JE, all of this Chinese bs is gonna get banned whether blue or red are in power.

> Amodeis wife was tight with JE

Apparently, Cami Clark was tight with Eric Schmidt. Per unsealed documents, she seems to have pursued Epstein to invest in her "luxury porn" businesses, after a divorce & going bankrupt? Wild: https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/claude-dario-amodei-wife-anthrop... / https://archive.vn/MJI7q

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#144

Post by colingauvin »

revolvingthrow wrote: post #16

GLM 5.3 is probably the sweet spot open weights model if you want to go beyond deepseek flash or the new glm flash. I used it with pi and had a fairly good time, especially since it’s less touchy about cyber and whatnot than the US guys. It’s slightly behind Kimi in ability but it’s a lot easier to run it, I’d expect prices (and speed!) from third parties to be noticeably better. Assuming you’re willing to drop a fat…

In terms of pure tokens per dollar, absolutely not worth it.

That said, when I bought my pair of Sparks, the best model I could run on it was GPT OSS 120B. That has an AA score of 24.

Today, the best model I can run on them is GLM 5.3 Flash at Q4, AA score 57. Just still out on GLM 5.3 mixed quant.

So from that perspective, they are many times better value than when I bought them, and will likely continue to increase in value.

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#146

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

ChildOfChaos wrote: post #24

How much usage do you find you get on these kinda models (I know the pricing changes a bit) compared to a $20 sub say for Google AI Pro in anti gravity? I hate how difficult it is to compare prices when looking at subscriptions. Would $20 in open router, using models like GLM get me more or less?

I made a little project to calculate that. It gets the prices for API access and subscriptions, and calculates an average cost per token, for a given rate limit. So the cost is cheaper if you get a higher rate limit (cuz you get more tokens per dollar): https://codeberg.org/mutablecc/calculate-ai-cost

tl;dr API cost (openrouter) is always more expensive than a subscription (for the same given model). you should always use a subscription first and only go to API pricing if you run out of your subscription.

In terms of which subscription is best, different ones provide different models, different amounts of tokens, different rate limits. So it depends on what model you want and how much you need to use it. The frontier ones are always more expensive than open weight ones, but a few subscriptions are starting to include frontier models like GPT-5.6 Luna (which is a great deal but not necessarily the best price-per-performance).

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#147

Post by mirekrusin »

anarticle wrote: post #120
sickcodebruh wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When we consider: * LLM usage is new for the world * Models are evolving quickly with high worldwide competition * Hardware is evolving despite RAM shortages Is investing a huge sum of money in equipment for local inference a wise use of money? Or are M5 Ultra and equivalently priced local inference hardware future-proof enough to be worth it relative to how the market is evolving? Maybe it’s all a question of what y…

Tools vs services in my mind. There is no guarantee any provider will continue to do what they are doing for you at the price they are doing it. The object permanence of not having to reinvent the world every time a model gets sunsetted has value.

With competition we kind of have guarantee up to what providers can do, they don't have that much control, the most radical thing they can do is to go bankrupt.

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#148

Post by seizethecheese »

includenotfound wrote: post #125
seizethecheese wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s not such a straightforward relationship between safety and model sis. According to the book The Thinking Game, lower quality models at that time were considered less safe, because they could be easily tricked into doing harmful stuff. In the book, Dario (of Anthropic) was the head of safety at openAI and was responsible for pushing for 10x scaling in training to make the models safer . It does make sense, a s…

Models are quite safe when they're useless, actually. In the times of GPT-3 I'd scoff at the idea of an LLM doing any hacking; today, I'm running several AIs on my code before publishing, and they are finding (and demonstrating!) RCEs on my localhost server. For example, one found a missing check in a third party JWT library which allowed full account takeover, which I'd have never even looked at. Hence I don't belie…

From today's perspective, it sure seems like it, probably because increased capabilities have generated a new kind of danger. Back then, they were worried about stuff like the model telling me dangerous knowledge.

I certainly think the labs have muddied the waters using safety for marketing, but that doesn't mean less capable models weren't more dangerous at one point.

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#149

Post by surgical_fire »

re-thc wrote: post #27
johnnyApplePRNG wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm starting to think Opus 4.8 is significantly smaller than most people assume. If it's significantly larger than GLM 5.3 (I've heard some insane guesstimates out there like upwards of 5T params or more), that would prove rather embarrassing for Anthropic.

> that would prove rather embarrassing for Anthropic Not really, in that you just work with different constraints. Anthropic and US labs in general has maybe 100s to 1000s of GPUs per person to experiment. Zai and Chinese labs in general have 1-10. The priorities are different.

And the Chinese labs still make models that are easily as good as the US labs.

Rather embarrassing indeed.

Post reply on HN