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

After dissing Anthropic for limiting Mythos, OpenAI restricts access to Cyber

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 139 posts

Re: After dissing Anthropic for limiting Mythos, OpenAI restricts access to Cyber

#101

Post by beering »

Borealid wrote: post #88
intended wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are selling an impossible product. If you make an LLM more safe, you are going to shift the weight for defensive actions as well. There’s no physical way to assign weights to have one and not the other.

> If you make an LLM more safe, you are going to shift the weight for defensive actions as well. > > There’s no physical way to assign weights to have one and not the other. Do you think a human is capable of providing assistance with defense but not offense, over a textual communication channel with another human? If no, how does a cybersec firm train its employees? If yes, how can you make the bold claim that it's…

> Do you think a human is capable of providing assistance with defense but not offense, over a textual communication channel with another human? > If no, how does a cybersec firm train its employees?

In general, no, humans can’t be sure they are only helping with defensive and not offensive work unless they have more context. IRL, a security engineer would know who they’re working for. If they’re advising Apple, then they’d feel pretty confident that Apple is not turning around and hacking people.

Re: After dissing Anthropic for limiting Mythos, OpenAI restricts access to Cyber

#102

Post by neuronexmachina »

pluc wrote: post #13

My thinking is that if there would be more money in releasing Mythos and Cyber than there is in just scary unverifiable (or verified using very favorable context - Mythos) propaganda, they would. These aren't people that go for second best or care about the state of the world.

I've never seen this explicitly stated, but I assume they also want to show due diligence in case their models are used to write successful exploits that lead to major cyberattacks. Given the current WH's ire towards Anthropic, I could see the current DOJ trying to file criminal charges for aiding/abetting/export-violations/etc.

Re: After dissing Anthropic for limiting Mythos, OpenAI restricts access to Cyber

#103

Post by wirybeige »

VorpalWay wrote: post #92
DivingForGold wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China’s DeepSeek prices new V4 AI model at 97% below OpenAI’s GPT-5.5 Did somebody say that Elon is stealthly funding: Seven lawsuits filed against OpenAI by families of Canada mass-shooting victims As always, when the going get's tough, the tough ultimately resort to lawsuits.

If the difference is that large, it seems plausible to me that the Chinese models are subsidized in order to gain market share, this is not exactly the first time the Chinese government has done so (or at least been rumoured to have done so). You should assume that everyone has a hidden agenda when money is involved.

Pricing for DeepSeek V4 flash is $0.14 in/$0.28 out across basically every provider or close to it. It seems most providers just follow the model creator and set their prices to match. V4 pro was set to be $1.74 in/$3.48 out when DeepSeek first announced it; all providers have set their prices to be about that price, & now DeepSeek has set their pricing to $0.435 in/ $0.87 out. I don't know if this is special pricing, or the promise they made for dropping the price when they get more Huawei cards online. It seems that providers like ParaSail, Together, and Novita just set the price when the model comes out and don't compete.

Re: After dissing Anthropic for limiting Mythos, OpenAI restricts access to Cyber

#104

Post by philistine »

wirybeige wrote: post #103
VorpalWay wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the difference is that large, it seems plausible to me that the Chinese models are subsidized in order to gain market share, this is not exactly the first time the Chinese government has done so (or at least been rumoured to have done so). You should assume that everyone has a hidden agenda when money is involved.

Pricing for DeepSeek V4 flash is $0.14 in/$0.28 out across basically every provider or close to it. It seems most providers just follow the model creator and set their prices to match. V4 pro was set to be $1.74 in/$3.48 out when DeepSeek first announced it; all providers have set their prices to be about that price, & now DeepSeek has set their pricing to $0.435 in/ $0.87 out. I don't know if this is special pricing…

No one has yet to turn a profit from LLMs. I don't understand why we need to intently look at everybody's pricing, when the most important number is instead their losses. That is the number that tells us what they're really doing.

Re: After dissing Anthropic for limiting Mythos, OpenAI restricts access to Cyber

#105

Post by nickthegreek »

philistine wrote: post #104
wirybeige wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pricing for DeepSeek V4 flash is $0.14 in/$0.28 out across basically every provider or close to it. It seems most providers just follow the model creator and set their prices to match. V4 pro was set to be $1.74 in/$3.48 out when DeepSeek first announced it; all providers have set their prices to be about that price, & now DeepSeek has set their pricing to $0.435 in/ $0.87 out. I don't know if this is special pricing…

No one has yet to turn a profit from LLMs. I don't understand why we need to intently look at everybody's pricing, when the most important number is instead their losses. That is the number that tells us what they're really doing.

OpenRouter isnt turning a profit?

Re: After dissing Anthropic for limiting Mythos, OpenAI restricts access to Cyber

#106

Post by wirybeige »

philistine wrote: post #104
wirybeige wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pricing for DeepSeek V4 flash is $0.14 in/$0.28 out across basically every provider or close to it. It seems most providers just follow the model creator and set their prices to match. V4 pro was set to be $1.74 in/$3.48 out when DeepSeek first announced it; all providers have set their prices to be about that price, & now DeepSeek has set their pricing to $0.435 in/ $0.87 out. I don't know if this is special pricing…

No one has yet to turn a profit from LLMs. I don't understand why we need to intently look at everybody's pricing, when the most important number is instead their losses. That is the number that tells us what they're really doing.

Why would these 3rd-party providers be taking losses? Together, Novita, etc... are not losing money on inference services, they are profiting. You can easily do napkin math with current & last gen Nvidia cards to calculate cost to host/serve these models. I would also doubt that any 1st-party providers like OpenAI and Anthropic lose money on per token billing. There is almost undoubtedly healthy margin being made on that.

Re: After dissing Anthropic for limiting Mythos, OpenAI restricts access to Cyber

#107

Post by shepherdjerred »

neuronexmachina wrote: post #98
noosphr wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember that they have been saying that since gpt2. I didn't think crying could be such a successful business model.

People keep on mentioning gpt2, but it's worth recalling that back in 2019 it was basically the first model that was capable of zero-shot generation of coherent multi-paragraph text. Having it write security exploits like Mythos wasn't even on the radar. Rather, the concerns were about misuse and societal implications, which in retrospect were pretty prescient: https://openai.com/index/gpt-2-6-month-follow-up/

Also Open AI/ Sam admit that the concerns were quite silly in retrospect

Re: After dissing Anthropic for limiting Mythos, OpenAI restricts access to Cyber

#108

Post by keeda »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #52
giwook wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what that says about Altman.

That he’s a liability to OpenAI, which is slowly coming around to the realization that it would be worth more without him. To be clear, I don’t think OpenAI could have raised what it raised as quickly as it did without him. But with the benefit of hindsight, Microsoft should have let the safety board fire him.

> That he’s a liability to OpenAI, which is slowly coming around to the realization that it would be worth more without him.

I'm curious what you're basing this on. Are you aware of any grumblings on the inside? From the outside it appears no different than before largely because it seems everybody knew he was a slippery dude anyways, but they tolerated it because he was slippery in ways that were profitable.

I also think he was prescient in his unquenching thirst for compute. Despite Anthropic possibly having a better product I think OpenAI will prevail simply because he's gone to extreme (sometimes diabolical, cf that DRAM deal) extents in ensuring they have enough compute.

Like, it's pretty likely that Claude's recent problems are due to insufficient compute. With 9's (and resultant loss in goodwill) comparable to GitHub, I actually have doubts they will be able to hit their projected ARR. OpenAI could win simply by dint of having capacity, which can be attributed to Altman's shenanigans.

Re: After dissing Anthropic for limiting Mythos, OpenAI restricts access to Cyber

#109

Post by throwyawayyyy »

davidgrenier wrote: post #3
2ndorderthought wrote: post #2

"my model is the most dangerous" "No mine is the most dangerous" "Nuh uh mine is" "Mine could kill everyone!" "Mine could do it faster!" "Prove it!!!" This is where we are

Yeah I guess two companies who would otherwise be considered going for bankruptcy have models too expensive to run. As they don't see themselves making money any time soon, they have to turn every future model into a weird fascination.

There's a story to tell in that: 1) Google has a transformer-based AI that hallucinates too much to release 2) OpenAI replicates the tech then YOLOs it 3) Everyone says: look how Google is getting left behind! Google thinks: the second mouse gets the cheese. 4) Google gets the cheese, OpenAI is absorbed by Microsoft or just disappears (or both).

Re: After dissing Anthropic for limiting Mythos, OpenAI restricts access to Cyber

#110

Post by JumpCrisscross »

keeda wrote: post #108
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That he’s a liability to OpenAI, which is slowly coming around to the realization that it would be worth more without him. To be clear, I don’t think OpenAI could have raised what it raised as quickly as it did without him. But with the benefit of hindsight, Microsoft should have let the safety board fire him.

> That he’s a liability to OpenAI, which is slowly coming around to the realization that it would be worth more without him. I'm curious what you're basing this on. Are you aware of any grumblings on the inside? From the outside it appears no different than before largely because it seems everybody knew he was a slippery dude anyways, but they tolerated it because he was slippery in ways that were profitable. I also…

> Despite Anthropic possibly having a better product I think OpenAI will prevail simply because he's gone to extreme (sometimes diabolical, cf that DRAM deal) extents in ensuring they have enough compute

Anthropic is currently raising tens of billions of dollars at a favourable valuation to fund infrastructure needs. From a shareholder perspective, that beats raising the capital ahead of demand.

> OpenAI could win simply by dint of having capacity, which can be attributed to Altman's shenanigans

If OpenAI is able to deny compute to Anthropic, yes. I'm not seeing any sign that OpenAI will be able to lock Anthropic out of the tech giants' clouds.

Post reply on HN