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

OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 184 posts

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#81

Post by egorfine »

dist-epoch wrote: post #73
egorfine wrote: post #55

I read this news as white noise because there is no scenario in which I will be allowed access to this model. First, I happen to be a citizen of a country that is not the USA. What's more shocking is that I'm not even located in the US. Thus in the eyes of OpenAI I do not exist in regard to SOTA security models. Second, I will never ever do KYC with a company that provides text transformation services*. Third, even i…

> Second, I will never ever do KYC with a company that provides text transformation services* I guess you would also not provide KYC to a bank that provides number additions/subtractions between database rows services

As a society we have collectively decided that these numbers are money. Thus different rules apply.

And I'm happy to pass KYC in person, so I do have accounts in different parts of the world. It's the online KYC that's not passable for digital nomads like me.

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#82

Post by thinkingtoilet »

taspeotis wrote: post #11

I don't know what the solution to this is, but I find it somewhat unfair that I pay money to Anthropic, and I pay money to OpenAI, and neither of them will let me use their best models for securing the software I work on. Admittedly Opus 4.8 xhigh does a good job, but are my customers not entitled to have more security from a Fable/Mythos or GPT-5.5-Cyber audit over the codebase? Or I guess the inverse question: why…

Why is it unfair? Are you entitled to them? They released a product and you are paying for it. If you don't like the product, don't pay for it and don't use it.

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#83

Post by tqwhite »

blahblaher wrote: post #32
postalcoder wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, some of you will invent conspiracy theories to justify some deeply cynical fiction. OAI has been more proactive about doing customer KYC than A\. OpenAI, four months ago, started to require users to verify their identity if they flagged their activities on frontier models (gpt-5.3-codex and higher) as risky. Their filters were originally quite coarse and it resulted in a ton of normal tasks being flagged. There…

And some of you really are ingenuous... Like the US government cares anything about that.

Donald Trump cares about it and frequently uses our government to abuse people he does not like, to carry out grudges and vendettas.

There is no doubt in my mind that he is personally pissed because Anthropic stood up to him.

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#84

Post by tqwhite »

thinkingtoilet wrote: post #82
taspeotis wrote: post #11

I don't know what the solution to this is, but I find it somewhat unfair that I pay money to Anthropic, and I pay money to OpenAI, and neither of them will let me use their best models for securing the software I work on. Admittedly Opus 4.8 xhigh does a good job, but are my customers not entitled to have more security from a Fable/Mythos or GPT-5.5-Cyber audit over the codebase? Or I guess the inverse question: why…

Why is it unfair? Are you entitled to them? They released a product and you are paying for it. If you don't like the product, don't pay for it and don't use it.

At least, pay them for the inferior intelligence until Donald Trump says you can.

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#85

Post by bilekas »

egorfine wrote: post #60
bilekas wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is so much to unpack here. > Thus in the eyes of OpenAI I do not exist in regard to SOTA security models. I'm not seeing anywhere it says it's only limited to the U.S. Only that they had 'ongoing dialogue' with them. Which reads weird to me, how can an ongoing dialogue be past tense? But I digress. > We’ve had ongoing dialogue with the U.S. government about our cyber approach, including today’s announcements an…

> how can an ongoing dialogue be past tense? Easy: it can be considered past tense in case "ongoing dialogue" is a corporatespeak for "f..k you". Which I believe is the case here. But that's an opinion. > Know Your Customer [..] I don't see any issues with that This might be the case if you're coming from a standpoint I have mentioned: the American one. This is a world view where everybody have physical paper documen…

> The company has no way of knowing whether "find all security vulnerabilities in this code" is a request from a whitehat or a blackhat hacker

That's what KYC is for.

> This might be the case if you're coming from a standpoint I have mentioned: the American one.

I'm not in the US, nor America for that matter, I'm in the EU.

> Problem is, the world have vast, vast differences in all of the mentioned areas and KYC companies couldn't care less because they are a business and they make money by KYCing as much people as possible for as little spend as possible

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

There's not much constructive here other than a lot of assumptions and apparent malcontempt with how some businesses handle their business, but that's for another topic I think.

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#86

Post by snaking0776 »

mentalgear wrote: post #19

No one commenting on the fact that oAI is releasing a Claude Mythos-class model - with apparent 0 restrictions or concerns by the US government, while Anthropic's (their competitor) model has been pulled weeks prior by the administration for 'security' reasons. It certainly has nothing to do with openAI's co-founders donating to the current administrations election fund, are actively supporting the DoW war efforts of…

I feel like we’re all just operating on vibes at this point (including the government). These models are already powerful and could probably be used to do some bad things even without the next gen.

Anthropic has successfully made their vibe the bringers of the end of the world so please stop us. ChatGPT is in some weird middle ground where they’re no longer the evil company of a year ago and are trying to act like the mature one in the business. XAI is the vanity project of a jealous kid who wants to ignore anyone elses opinion but is falling behind. Gemini is viewed as the less cool cousin and no one pays attention to since google has generally avoided the end of the world talk (coincidentally I think gemini has the best non-coding model but no one seems to talk about that)

I think each company has been treated in the wider discourse based on their vibe and no one is operating on facts here since it’s all pretty obfuscated intentionally. I could see some things going very bad as a result of these models but I also don’t believe anyone who’s just pattern matching to their favorite scifi book here and we’re all playing into it. May as well go outside for a bit and enjoy the sun.

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#87

Post by baq »

civet_java wrote: post #64
baq wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think you should have access…? People who pay enterprise API rates also don’t if this makes you feel better (it shouldn’t, you shouldn’t have felt bad in the first place)

I'm not sure I understand what you're arguing for? There are massive companies that collectively profiting off of stolen IP and are now gatekeeping even their paid offerings - surely consumers will rail against this? Personally, I feel very bad and can't wait for Chinese models to continue improving as much as they can prior OpenAI's and Anthropic's IPOs.

I’m not arguing for anything, actually. The ‘fair’ ship has sailed, even if the pirates somehow get shut down (which would be suicide by USG, won’t happen, national security issue), open Chinese models are not even hiding the fact that they distill from the frontier US labs, thus benefiting indirectly from the stolen content.

Note I don’t particularly like the ‘stolen’ word here as I don’t like when the music and film companies use it in the same context. Copyright infringement? Sure. Theft? No.

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#88

Post by TideAd »

arcanemachiner wrote: post #52
frankacter wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No one commenting on the fact that oAI is releasing a Claude Mythos-class model - with apparent 0 restrictions or concerns by the US government We don't know that it is Mythos level, it could very well be at (guardrailed) Fable or below. This is not a wide open distribution, this is only being provided to hand picked partners, similar to how Mythos was distributed (unlike Fable which had wider distribution) The larg…

Isn't Fable just Mythos + prompt guardrails?

The guardrails i.e. the classifier would also fire on Fable's output and even Fable's internals (i.e. prior to the shutdown people would see it firing when Fable got angry)

https://x.com/repligate/status/2069150509978489287

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#89

Post by egorfine »

bilekas wrote: post #85
egorfine wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how can an ongoing dialogue be past tense? Easy: it can be considered past tense in case "ongoing dialogue" is a corporatespeak for "f..k you". Which I believe is the case here. But that's an opinion. > Know Your Customer [..] I don't see any issues with that This might be the case if you're coming from a standpoint I have mentioned: the American one. This is a world view where everybody have physical paper documen…

> The company has no way of knowing whether "find all security vulnerabilities in this code" is a request from a whitehat or a blackhat hacker That's what KYC is for. > This might be the case if you're coming from a standpoint I have mentioned: the American one. I'm not in the US, nor America for that matter, I'm in the EU. > Problem is, the world have vast, vast differences in all of the mentioned areas and KYC comp…

>> The company has no way of knowing > That's what KYC is for.

No, KYC has nothing to do with that problem. KYC doesn't help at all here.

> I'm not in the US, nor America for that matter, I'm in the EU.

Same here.

Re: OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

#90

Post by stainablesteel »

anon373839 wrote: post #23
taspeotis wrote: post #11

I don't know what the solution to this is, but I find it somewhat unfair that I pay money to Anthropic, and I pay money to OpenAI, and neither of them will let me use their best models for securing the software I work on. Admittedly Opus 4.8 xhigh does a good job, but are my customers not entitled to have more security from a Fable/Mythos or GPT-5.5-Cyber audit over the codebase? Or I guess the inverse question: why…

The problem is even worse than that. OpenAI and Anthropic have your source code and superior knowledge of its vulnerabilities. All you can do is hope that they won't one day use it against you.

or accidentally hand the information over to someone who will
Post reply on HN