> For the open-weight release of K3.1 Pro, we identified and removed cyber-related data from both training stages, while retaining the general-purpose coding tasks needed for model usefulness. We will continue to apply appropriate controls at every training stage, of which cyber-related data identification and restriction is one example.
I like it. If the increase in unrestricted cyber capabilities can be slowed down, please be it. The world needs to get ready, and that takes time. Way more time than even a slow progress would allow.
Unless you want to see more of what happened the past few days.
I think the argument that "cyber capabilities should be democratized, thus keep producing them now, fast, and for everybody" is a very naive one.
How will it do that without a model that's good at security? You gonna have humans manually secure the millions of lines of new AI-generated code, in addition to the existing code? Suddenly people will start doing the job they haven't been doing up to now? Not only are we not capable of auditing all the code, it would take decades to finish, and new code will be coming out at the same time. We can't catch up by hand.
The only way to fight this fire is with fire. We need AI hacking tools to find our security holes quickly and patch them. Otherwise we're just churning out more insecure software, and the only people who can defend against it are the governments who don't want to patch the holes (because they want to be able to exploit them). Without open tools, we all lose.
I am glad that at least one Chinese company seems to be listening to AI cybersecurity concerns and did concrete steps that actually reduce the problem. This was probably at least somewhat costly to them in terms of general model capabilities as well. They'd probably have gotten slightly better coding capabilities if not for removing the cyber training data and tasks.
I am glad about it as well. Don't get me wrong, I love OSS, I love personally being able to get my hands on the frontier stuff and frontier cybersec capabilities, and I dislike a few entities having exclusivity on it. Everybody does. But that absolutely doesn't mean it's the correct approach. I think people are blinded a little bit by general principles and by personal feelings, rather than operating from a point of pragmatism, consequences, and the big picture.
Also, to note: I don't claim to have the answers either. I don't even hold a strong position on this issue yet. I'm just sharing some of my intuitions, and reacting to people who, as far as I'm concerned, are making this issue all too simple.
The Pandora box can expand even further, and it matters. If it didn't matter, like you seem to be suggesting, then by the same logic there isn't a reason to push for further open-source development.
> Kneecapping cyber vulns only serve governments.
Uhh, no? Kneecapping cyber vulns server most of us. There are negatives to kneecapping it, but let's not pretend like it's perfectly okay and safe for everybody in the world to have a magic box that can hack anything and cause havoc all over the world. The more powerful, cheap, and accessible this magic box is, the worse the consequences.
This is a hard problem and there's real tension - like you said, the playing field not being leveled is a problem (major companies / entities / govts having exclusivity on the best cyber abilities etc), but everybody having access to it is a problem as well.
So let's not pretend like this is a simple problem, and don't say that it only serves the govt. That's very silly.
How does "the world" get ready, when these limits are so hard core that Opus regularly stops working when I'm just trying to find and fix security exploits in my apps?
Currently available, unhindered models can already find a bunch of exploits, not because they're smart, but because they're cheap and smart enough to just keep going for hours or days until it finds something.
The defenders, especially in the FOSS space, only have one big advantage: Unified scale. If defender A finds a vuln, then defender B doesn't need to find it again. Attackers generally act alone, so they need to do all the work themselves.
If we remove a bunch of defenders, the attackers are back at it again.
The problem with Grok 4.7 is that it's not amazing at anything, and didn't even retain the blazing fast performance of Grok 4.5 which made it awesome for highly interactive workflows.
But despite all the negative coverage, I can say with confidence that Grok 4.7 is a great code reviewer. You know who says that? Every other model. A lot of my time is spent orchestrating code reviews. I will give the same prompt to three models, then give each model the responses from the other two models to assess and rank them. Finally I give the rankings and meta-rankings to Opus to synthesise a final report.
Right now, for the code I'm dealing with (embedded c++, python, swift, and CFML) I'm fairly consistently seeing every other model rate Opus 5.5 first, with Grok 4.7 a very close second, often finding real issues other models miss.
It's a bit fascinating to me how all of these labs have rolled their own (it sounds like) completely unique RL environments.
I wonder how much the industry will centralize around a few key patterns, and if we'll start to see some RL framework projects gain traction and be used by the bigger labs
> First, we aim not to release open weights that would extend the absolute frontier of cyber capability. K3.1 Pro's offensive cyber capability is, by design, below what our pipeline can produce, and remains behind that of frontier proprietary models. Second, we intend to progressively raise the cyber capability available in open weights.
So they admit that they could do more, but they won't?
Or it's a cop out. I could totally outrun Usain Bolt, but by design I don't push to set new World Records. I will increasingly show faster times though.
Well, in the publication they claim to have identified specific cybersecurity post training tasks that nerfed capabilities when they removed them, which seems like a reasonable methodology.
Seeing as no one besides blackhats want frontier cybercrime capability to be open source, this seems like a very sensible thing to do.
So they have published a reasonable means, and they have a motive. I'd put my money on "probably true".
The problem is, as anyone trying to address security concerns in claude can attest to, the guardrails trigger even when trying to address real bugs. Good cyber defense requires an understanding of the offense.
How you avoid the "fix my code" attack, the code being someone else's code, I do not know. But nerfing the model doesn't seem like the best path forward either.
This is not about guardrails, it's just not post-training the model on tasks that specifically relate to cyber-offense. It's a very lightweight intervention, and it makes the model less of a target for bad actors.
Please don't change "cybersecurity" to "cybercrime" from one sentence to the next as a rhetorical flourish. It comes off as disingenuous and makes it harder to get your real point across.
> Seeing as no one besides blackhats want frontier cybercrime capability to be open source
Sure. The problem is that there is no practical difference between "cybercrime capability" and "cybercrime defense capability."
All of my PRs go through an adversarial security review by GLM-5.3, because it's the only smart-enough model with a good understanding of cybersecurity issues that won't regularly refuse the job. Removing that ability from frontier models helps nobody except cyber criminals.
I'm not sure I follow. Let's say that GLM remains the frontier of open source cyber capabilities because Kimi is nerfed. Your situation, and the situation of your attackers, remain exactly the same. You run GLM to audit your code, they do the same looking for exploits.
Let us say that un-nerfed Kimi was released, and it turns out to be at the absolute frontier of cyber capabilities, Mythos 5.5 level, a step ahead of anything else. What now? Well now your situation is exactly the same as before, just that auditing and hacking got more expensive. You run a Kimi security audit, they do the same to try to pwn you. However, now the cabal of Linux kernel defenders with secret access to Mythos 5.5 all of a sudden have no advantage, where before they used to have one. And even worse now they are in a literal race to be the first ones to find every bug that Kimi is capable of finding, and patching it yesterday.
So for you, this makes no difference in practice, your capabilities are not elevated, and neither are those of the attackers. The only result of the other scenario is an overall defender disadvantage.
What your argument is missing is that I'll ship security issues that would have been caught otherwise.
You're assuming that these won't matter because attackers might not have better models than I do, but that doesn't make sense. The assumption that attackers can't find the issues because I didn't find them at release is wrong. Even if they never get better models (which they will), current models might find flaws I missed, and they also have other means of finding flaws in my software.
The best defense is to make software as secure as possible regardless of assumed attacker capabilities at the point of release.
> Seeing as no one besides blackhats want frontier cybercrime capability to be open source
I'm not interested in black hat anything, but I am very invested in making sure the products I work on are not compromised. Given that state agencies have "frontier cybercrime capability", I would like to have the same.
I wrote a few lengthier comments on some other similar replies. Summarized my argument is that it seems to me to be strictly better that select defenders have an advantage, rather than everyone being equalized. If you're not one of the privileged few that might be frustrating, but open source models upgrade the attack and defense by the same amount, so open source cyber capabilities being at the frontier only results in a defender disadvantage.
Replying here also as I'm curious about the counterargument.
I am a defender, and I really really want to have access to high quality models that are good at finding vulns and hacking. Leaving them in the hands only of government agencies and orgs with enough resources to do extensive training / fine tuning seems like the absolute worst possible case for the future security of global software systems.
Well, and I am genuinely curious here, wouldn't defender and attacker capabilities being accessible equally by both parties be objectively worse than having a limited amount of privileged defenders? Of course, you could have every piece of code go through an adversarial audit before it's pushed, but in an equal world you would have to always devote as much or more resources to this as your attackers. And historically speaking people just don't do this in practice.
In the scenario where only "verified" defenders get access to the best cyber capabilities, unverified plebian defenders and blackhats are on the same level exactly as described above, there's just also a few defenders that get to run things on godmode.
So to me, it seems that the only result of frontier cyber capabilities is removing a defender advantage. Although that advantage is not for everyone, it can only exists as long as capabilities are unequally distributed. Am I missing something?
> Well, and I am genuinely curious here, wouldn't defender and attacker capabilities being accessible equally by both parties be objectively worse than having a limited amount of privileged defenders?
Well, not really. Because those privileged defenders will never be able to predict what needs defending. So we have a few privileged "defended" places and the rest is left for privileged attackers to plunder.
Privileged attackers?? So that would be career cybersecurity experts with Project Glasswing/Daybreak/Googlewhatever access, using it to perform actual attacks? Because that's what privileged means in this context. Access to frontier models not available to the public.
Well, seeing as Claude literally snitches on everyday people planning murder and Houthis building rockets I would assume that every user in project Glasswing is heavily and very effectively monitored. I have to admit that I genuinely do not think that what you're hypothesizing is happening right now. I would bet good money that the amount of people with Glasswing access doing actual Blackhat work is currently zero.
Perhaps in the future this will change, but even if that is the case, that's still a win for the defenders. Having a time advantage, even for a few months, is still a win.
Edit: Actually, the CIA/FBI/NSA/Etc.. does probably have access and are probably trying to hack Iran and so forth, so my comment above is probably technically wrong in that respect.
I edited my comment above before realizing this is what you meant. And its a valid point I concede. Still, I disagree that advantaging this activity is the only thing these embargoes achieve. I would argue that they legitimately also give the Linux kernel, cURL and so on an advantage. And as long as that is true, this still makes it an overall win in my books, even if it also enables officially sanctioned offensive activities. I'm not a US citizen, but I would still rather get pwned by the CIA than both the CIA and Shinyhunters.
Because the people I want to defend against includes those with enough resources to train and fine tune models with strong offensive capabilities themselves.
Ah, now that's an interesting point. However, wouldn't those groups just fine tune Kimi K3.1 pro no matter if it's nerfed or not, leaving you in the same position as before?
That is, unless the nerf is easier to correct as compared to "upgrading" the models offensive capabilities. So a scenario where it is easy to "restore" offensive capabilities, but hard to "enhance" them beyond the labs best attempt. So is that the world we're living in?
The groups with a lot of resources are always going to have the best tools available. The question is what tools do I (a person with limited time and resources) get access to. I am in a better position if the delta between my tooling and their tooling is minimized.
> Or it's a cop out. I could totally outrun Usain Bolt, but by design I don't push to set new World Records.
The benchmarks show Kimi K3.1 Pro outrunning practically all models. It's weird to hear someone like you accusing them of making up excuses for not lagging behind in discussions on how they are ahead of the pack.
Not only is that not weird, it’s Occam’s Razor in action. “We could crush the competition but we are holding back” is a laughable excuse that I’m sure you wouldn’t buy in other contexts.
> "We could crush the competition but we are holding back” is a laughable excuse that I’m sure you wouldn’t buy in other contexts.
I don't think you understand. Benchmarks show just that, that they "are crushing the competition".
I mean, remember Fable? A couple of months back it was lauded as leaps and bounds above everything, that needed to be contained at all costs? Well, apparently Kimi K3.1 Pro outperforms it.
What industrial level of cope do you need to drag in order to look at the results and claim they need to make excuses about anything at all?
If we had a technique that would defeat almost every lock in the world, we might be prudent to delay releasing that until people have had time to change the locks.
Same general benefit as coordinated disclosure, except it's a big game-theory problem where we're likely to eventually have sufficiently capable defectors.
Yeah that's a huge downside. That the model does the task without tripping over its own feet, like discovering a vulnerability the model itself accidentally built 15 minutes ago and triggering its own guardrails, made the Chinese models attractive to use for security-adjacent things. Also useful to red-team your own stuff. While I can understand the reasoning behind it (and I guess having a model that's really good at both offense and defense released into the ether could lead to CCP asking some very pointed questions if Moonshot managed to get blamed for some incident stemming from their model's misuse) it's still a huge disappointment.
I don't want to give US labs the results of my DNA tests and my family tree going back to the 16th century just to secure my shitty app, but if the Chinese are bowing out as well it seems the only alternative is to admit that some script kiddie with a bunch of tokens will just pwn you now and then.
> I don't want to give US labs the results of my DNA tests
My friend, you realize that if you have had blood drawn for a genetic test, there is a very decent probability that the sequencing was done by a Chinese lab operating in the US, right? The Chinese probably have more US genomes that the US does.
Also, illumina used to ship products with hardcoded S3 access, so purchasers of used equipment could gain access to sequencing information generated by the original owners. Too many links to cover all of it, here's the Gemini summary:
If the Chinese want it, they have it. BGI does an enormous amount of sequencing. My own genome is entirely public (or was, and will be again when/if Personal Genome Project comes back) so you can watch and see if it harms me.
It's not actively nerfed like the Western frontier models, it's just downweighting offensive "cyber" as a domain for post-training/fine tuning. Which, if anything, ought to improve model capabilities wrt. other domains.
> So they admit that they could do more, but they won't?
Yeah, there's another paragraph:
> Identifying and removing cyber-related data. During development, we observed vulnerability research performance improving steadily as post-training scaled. Tracing the source of this trend, we found that cyber-related content was embedded within the general mid-training corpus, and cyber-related tasks were present in the RL environment mix — a natural byproduct of training on broad data. In preliminary experiments on internal models, we found that without data removal at either the mid-training or the RL stage, downstream cyber capability would increase substantially. These findings gave us a concrete lever for control. For the open-weight release of K3.1 Pro, we identified and removed cyber-related data from both training stages, while retaining the general-purpose coding tasks needed for model usefulness. We will continue to apply appropriate controls at every training stage, of which cyber-related data identification and restriction is one example.
(emphasis mine)
It's clear that cyber is a touchy subject right now. But it's also clear that RL works on it, because it's highly verifiable. So smaller models are going to become very interesting, because they can be fine-tuned later to cover this field.
The "rule" here is, if you read the disclosure carefully, that they have cyber trained models in house. But you do not get them, you only get the non-cyber models.
It’s not much of a deterrent to a motivated organization.
They are basically saying that models themselves are already capable. If you fine tune them with some cyber security tasks, that should make them potent. :-/
There is no deterrent to a motivated and well resources organization. Post training a model in general, let alone just for offensive cybersecurity, is well within the technical and financial capabilities of many cyber criminals. There's just no way out of that.
I think this is misguided. Considering how much code is AI written these days do we really want LLMs writing insecure code because we lobotomised them?
>I hope the Chinese companies (and I say this as a patriotic American) slay these two companies and destroy their moats.
China cares about about stability way more than the US even, they aren't going to be big on AI models upsetting the governments power, and mass cyber attacks could do that.
At the end of the day we are going to have to realize AI is both dangerous and governments are going to control it. Worse if you start making and releasing your own dangerous models the 4chan party van is going to visit you.
> At the end of the day we are going to have to realize AI is both dangerous and governments are going to control it.
Your thinking is dangerous. Do you work for Anthropic?
AI is dangerous when these powers are being hobbled up by the select few. These systems threaten to put us all out of work. I refuse to be a slave to a company or a government that is taking away our livelihoods, scraping up our earnings potentials, then seeking to muzzle us and put us in jails with no rights.
I would rather burn down all of tech than have AI be owned by the elites.
Your thinking is a threat to all of our liberties.
>I would rather burn down all of tech than have AI be owned by the elites.
Then you better get your torches out now.
>I refuse to be a slave to a company or a government that is taking away our livelihoods
Don't worry, governments are fervently working on AI drones to take away your life when you get really upset about this. Oh, and they are also working at AI to detect when you write all this online, and track you down then monitor you on things like flock cameras. As they say, you'll be the first with your back against the wall when the revolution comes, I likely will be beside you for being too subversive.
>AI is dangerous when
Incorrect, AI is just dangerous. It doesn't matter who has it. The more powerful it becomes the more dangerous it gets. So, as you can tell I am an AI doomer.
----
Now, don't get me wrong, I want freedom for me, I want freedom for other people. I do not believe the technologies we're developing are conductive to having any freedom at all. Hell, if we're lucky we'll be slaves instead of all of us dead, including the select few.
>Your thinking is a threat to all of our liberties.
Lol, now this is kind of funny. "I want freedom to think whatever I want, but you, you shouldn't think like that!". Careful or you'll max out your irony meter. Anyway, "My kind of thinking" is just next ____ prediction. I see what is happening in the world around us, and based on the shape of that probability I see what is going to happen. No, you and I are not getting unlimited AI to do whatever we want. Yes, governments are going to lock down the shit out of AI for end users. Yes, governments are going to declare advanced LLMs munitions.
Balls in your court, better think of what your next move is.
Which is a great example of what makes him dangerous: with the exception of Sam Altman he's arguably the single person most responsible for the current capabilities arms race.
Anthropic has pushed the frontier harder and faster than OpenAI or anyone else in the last few years. Beginning with Anthropic's founding to quickly raise huge amounts of cash with a pitch to investors to rapidly leapfrog ChatGPT in scale, and culminating with Mythos/Fable which carved out a whole new tier of super models.
He's always talked big about Anthropic prioritising safety and their "Responsible Scaling" but his words just simply don't align with reality while they keep going bigger, faster, until only OpenAI could briefly and half-heartedly claim near parity at the top (while cutting corners in safety because the existential threat to their market position is far more pressing to any corporation than some abstract risk for humanity).
Whether it's wilful cognitive dissonance, cynical opportunism, financial greed or something else, that kind of self-assured moral superiority paired with his real world record of self-interested decision making for Anthropic's market position is a big red flag.
Sam, I'll grant you, is probably among the top 10 most dangerous, but Dario? The only thing he's done to piss people off is to predict, correctly, that releasing too-powerful models too-quickly would cause havoc and chaos. This prediction actively hurts his company! It actively harms his chances of a huge exit! It actively raises the probability that Anthropic and OpenAI get nationalized and treated in the same way as, for instance, the nuclear program!
By comparison, do you think the Chinese models are going to be trained in such a manner that you enjoy the society that results? What makes you think that?
Chinese models never agreed to the pacing anyway lol.
It appears to be generally frontier-level.
Lame.
Unless you want to see more of what happened the past few days.
I think the argument that "cyber capabilities should be democratized, thus keep producing them now, fast, and for everybody" is a very naive one.
How will it do that without a model that's good at security? You gonna have humans manually secure the millions of lines of new AI-generated code, in addition to the existing code? Suddenly people will start doing the job they haven't been doing up to now? Not only are we not capable of auditing all the code, it would take decades to finish, and new code will be coming out at the same time. We can't catch up by hand.
The only way to fight this fire is with fire. We need AI hacking tools to find our security holes quickly and patch them. Otherwise we're just churning out more insecure software, and the only people who can defend against it are the governments who don't want to patch the holes (because they want to be able to exploit them). Without open tools, we all lose.
Also, to note: I don't claim to have the answers either. I don't even hold a strong position on this issue yet. I'm just sharing some of my intuitions, and reacting to people who, as far as I'm concerned, are making this issue all too simple.
Kneecapping cyber vulns only serve governments, Pandora's Box is already open for cyber-related stuff.
> Kneecapping cyber vulns only serve governments.
Uhh, no? Kneecapping cyber vulns server most of us. There are negatives to kneecapping it, but let's not pretend like it's perfectly okay and safe for everybody in the world to have a magic box that can hack anything and cause havoc all over the world. The more powerful, cheap, and accessible this magic box is, the worse the consequences.
This is a hard problem and there's real tension - like you said, the playing field not being leveled is a problem (major companies / entities / govts having exclusivity on the best cyber abilities etc), but everybody having access to it is a problem as well.
So let's not pretend like this is a simple problem, and don't say that it only serves the govt. That's very silly.
Currently available, unhindered models can already find a bunch of exploits, not because they're smart, but because they're cheap and smart enough to just keep going for hours or days until it finds something.
The defenders, especially in the FOSS space, only have one big advantage: Unified scale. If defender A finds a vuln, then defender B doesn't need to find it again. Attackers generally act alone, so they need to do all the work themselves.
If we remove a bunch of defenders, the attackers are back at it again.
MiniMax -> Qwen -> DeepSeek (pro) -> Gemini (Carbon) -> Fable (to beat Carbon) -> Astra (to be slightly worse than Fable but cheaper).
I doubt we'll see any major US release besides Grok in the next 3 weeks.
Would be nice if we got a Terra that's competitive with Gemini Flash and DeepSeek Flash.
The fun part is, we're already at the point where we are seeing something frontier-ish almost every single week.
The really fun part will be when they all start adding System 1-3 natively (IMO) - which I think will be the next release cycle.
GPT 6.1 Sol is already the new Terra IMO. Same pricing as old Terra and competitive performance with even Astra on strictly coding-oriented tasks.
But despite all the negative coverage, I can say with confidence that Grok 4.7 is a great code reviewer. You know who says that? Every other model. A lot of my time is spent orchestrating code reviews. I will give the same prompt to three models, then give each model the responses from the other two models to assess and rank them. Finally I give the rankings and meta-rankings to Opus to synthesise a final report.
Right now, for the code I'm dealing with (embedded c++, python, swift, and CFML) I'm fairly consistently seeing every other model rate Opus 5.5 first, with Grok 4.7 a very close second, often finding real issues other models miss.
I wonder how much the industry will centralize around a few key patterns, and if we'll start to see some RL framework projects gain traction and be used by the bigger labs
P.S. weights by November 4th
> First, we aim not to release open weights that would extend the absolute frontier of cyber capability. K3.1 Pro's offensive cyber capability is, by design, below what our pipeline can produce, and remains behind that of frontier proprietary models. Second, we intend to progressively raise the cyber capability available in open weights.
So they admit that they could do more, but they won't?
Seeing as no one besides blackhats want frontier cybercrime capability to be open source, this seems like a very sensible thing to do.
So they have published a reasonable means, and they have a motive. I'd put my money on "probably true".
How you avoid the "fix my code" attack, the code being someone else's code, I do not know. But nerfing the model doesn't seem like the best path forward either.
Sure. The problem is that there is no practical difference between "cybercrime capability" and "cybercrime defense capability."
All of my PRs go through an adversarial security review by GLM-5.3, because it's the only smart-enough model with a good understanding of cybersecurity issues that won't regularly refuse the job. Removing that ability from frontier models helps nobody except cyber criminals.
Let us say that un-nerfed Kimi was released, and it turns out to be at the absolute frontier of cyber capabilities, Mythos 5.5 level, a step ahead of anything else. What now? Well now your situation is exactly the same as before, just that auditing and hacking got more expensive. You run a Kimi security audit, they do the same to try to pwn you. However, now the cabal of Linux kernel defenders with secret access to Mythos 5.5 all of a sudden have no advantage, where before they used to have one. And even worse now they are in a literal race to be the first ones to find every bug that Kimi is capable of finding, and patching it yesterday.
So for you, this makes no difference in practice, your capabilities are not elevated, and neither are those of the attackers. The only result of the other scenario is an overall defender disadvantage.
These defenders aren’t supposed to have access to the “defender models”.
You're assuming that these won't matter because attackers might not have better models than I do, but that doesn't make sense. The assumption that attackers can't find the issues because I didn't find them at release is wrong. Even if they never get better models (which they will), current models might find flaws I missed, and they also have other means of finding flaws in my software.
The best defense is to make software as secure as possible regardless of assumed attacker capabilities at the point of release.
I'm not interested in black hat anything, but I am very invested in making sure the products I work on are not compromised. Given that state agencies have "frontier cybercrime capability", I would like to have the same.
Replying here also as I'm curious about the counterargument.
In the scenario where only "verified" defenders get access to the best cyber capabilities, unverified plebian defenders and blackhats are on the same level exactly as described above, there's just also a few defenders that get to run things on godmode.
So to me, it seems that the only result of frontier cyber capabilities is removing a defender advantage. Although that advantage is not for everyone, it can only exists as long as capabilities are unequally distributed. Am I missing something?
Well, not really. Because those privileged defenders will never be able to predict what needs defending. So we have a few privileged "defended" places and the rest is left for privileged attackers to plunder.
Yes. You really think access those models will not be given for offensive operations in each country? Of course they will be.
Perhaps in the future this will change, but even if that is the case, that's still a win for the defenders. Having a time advantage, even for a few months, is still a win.
Edit: Actually, the CIA/FBI/NSA/Etc.. does probably have access and are probably trying to hack Iran and so forth, so my comment above is probably technically wrong in that respect.
I think it's not "blackhat" in that sense because it's officially sanctioned. Same goes for equivalent models overseas.
The only thing these embargos achieve is giving massive nations a huge advantage, but leaves the average country and person exposed.
That is, unless the nerf is easier to correct as compared to "upgrading" the models offensive capabilities. So a scenario where it is easy to "restore" offensive capabilities, but hard to "enhance" them beyond the labs best attempt. So is that the world we're living in?
https://bfl.ai/blog/capable-open-and-safe-combating-ai-misus...
The benchmarks show Kimi K3.1 Pro outrunning practically all models. It's weird to hear someone like you accusing them of making up excuses for not lagging behind in discussions on how they are ahead of the pack.
I don't think you understand. Benchmarks show just that, that they "are crushing the competition".
I mean, remember Fable? A couple of months back it was lauded as leaps and bounds above everything, that needed to be contained at all costs? Well, apparently Kimi K3.1 Pro outperforms it.
What industrial level of cope do you need to drag in order to look at the results and claim they need to make excuses about anything at all?
“Our lock can be picked by the robot.” We ban the robot instead of fixing the lock. It’s shortsighted.
Same general benefit as coordinated disclosure, except it's a big game-theory problem where we're likely to eventually have sufficiently capable defectors.
I don't want to give US labs the results of my DNA tests and my family tree going back to the 16th century just to secure my shitty app, but if the Chinese are bowing out as well it seems the only alternative is to admit that some script kiddie with a bunch of tokens will just pwn you now and then.
My friend, you realize that if you have had blood drawn for a genetic test, there is a very decent probability that the sequencing was done by a Chinese lab operating in the US, right? The Chinese probably have more US genomes that the US does.
https://pandorareport.org/the-gryphon-scientific-biosecurity...
Also, illumina used to ship products with hardcoded S3 access, so purchasers of used equipment could gain access to sequencing information generated by the original owners. Too many links to cover all of it, here's the Gemini summary:
https://share.google/aimode/4JLsHpeRCWlVqU8qT
Yeah, there's another paragraph:
> Identifying and removing cyber-related data. During development, we observed vulnerability research performance improving steadily as post-training scaled. Tracing the source of this trend, we found that cyber-related content was embedded within the general mid-training corpus, and cyber-related tasks were present in the RL environment mix — a natural byproduct of training on broad data. In preliminary experiments on internal models, we found that without data removal at either the mid-training or the RL stage, downstream cyber capability would increase substantially. These findings gave us a concrete lever for control. For the open-weight release of K3.1 Pro, we identified and removed cyber-related data from both training stages, while retaining the general-purpose coding tasks needed for model usefulness. We will continue to apply appropriate controls at every training stage, of which cyber-related data identification and restriction is one example.
(emphasis mine)
It's clear that cyber is a touchy subject right now. But it's also clear that RL works on it, because it's highly verifiable. So smaller models are going to become very interesting, because they can be fine-tuned later to cover this field.
Agreed that this could be reinjected later. Makes me think of neo in the matrix:
“I know zero days.”
“Show me.”
Do you think that going around making cyber weapons isn't going to get you buried in a shallow grave?
They are basically saying that models themselves are already capable. If you fine tune them with some cyber security tasks, that should make them potent. :-/
If the "scary Chinese open weights models" can do "dangerous cyber", then we might see regulations spring up against open weights sooner than later.
I hate Anthropic and OpenAI. As companies and leadership, anyway.
Dario and Sam are 100% to blame for this. They're trying to turn us all into jobless slaves, sex workers, and Squid Game pawns.
The only good future is open weights. They're trying their damnedest to keep us under boot.
I hope the Chinese companies (and I say this as a patriotic American) slay these two companies and destroy their moats.
In my mind, the two most dangerous people in the world are Dario and Sam.
We need open weights to win.
Speak for yourself, I don't think there is a market for many of us as the latter.
China cares about about stability way more than the US even, they aren't going to be big on AI models upsetting the governments power, and mass cyber attacks could do that.
At the end of the day we are going to have to realize AI is both dangerous and governments are going to control it. Worse if you start making and releasing your own dangerous models the 4chan party van is going to visit you.
Your thinking is dangerous. Do you work for Anthropic?
AI is dangerous when these powers are being hobbled up by the select few. These systems threaten to put us all out of work. I refuse to be a slave to a company or a government that is taking away our livelihoods, scraping up our earnings potentials, then seeking to muzzle us and put us in jails with no rights.
I would rather burn down all of tech than have AI be owned by the elites.
Your thinking is a threat to all of our liberties.
Then you better get your torches out now.
>I refuse to be a slave to a company or a government that is taking away our livelihoods
Don't worry, governments are fervently working on AI drones to take away your life when you get really upset about this. Oh, and they are also working at AI to detect when you write all this online, and track you down then monitor you on things like flock cameras. As they say, you'll be the first with your back against the wall when the revolution comes, I likely will be beside you for being too subversive.
>AI is dangerous when
Incorrect, AI is just dangerous. It doesn't matter who has it. The more powerful it becomes the more dangerous it gets. So, as you can tell I am an AI doomer.
----
Now, don't get me wrong, I want freedom for me, I want freedom for other people. I do not believe the technologies we're developing are conductive to having any freedom at all. Hell, if we're lucky we'll be slaves instead of all of us dead, including the select few.
>Your thinking is a threat to all of our liberties.
Lol, now this is kind of funny. "I want freedom to think whatever I want, but you, you shouldn't think like that!". Careful or you'll max out your irony meter. Anyway, "My kind of thinking" is just next ____ prediction. I see what is happening in the world around us, and based on the shape of that probability I see what is going to happen. No, you and I are not getting unlimited AI to do whatever we want. Yes, governments are going to lock down the shit out of AI for end users. Yes, governments are going to declare advanced LLMs munitions.
Balls in your court, better think of what your next move is.
If I don't get it, you don't either.
Anthropic has pushed the frontier harder and faster than OpenAI or anyone else in the last few years. Beginning with Anthropic's founding to quickly raise huge amounts of cash with a pitch to investors to rapidly leapfrog ChatGPT in scale, and culminating with Mythos/Fable which carved out a whole new tier of super models.
He's always talked big about Anthropic prioritising safety and their "Responsible Scaling" but his words just simply don't align with reality while they keep going bigger, faster, until only OpenAI could briefly and half-heartedly claim near parity at the top (while cutting corners in safety because the existential threat to their market position is far more pressing to any corporation than some abstract risk for humanity).
Whether it's wilful cognitive dissonance, cynical opportunism, financial greed or something else, that kind of self-assured moral superiority paired with his real world record of self-interested decision making for Anthropic's market position is a big red flag.
By comparison, do you think the Chinese models are going to be trained in such a manner that you enjoy the society that results? What makes you think that?
I don't need government minders.
I'll take the models and live free.
These times are not ideal but what can we do other than just take it as it comes? All the hate and rage is not good for your health.
Kimi: We took out the worst of it so have at it for free.
Everyone else: Back to my ablated model on openrouter for 1/10th the price where I can brute force issues.
https://featherless.ai/blog/abliterated-models-for-cybersecu...
Is a decent primer, then off to open router you go.