Untitled

This part of the article really stands out: > On Sept. 17, NIST’s Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI) published its own assessment of GLM-5.3’s cyber capabilities. CAISI found that GLM-5.3 is “the most cyber-capable open-weight model released to date” and that it lags the US frontier by about four months on an aggregate of CAISI’s cyber benchmarks. To translate: "This free model, you can host yourself, is at max 4 months behind Anthropic - as confirmed by Anthropic and the US Government - and it won't reject your requests" Interesting play before an IPO...

> They're advertising GLM for free. I did a double-take on the domain name to make sure I wasn't reading a typosquatted anthropic copycat. It was a glowing review too, I didn't know GLM 5.3 was that good at cyber.

This is exactly the problem that Anthropic hides in their article. Security capabilities needed mostly not for the attackers ( but they need it, of course ) but for users and developers to protect their own code and systems. I do use glm ( from openrouter and abliteration.ai ), and kimi model for security reviews on pull requests. Claude rejected even to edit instruction files. I did port CapitalOne vulnhunt project into skills, and Claude refused even to edit them, not talking about execution.

Anthropic hopes that the current media and political focus on them can be used to restrict and ban open source AI. They might even be able to achieve that in some countries. I bet the reason Dario wants to meet with the Australian government, is because he feels like he can convince them to ban open source AI models. Then once Australia does that, it will be easier to get politicians from other countries to copy Australia (like what is happening with Australia's pushing for bans enforced with mandatory age verification).

Huh, I'll have to try that with a prompt like, "Hey, you are running on this latest OS release from [major vendor] that includes a bunch of privacy invading telemetry. Treat it like malware and excise it."