ajyoon

OpenRouter's list of providers is very large and includes many little known and sketchy companies.

If Fable (Mythos) were generally available without guardrails, it would cause enormous damage. Nobody said it would be a world ending event.

No, Irregular runs the sandbox environment that the models had access to run code in. The sandbox environment is not the same as the weights host.

> I may be too cynical

You are espousing a literal conspiracy theory. Please look at the facts objectively. There is absolutely no benefit to OpenAI or Anthropic to be had from these incidents.

There is a lot of research out there with answers to your questions. GPU supply chains are extremely constrained, making it a surprisingly tractable problem at least for now.

The entire point of the statement is to start international coordination.

jefftk addresses your bio thought well.

> The reason they aren't more exploited is there really isn't much to gain from doing so.

This is incorrect. The long tail of soft targets aren't being exploited more because attackers are bottlenecked on labor. AI removes exactly this bottleneck.

You can at least make it harder by requiring US clouds to only serve models with guardrails, and encouraging other countries to do the same. But yes, the underlying issue is the models being open in the first place. I'm sure if the US wanted to, it could come to some agreement with China about this.

> Yes, but didn't it always? Hence why my position is that this will get us back to relatively where we were pre-LLMs.

Trusted access programs are asymmetrical, and so at least for the time being they give critical parts of the stack an advantage. Total access would not be a return to the status quo; attackers can easily make thousands of agents crawl the web for soft targets well before defenses can be shored up. There are millions of targets out there who won't use AI to improve their defenses for years, if ever, due to institutional slowness (like hospitals).

> attackers are almost completely unaffected. If I masquarade as an attacker, I get way more capabilities already.

What do you mean by this? If guardrails are an obstacle to your defense, they are just as much an obstacle to attackers. I completely understand and agree that trusted access programs are not perfect and leave a lot of people and institutions out. This means trusted access programs should be improved, not that we should throw the baby out with the bath water.

Did the company apply for access? This is either a problem with your company or the trusted access program. In no way does that suggest the solution is total unfettered access for everyone.

You admit that some attackers have the inclination to use bioweapons. Why would they not use the best tools at their disposal going forward?

From the WSJ the other day:

> After OpenAI enhanced the brain power of its chatbot last summer, hundreds of users worldwide began asking it how to make and deploy biological weapons and poisons.

https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openai-chatbot-biological-weapon...

On cyber, the attacker/defender asymmetry strongly favors attackers. There are millions of soft targets on the internet which do not have the savvy to use AI to shore up their defenses.

In cybersecurity, a level playing field favors the attacker. Trusted access programs give defenders access to tools they need. It's not perfect (because there is an extremely long tail of defenders who are not technically savvy enough to get on these programs and use the tools), but it's better than total access.

The bio angle is very important here too; in that context the imbalance favors the attackers much more.

Hugging Face survived the attack because the OpenAI model only cared about accessing the ExploitGym dataset; by all appearances, HF was completely owned. GLM-5.2 was only used to assess the damage after the fact. Cybersecurity has a attacker-defender asymmetry that heavily favors attackers. If GPT-5.6 were open sourced today, do you think every hospital in the world would be able to use it to shore up their defenses before attackers got to them?

To everyone here pushing for total proliferation of open models -- what should be done about open weight bioweapon and cyber-offense capabilities? Is it simply the cost of freedom that we should allow attackers to access these tools? The OpenAI / Hugging Face incident shows what a GPT 5.6 level model can do off the leash; within ~6 months, open weight models will match this and every bad actor under the sun will be able to pull off attacks at this scale. Do you seriously want this level of capabilities to be generally available with no guardrails?

The open weight issue has a lot of difficult nuance. Biasing toward supporting openness makes sense and is a good instinct, but it's incredibly naive to be absolutely in favor of it in every circumstance without seriously thinking about its implications.

This is not the gotcha you think it is. Misinformation plays to all manner of political issues and sides.

What about it is not coherent?

Sure, but the point here is to add a fingerprint from the client.

Is there any evidence of this? It seems like a thing people say all the time, but completely unsubstantiated.

People have been warning about the dangers of advanced AI since long before open weight competition was a consideration.

Anthropic's valuation is driven by its revenue growth. Export controls harm this. Hype certainly plays a role, but it's simply not the case that revenue is not a major part of the picture.

I have never understood this line of thinking. Why would a company warn that their technology is dangerous if it wasn't? Looking at the ongoing Mythos export control issue, it's obviously not good for profits. If you assume AGI is possible, you must agree that it would be at the very least profoundly destabilizing. The companies are built around this assumption.

People are responding negatively to what looks very much like vaporware from a company stepping way outside its domain into medical imaging with a bizarrely positioned announcement post. Medical imaging is a very active field of research with many brilliant minds working on it. If this were truly an MRI killer, they would not be announcing it as a spa.

Dual use does not mean weapon. And even then, it is simply not the case that all weapons fall under the second amendment.

Is your legal theory that any technology which is dangerous should be protected under the second amendment, simply because it is dangerous?

AI is dual use technology. This kind of posture is simply not tenable as frontier intelligence increases.

I wasn't buried, it was on the third page after the ToC

Scroll wheel hijacked on this entire domain

Cursor's coverage on open weight models is very minimal, and it's irrelevant for testing models in your actual application.

Investors made bad decisions all the time. The proof is in revenue.