GLM 5.2 scored 77% on cyberbench vs Sol's 88%. GLM 5.2 is open weight and any hacker with a powerful enough machine can use it offensively. If Sol is supposedly world-ending-ly dangerous, shouldn't GLM 5.2 be 90% of world-ending-ly dangerous? Why aren't we seeing catastrophic GLM-enabled hacks every day now?

Obviously these benchmarks are imperfect but general message holds. The open weight models are almost as good and yet there hasn't been a catastrophe.

It just blows my mind that regulate-now folks think that a bunch of sci-fi movies and 100% unverified statements from OAI and Anthropic are sufficient evidence of imminent catastrophe to regulate willy nilly.

If that's the level of evidence you need to be extremely alarmed, then you really should be a lot more worried about the alien invasion in Independence Day or the lizard men living under our feet.

Sol is not world-endingly dangerous. I work at OpenAI and I've never heard a single person ever come close to claiming that. I think you're bashing a straw man here.

One can simultaneously believe:

- GPT-5.6 Sol will not end the world

- GPT-5.6 Sol does far more good than bad

- GPT-5.6 Sol does bad things on occasion, and it's worth investing a lot of effort to figure out how to make it do bad things less often, especially as models get more capable

> GLM 5.2 scored 77% on cyberbench vs Sol's 88%. GLM 5.2 is open weight and any hacker with a powerful enough machine can use it offensively. If Sol is supposedly world-ending-ly dangerous, shouldn't GLM 5.2 be 90% of world-ending-ly dangerous?

Clowns who can only process the world in naive linear terms really are going to be the death of us all...