If you seriously believed in that risk, you'd be calling for the regulation of computation at the same level as nuclear weapons, including destabilizing any country that pursues homegrown fab technology. If your proposal is:

- let our former employees review all of your work at your expense

- anoint us as the arbiters of what everyone else is allowed to do

- ban open research

Then you are not taking any of the examples your providing seriously. Otherwise you're essentially saying, to prevent people from making nukes at home, we should heavily restrict physics education and research instead of limiting access to uranium.

at least with GLM the banks can also use it to defend themselves for cheap, in the world Anthropic and co want everyone in the world is paying them an enormous sum in protection money every month to be allowed to defend themselves from hackers. it's such a racket.

GLM 5.2 was used by Hugging Face for defense when they were being hacked by OpenAI because the guardrails on closed models meant they refused to help.

>When someone wielding a non-safeguarded model deletes the money in everyone’s bank account

Even more reason to let people go wild with open models

> capable of wrecking the economy is a genuine problem

> model deletes the money in everyone’s bank account

If one were to actually believe this is the threat -- that open models pose an existential threat to human life (because that's what "wrecking the economy" means) -- then the response would be much more potent than mere "safeguards".

In that situation, the you'd have to: implement a secrets classification regime comparable to TS/SCI/SAP/Q; bring all computing manufacturers under strict controls on process and quotas, comparable to arms and pharma; implement a strict licensing regime and confiscate all computing with the capability to train or run models; implement strict controls on all hardware to enforce code execution; implement strict controls and licensure of all software development; and on and on and on.

Again, assuming the threat model you describe is plausible, any proposal less than this is just a regulatory capture grift.

> When someone wielding a non-safeguarded model deletes the money in everyone’s bank account, I look forward to the HN comments claiming it’s an attempt by Anthropic to pull off regulatory capture.

This statement portrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how the infrastructure which powers these systems work. Note: I am not saying there are no risks, I am just saying the risk you are focusing on is the least likely one of all I have seen people be upset by.

Far higher risks one could outline are:

1. Network-connected PLCs for big infrastructure (drinking water, sewage, power, etc) being tampered with.

2. Extremely persistent malware tailored for every permutation of hardware + software.

3. Cyber criminals improve in technical capabilities (phishing sites, scam calling, propaganda campaigns, etc).

But, the cork is out of the bottle on this one. With even basic models you can begin a loop of training specialized models on low cost hardware which can be used to do specific hacking tasks.

I don't know what the best antidote to this is but I doubt that it will be in limiting access to OSS models to people in the USA as all of the threats listed above come from *outside actors*.

found the anthropic shill, lol

Of all open models.

Oh boy! First time I got excited of the possibility of using Windows.