Hacker News

Why not stop paying for ChatGPT and Claude, then?

Like, seriously, while you can, invest in your own stack or find cloud alternatives.

If you actually want to use these products, the easiest way you will contribute to changing their money-grubbing minds about their policies and offerings, is to stop giving them yours.

Peace of mind and control of your destiny is worth a bit of cash. And there's seemingly little risk of any kit you buy radically depreciating in cost.

I am still really cynical about all of this BS but I must say I am fully impressed by the diligence and quality of some of the open source tooling — Unsloth Studio, Opencode, Paseo, Pi, etc.

And I look at it and think: putting aside local models (and I am not sure you should, even now), is this stuff really so inferior that it's worth risking a critical dependency on a commercial cloud product that might get switched off with no notice?

It is unfair and not useful at all.

If a criminal organisation (include here some countries) want to be deterred. We should all have access so we can improve security of our products.

Because the people that want to do evil, will do it anyway. They will build a myths, fables, and cyber clone.

I dislike the hypocrisy of it. Oeh ah it’s too dangerous, criminals can make use of this. But at the same time they themselves stole a whole lot of data to be trained on.

The problem is even worse than that. OpenAI and Anthropic have your source code and superior knowledge of its vulnerabilities. All you can do is hope that they won't one day use it against you.

It is super unfair

It creates a two tier system - those who have access and those who do not. Worse, it’s some corpo making the decision

I think using open weight models will solve this. I believe they are nearly caught up and much of the gains are in the harnesses or properly orchestration of subqueries. (I'm no expert, just my opinion).

When the open weight models catch up, if they don't get lobbied and banned by OpenAi and Anthropic, then you'll be able to use them to properly secure your software.

At least on their benchmark, the regular, public GPT-5.5 is basically at Mythos level already. (2% difference on CyberGym)

They didn't test Opus 4.8, but it probably isn't very far behind.

Surely what's coming is them offering to fix your vulnerabilities via higher-margin professional services?

take a look at this bug and the chain required to exploit it:

https://projectzero.google/2021/12/a-deep-dive-into-nso-zero...

https://projectzero.google/2022/03/forcedentry-sandbox-escap...

exploiting vulnerabilities on hardened targets isn't just in a different league from finding them, it is a different sport altogether.

put simply, it's the difference between an integer overflow leading to a sandbox escaping RCE and one that leads to a crash.

Codex Security and 5.5/5.6 are still very good finding vulnerable code -- they will identify and fix unsafe behavior, but they will refuse to help you with exploitation -- they will actively prevent you from taking any steps to weaponize the unsafe behavior that are not required to remediate it. they will err conservative here, but for the most part they will still let you discover and address a wide range and depth of vulnerabilities. you can verify yourself to turn off the most basic safeguards and sign up through a more rigorous process for a spectrum of TAC options.

obviously there is a balance here -- openai wants to empower defenders while at the same time not exposing capabilities to the adversaries that would overwhelm defenders. there is no "right" answer. it is a work in progress. this is an intentional and deliberate decision to provide defenders with a (temporary, dwindling) advantage.

the example i chose was pretty extreme, but the underlying principle -- enable visibility discovery and remediation, but make it difficult to weaponize and defeat countermeasures makes sense given the bigger picture, IMO.

this calm before the storm is not going to last for very long, and defenders need every advantage they can get to get their houses in order before these capabilities are widely commoditized.

  > and neither of them will let me use their best models for securing the software I work on.

I have Verified/Trusted Access on both of them and I don't even work in Cyber.

I filled it out as an individual using my own Org ID and I got accepted to both of them, lol.

Why is it unfair? Are you entitled to them? They released a product and you are paying for it. If you don't like the product, don't pay for it and don't use it.

Because while you may be a good actor, there are just as many bad actors out there.

How does Anthropic or OpenAI differentiate between the two?

Once you solve that, you can get access to Mythos ;)

While I appreciate the desire to have the best:

> Or I guess the inverse question: why aren't they allowed that audit?

There's undeniably a lot of unsecured software in the world.

Given that ID verification is hard and these companies are clearly new at it (or don't understand the implications of it, cough Worldcoin's eye-scanning orbs cough), which is worse:

(1) sufficiently good AI* is released to everyone: critical infrastructure and open source projects gets better hacking tools to white-hack their own code at exactly the same time as black hat hackers

(2) sufficiently good AI* is released to critical infrastructure and open source projects first: everyone else, the average paying customer has to wait but so too do the black hats

Because (2) is either the status quo or better depending on if you have access or not; and because (1) seems to me to lead to an acceleration of zero-days, I lean towards (1) being the worse.

* having no experience of pen-testing, I take no position on if this is "it" or not

Soon, very soon, if you will need something useful, like medical advice, financial advice, you will be told that, well, ok, but you need to pay for an "extended license" that gonna be in thousands of dollars per month, otherwise you need to hire someone who paid that money.

The only hope are Chinese models, as Chinese commies are playing a different game as long as they are behind the flagship models (but it will change soon, like with cheap Chinese cars) and maybe, finally, Europe will start working on their solutions, instead of regulations.

If you can buy a gun from a weapons manufacturer it doesn't mean they should also allow you to buy a rocket launcher.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. Paying for a service does not mean you get access to all potential services a provider offers. Providers can choose to keep some services internal.

Silly example: I pay Netflix for their most basic plan, so I get ads. Just because I already pay them money, doesn't mean I have a right to no ads! It also doesn't mean I have a right to 8k streaming; maybe Netflix reserves that for their internal cinema.

Why does paying for the max plan build the expectation that you get access to everything?

Why do you think you should have access…? People who pay enterprise API rates also don’t if this makes you feel better (it shouldn’t, you shouldn’t have felt bad in the first place)

There is so much to unpack here.

> Thus in the eyes of OpenAI I do not exist in regard to SOTA security models.

I'm not seeing anywhere it says it's only limited to the U.S. Only that they had 'ongoing dialogue' with them. Which reads weird to me, how can an ongoing dialogue be past tense? But I digress.

> We’ve had ongoing dialogue with the U.S. government about our cyber approach, including today’s announcements and on our preparation for upcoming model releases.

> Third, even if I did, I will not be able to pass KYC because the typical KYC requirements are strictly tailored to a certain subset of the world's population and lifestyle choices, tuned by Americans according to their world view.

KYC is just that, Know Your Customer, if your 'permitted customers' are security researchers in the industry with a proven identity of employment etc then that is the KYC process, I don't see any issues with that.

> even if I pass KYC, my account will be banned by OpenAI immediately on the first prompt because they have close to 1B users and couldn't care less about any single one of them

Why do you assume this? Are you planning on intentionally trying to do something actively nefarious ? It's such a strange take.

> Second, I will never ever do KYC with a company that provides text transformation services*

I guess you would also not provide KYC to a bank that provides number additions/subtractions between database rows services

>No one commenting on the fact that oAI is releasing a Claude Mythos-class model - with apparent 0 restrictions or concerns by the US government

We don't know that it is Mythos level, it could very well be at (guardrailed) Fable or below.

This is not a wide open distribution, this is only being provided to hand picked partners, similar to how Mythos was distributed (unlike Fable which had wider distribution)

The larger question, which I don't see an answer to in this post:

1) was this tested and validated by the US Government?

2) is the list of partners vetted by the US Government?

If This is "mythos-class" AND

   OpenAI approves SK Telecom as a trusted partner ( https://www.wired.com/story/sk-telecom-anthropic-mythos-export-controls/ ) 

   OpenAI did not get approval.

I feel like we’re all just operating on vibes at this point (including the government). These models are already powerful and could probably be used to do some bad things even without the next gen.

Anthropic has successfully made their vibe the bringers of the end of the world so please stop us. ChatGPT is in some weird middle ground where they’re no longer the evil company of a year ago and are trying to act like the mature one in the business. XAI is the vanity project of a jealous kid who wants to ignore anyone elses opinion but is falling behind. Gemini is viewed as the less cool cousin and no one pays attention to since google has generally avoided the end of the world talk (coincidentally I think gemini has the best non-coding model but no one seems to talk about that)

I think each company has been treated in the wider discourse based on their vibe and no one is operating on facts here since it’s all pretty obfuscated intentionally. I could see some things going very bad as a result of these models but I also don’t believe anyone who’s just pattern matching to their favorite scifi book here and we’re all playing into it. May as well go outside for a bit and enjoy the sun.

Also the fact that the president’s daughter, son in law, and his brother have a significant amount of their net worth invested in OpenAI via Thrive.

Entirely possible but let's give it some time to see if they try to make it GA and if the DoD sends them a letter.

Interesting beside the time when Anthropic were banned for not allowing the MoW to use claude to kill people, then OpenAI come in and swoop up the contract.

It's 1) Not mythos class 2) restricted to "security partners"

Maybe if Anthropic haven't called it too dangerous for public things could be different?

Do you think that Anthropic's models would have been pulled if they did not say for months how their models is basically going to break the whole internet and that governments should most definitely restrict AI? I doubt it.

The problem is, though, given Anthropic have said all of that, they really have very little grounds for objecting to the US government's intervention here. Everything that the government would have to prove to justify their intervention has already been freely admitted by Anthropic, even though the "admission" was maybe more intended as a marketing ploy.

Man, some of you will invent conspiracy theories to justify some deeply cynical fiction. OAI has been more proactive about doing customer KYC than A\.

OpenAI, four months ago, started to require users to verify their identity if they flagged their activities on frontier models (gpt-5.3-codex and higher) as risky. Their filters were originally quite coarse and it resulted in a ton of normal tasks being flagged. There was a lot of drama about it at the time, but it seems like things have smoothed out.

KYC goes back to a year or two ago. API access to gpt-image-1 required it.

https://openai.com/index/trusted-access-for-cyber/

Guess this is how capitalism works? The bestest example we might get from the original inventors so to say.

Why do you want to tax openai on anthropic's fud mistake?

Conspiracy theory. You should be shamed for this idea.

Mythos is a serious model; the NSA said it compromised them in hours.

This is a marketing article.

"Let’s just say that if complete and utter chaos was lightning, then he’d be the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armour and shouting 'All gods are bastards'."

This quote from Pratchett pretty well summarizes Anthropic marketing approach. OAI are quite more restrained in advertising their model's doomsday abilities which greatly diminishes the pretexts that USG can use.

Two things can both be true - that Trump's administration is petty and vindicative and that Anthropic are reckless and not doing their best in winning hearts and minds.

Do you mean full benchmarks? Because from the article they claim 85.6 for 5.5-Cyber vs. 83.8 for mythos on Cybergym.

If they won't, some consultant with a subscription eventually will.

Definitely a PR stunt that I had to reboot my boxen every other day in May for security patches

If that hammer could allow people to go into people's homes / work en masse, steal all their information, blackmail them, steal their identities, break their systems (including those of hospitals and other critical infrastructure) and generally help fund bad actors through it all we'd think of having restrictions on hammers too. A hammer can't screw people over by the millions.

I don't like this argument specifically with AI. Facial recognition everywhere you go is just a tool. Your job creating a detailed profile on exactly how you work, who you talk to, and about what is just a tool. The tools have become so good and easy to use we have to have serious discussions about them before things get out of hand.

The risk of catching federal charges, proper jail time and aggressive responses from law enforcement is a far more effective means of preventing malicious behavior than anything proposed so far.

I can go into stores that sell things that are much more dangerous than hammers (or frontier cyber models) and no one will give me a hard time about it.

Does your local store sell aerosolized anthrax?

It's amusing that what Anthropic does is basically:

1. Browse the internet

2. See what people hate about OpenAI

3. Adopt the worse version of it

4. Profit?

Sam Altman fearmongered about AI alignment - we fearmonger harder.

OpenAI is CloseAI now - we are even less open.

OpenAI is going to IPO - we IPO first.