Hacker News Reader

Comment by lionkor | Hacker News Reader

This is how you do it when you're not AS childish. You go "here's a model for cybersecurity" and put a price on it. I know they're releasing it to some vendors first, etc. but the lack of a clown spectacle is nice.

The whole "it's too dangerous to release!" is complete hogwash.

A person can take a hammer, walk out in the street, and we can count how many people he can kill with the hammer before he is stopped. My local hardware store still sells hammers, and I haven't seen the CEO of it claim that their hammers are much more dangerous and it's totally going to end the world if you allow any random person to have one!

View on HN

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.

Did you see how close the non-sheltered available models come? They come quite close. Most people aren't even using them for this purpose, but they could, and this is our reality. This is why your argument fails.

Disagree. @lionkor compared them to a hammer, and @ragequittah is saying they're not like a hammer.

The narrow gap between downloadable and frontier models is tangential to this. If you want to expand on the "hammer" metaphor, the downloadable models are a small construction/demolitions firm, and the frontier models are a big construction/demolitions firm.

In this analogy, there's no training school or certifications for the staff either of them hire, and society is still working out what public liability requirements and planning permission laws are even though both companies are being hired all over the place, because everything they do was only invented a few years ago.

I wasn't talking about downloadable models though. GPT-5.5 and Opus 4.9 are what I would compare against. The article mentions GPT 5.5.

> big construction/demolitions firm

Like, e.g. the USACE

If the USACE was a private military company and local lords sometimes still did direct battle with each other without being told to stop by the king.

how do you think the states became united

They were told to stop by the king, the king was the one they didn't like.

But point made.

So the solution is... giving up? Let the technogods do whatever they please? Because we are not talking about storms and earthquakes, but about humans in power.

Who said anything about giving up? And giving up on what?

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?

No, because (and you're never going to believe this) there is regulation, laws, and it's being enforced.

Right... which is (and you're never going to believe this) what Anthropic is asking for

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.

I don't have a horse in the race, but these comments are remarkably toxic. This reminds me of the RTFM epidemic on early Stack overflow.

They look to be facts.

It's toxic to call out big companies fearmongering about how their AI is too smart to be accessable? And it's somehow comparable to telling newbies asking question to RTFM?

Really?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com