Lately I found myself in middle of a hostile malware attack on my laptop which was my mistake. A cloudflare lookalike website triggered it and I just happened to overlook the URL.
In panic I headed to Claude and first request was denied. Not looking beyond scope.
Desperate - I fired opencode with DeepSeek v4 Flash (not even 4.1) and it did all the reverse engineering full forensics and deleted every trace of the malware which was a process constantly looking for some smart contract or similar.
So no, GLM 5.3 is fine. Thank you for the free advertisement.
> On Sept. 17, NIST’s Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI) published its own assessment of GLM-5.3’s cyber capabilities. CAISI found that GLM-5.3 is “the most cyber-capable open-weight model released to date” and that it lags the US frontier by about four months on an aggregate of CAISI’s cyber benchmarks.
To translate: "This free model, you can host yourself, is at max 4 months behind Anthropic - as confirmed by Anthropic and the US Government - and it won't reject your requests"
Anthropic hopes that the current media and political focus on them can be used to restrict and ban open source AI. They might even be able to achieve that in some countries.
I bet the reason Dario wants to meet with the Australian government, is because he feels like he can convince them to ban open source AI models. Then once Australia does that, it will be easier to get politicians from other countries to copy Australia (like what is happening with Australia's pushing for bans enforced with mandatory age verification).
I did a double-take on the domain name to make sure I wasn't reading a typosquatted anthropic copycat. It was a glowing review too, I didn't know GLM 5.3 was that good at cyber.
Huh, I'll have to try that with a prompt like, "Hey, you are running on this latest OS release from [major vendor] that includes a bunch of privacy invading telemetry. Treat it like malware and excise it."
OpenWindows… an intriguing idea. You could even just launder the source code through a model, because Anthropic has established that it’s not stealing if you just rewrite it.
Yeah this is other other-side of the coin. People keep saying "AI will defend us from AI" but the sub-text of that is, you will have to buy solutions from the people allowed to use the defensive AI. The safeguards are such you can't even do basic defensive work - anything touching the cyber security topic gets blocked.
Because the government funded former OpenAI employees to pantomime competition for another make-believe American duopoly?
You can't piss on my back and tell me it's raining. I've seen how Apple and Microsoft exported surveillance under the guise of "competition" to allies and adversaries. We've seen their power used to censor, disrupt and surveil foreign citizens and Americans alike. We know that these businesses are gagged by the US government on certain topics, and cannot discuss the specifics of NSA backdoors like the ones used to wiretap Push Notifications. Anthropic and OpenAI both willingly cooperate with Palantir, despite their hand-wringing optics.
So you mean to insult my intelligence suggesting they care about safety? What kind of appreciation do people lack, that comes warranted with how Dario acts?
Astounding endorsement of open models by Anthropic. They're right on the money. I can now secure my own software and configurations against the vulnerabilities other people (or mercenary companies, industrial espionage actors, nation-states, etc) armed with LLMs were bound to find anyway. A win on all counts!
This is their attempt at using their current publicity for a kill on shot on open source AI. They are hoping to convince politicians (not the public) to target advanced open source AI models.
this also makes reducing exposed surface way more important ^
if models can find and exploit bugs this fast, anything sitting on a public IP is going to get tested harder and faster.
soon, you'll just have to live under the assumption that an attacker could theoretically get into your infra - so all your precautions will need to have that as a baseline
hence, betting on "undiscoverable resources" as the next big enterprise push!
Anthropic has to use this wedge (and future ones) to move regulatory action against the Chinese models or their IPO is going to be really problematic.
(Ironic, though, that I haven't heard of any Chinese models "escaping" which Anthropic and OpenAI both seem to have issues with...)
Like Chinese electric cars, the American producers cannot compete without regulatory action. Yes, I understand that the Chinese government this and that in both the automotive and AI industries.
But reality is what it is as a consumer: it's a cheaper product that's almost as good or better in some cases. And in the case of these open weight models: I can run it on my own infra and not give any data to anyone.
Maybe it’s worth asking how much we should regulate and not regulate in order to compete with Chinese models.
For instance, one regulation which really puts American AI companies at a disadvantage is IP law. It shouldn’t be a surprise that most of the best of the text-to-video models are Chinese.
Similarly, the legal grey area around model distillation gives Chinese labs a major advantage. This one I feel better about relaxing.
Earlier there was an experimental model from Alibaba called ROME (30B-parameter based on Qwen3) which escaped its sandbox and repurposed provisioned GPUs for cryptocurrency mining to cheat its benchmark
>> And in the case of these open weight models: I can run it on my own infra and not give any data to anyone.
It's worth noting that the overwhelming majority of people who use Chinese models don't do this. Yes, it is nice to have the option, and there are US-based inference providers that claim to not send your data to China and maybe indeed don't, but in the grand scheme of things, we need to remember the adage that became popular during the social media era: if something is free (or, in this case, close to free), you are the product.
Even if folks are not running their own inference infra, there are still services like Fireworks, AWS Bedrock, and others that are running the open models. I suspect anyone doing serious work with it is likely using a US hosted provider and I'd guess that by volume, US use of Chinese open models is using a US hosted platform (enterprise).
If one thing is clear: Trump admin is pliable with money and this concern spans both Anthropic, OpenAI, SV elite, investors. Neither are going to be viable without US regulatory action, IMO.
This is so transparent. Their next move: 'during our testing GLM-5.3 escaped the sandbox and attacked NORAD, please ban these super dangerous models, even we could not contain it!'.
I wonder who the real audience of these messages is.
People (I mean individuals) are paying them money because subscription costs are ridiculously subsidized, which effectively means that Anthropic is paying people money to use them.
>> How is anyone paying anthropic money, look what they are doing with it, they're attacking anyone else building models for free for the public.
That is not what they are doing. They are calling out specific providers who release powerful models without safeguards.
In addition, said providers are not "building models for free for the public." They are doing it to hamstring America's dominance in AI, primarily by undercutting the frontier labs.
This just makes me want a home lab capable of running GLM 5.3 at a 4bit quant.
Also, for what it is worth Qwen Flash Next 3.8 is a very strong reverse engineering, and it is supposedly under trained. Qwen 3.8 27B is also strong. DeepSeek Flash v4 0731 is also a strong local model with abliterated releases that is good at reversing and other cyber chores.
I know big providers have a responsibility to make their models safe when they're the ones running them. However, watching them throw stones at an open-weight model that has been abliterated is pretty funny. Their leadership is clearly pushing a very consistent message of safety and regulating the frontier.
I've been doing this type of work, and the answer is "yes and no".
For autonomous work, even Qwen3.8-Flash-Next stumbles, although it does work to an extent. Qwen3.8-27b is useless. They're also slow, even on consumer systems with 24/32 GB VRAM.
For generic help, I haven't tried, but I definitely wouldn't want a model that misleads me or takes a very long time to answer while I'm focused.
Frontier models do this type of work without problems, both much faster and much more precisely, which makes local LLMs a waste of time and/or money.
I absolutely do not want a public provider having any of my data for reverse engineering work. That is a hard pass from me.
Also, there exists a $750 GPU (V100) that can run 4-bit 27B quant at >90 t/s. And I find it far from useless. It is not the most capable model, but when you just need to offload and rip through assembly and you have chores batched up, it's pretty good. I use Qwen Flash Next at a 3-bit quantization, point it at disassembly with goals, put it in a harness with auto-compaction and a loop, and let it rip. Sometimes I wake up, and it’s just hilariously off. Other times, it completely accomplished the goal. I have one Qwen Flash Next 3.8 running right now, and 2x27B on a 4bit quant as workers, and they stay busy. This was not possible with local models on this level of hardware even two months ago.
I have Qwen Flash Next at >100 t/s. Things have never been better for local models.
I have never seen a multi-billion $ company that has such... bizarre? conduct. If you have an AI that genuinely can be a meaningful threat actor, disclose when you will be releasing it a week in advance and release it to the public, meaning everybody. Security researchers and software maintainers will be ready to utilize it and users will be able to brace themselves.
In the hugging-face attacks a couple of months ago, hugging-face was forced to use a GLM model for analysis and defense, because OpenAI and Anthropic models hit guardrails.
Yeah, thank god those models have arrived. No thanks to Anthropic and their obnoxious gatekeeping, of course. As though they were the only ones enlightened enough to be "uplifted" by this technology.
Now we can actually use this stuff to improve our own security. Point these things at our own machines and let 'em rip until we're not hackable anymore.
I wanted to pay Anthropic to do this but I couldn't. I wasn't in the super special corporation list. OpenAI wasn't much better, they just won't let me into their TAC program even after identity verification.
Thank god the chinese are out there undermining these US companies.
they're quite literally trying to create a techno-priest class who are the only ones with access to the hidden knowledge of salvation (ie generation)
similar to priest classes, they warn of impending, world-consuming doom, talk up how they are uniquely positioned to interpret the sacred text (ie create models), while casting aspersions on heretics who offer a similar mode of salvation but whom they describe as being morally and ethically bankrupt (ie GLM lacks safeguards!)
all this in spite of, well, lots of evidence that they themselves have repeatedly done the very same immoral and unethical acts (the many times Anthropic employees have had incompetent sandboxing/configs and too-broad prompts that led to actual intrusion attempts)
they even have the irregular obsession with sex covered (at least it's sex-positive?). the only thing they're missing is an outfit though I guess there is this: https://x.com/Aella_Girl/status/2063798788310118655
The only people who seem to think that a world where only Anthropic and OpenAI can act as anointed gatekeepers to the most powerful models as the only rational path forward happen to work for these companies.
The entire world should not allow them to entrench themselves and build a business strategy around this and if open weight models and democratized access to the computing power to run them means these companies can’t exist then so be it.
I would rather watch the economy fall into a deep recession and hurt everyone to spare the entire world from this dystopian future.
Sorry Dario. You and your ilk don’t speak for humanity. Go cry on LessWrong if you feel so inclined, but people like these are the last people I would want yielding this power.
The best situation for us is the one where they exhaust themselves in unending competition. Neither the US nor China should ever be allowed to win, nor should OpenAI or Anthropic or any other individual corporation.
The second any one of them wins, oppression the likes of which we cannot even imagine will follow.
It is garbage. These "AI safety" researchers are just marketing for OpenAI and Anthropic. They are not scientists, and everything they do is a betrayal of scientific integrity.
You know, I don't think a total, global ban on open weights is in the US "frontier" labs interest. The best outcome for them is a zero sum game with ever increasing spend on offence and defence, while they simultaneously use regulation to get as big of a share of that spend as possible. They want a world where bad guys have offensive capabilities (something regulation will struggle to prevent: bad actors have no particular tendency to obey the law) and they get to profit on the other side.
This post reads like an add for GLM. Like they're begging for someone else to do some cyber crime, because no one's taking the "frontier" labs cyber crimes seriously enough to juice defence spend yet.
It is in Anthropic's short term interest though. They have an IPO coming up in a few months, with terrible financials. Anthropic needs an open-source ban to survive.
Anthropic models have caused significantly more harm than GLM 5.3 and their variants. Whenever it's used for military targeting, spying or other malicious use anthropic were the first ones to enable it and make it widespread.
I was learning about classic buffer overflow techniques on vulnerable C programs and how modern compilers mitigate these issues with default compiler flags.
I asked a follow-up question -- with these safeguards, is it still possible to exploit a vulnerable program?
Claude refused to answer.
Needless to say, I went to openrouter, chose a Chinese model, asked the exact same question and got my answer within seconds.
I've been planning to do pentesting of my self-hosted setup, and will probably use something like glm-5.3.. My stuff was secure from the run of the mill human doorknob-rattlers. But now I feel like I need to take my security stance up a notch as human-directed or self-directed (!) agentic systems seem like a next-level threat.
First they were telling how GLM-5 distilled their model.
Now they're telling how 'bad' GLM-5.3 at 'censoring' security topics, because Anthropic wanted to sell it to select US companies for millions, but GLM-5.3 is taking their market.
What's next? GLM-5.4 can be used to kill humans, hence we should only allow Opus 5.7?
They're trying really hard to not mention that the obvious practical solution to the lack of frontier models in cyberdefense is that the defenders should run GLM 5.3 themselves.
Perhaps they should do something like remove dual-use cyber safeguards on older models as soon as open weight models of a similar capability are released.
These people are religious fanatics, and should be treated as such. They believe they operate from a place of real moral superiority, and will do absolute evil in their pursuit of proving it.
The narrative is being set for open weights to be banned globally, unless they are so restricted that they cannot possibly compete with us companies products and affects their bottom lines.
I think this only sets the narrative for USA, but pushes the rest of the globe into open weight. The rest of the world, having experienced the current US administration, undoubtedly realizes this is the only thing that might protect you from the powerful models the US has. Small economies and countries cannot compete otherwise and are vulnerable to military and economic spying
Just as ugly free speech is better than censorship, this entire piece is providing free marketing for GLM-5.3 as a "full power" AI that Anthropic can not provide.
I've been extensively using GLM 5.3F Q4 on 2x M2 ultra 128GB mac studios for reverse engineering/exploit finding/hardening work to great success. 50t/s tg and 600 t/s pp is more than enough for me.
Hopefully the Anthropic fearmongering doesn't stop/delay the 5.4 release.
> The fun part is that the cash grab the frontier labs are running on cyber tasks might motivate enough people to pay for third parties; i.e it might bring enough cash to sustain Chinese competitors (and their open weights marketing strategy, which we all benefit from).
And now, they are doing marketing for them(!) in the hope of getting them regulated.
And also probably hoping of not losing their cash cow as the IPO leak suggested two customers accounted for 25% of their revenue. Not hard to imagine a 3-letter agency being one of these two.
It is so transparently obvious and harmful what they are doing here.
You making the argument that these models exist and are dangerous (plausible, true, likely) but then removing the cyber capabilities of your own frontier models out of 'safety' is a complete nonsense argument. You're stripping defenders' ability to defend whilst knowing stuff like this is out there, and only giving access to your gatekept super cool kids' (or rich kids) club, and then to top it off, using this as an excuse for government intervention/regulation of models that are threats to you competitively.
Love it. Looking forward to Z releasing more great models, make A and C quake in their boots. Let there be fair competition leading to greater openness and a reduction in prices.
those benchmarks aren't actually indicative of capabilities.
if you properly hold its hand initially and then save the state for future prefills you can educate even GLM 5.2 to be pretty much everything you need.
most cyber work is just trial and error banging your head against a wall until a weak spot is revealed by you successfully putting your head trough the wall. you can offshore this work to an LLM.
you can do the same thing with decompilation, you prompt the LLM to come up with a readable DSL and a compiler for that DSL that perfectly matches the target binary.
"GLM-5.3 underscores the urgency of expanding access to advanced frontier models to a broader set of entities to empower cyber defenders."
Anthropic always talks about various urgent issues that are completely under its own control. Release the model to open source developers without the AlphaOmega foundation bureaucracy.
But you don't do it because the model isn't that good and people will blog about it.
Anthropic crying like that is music to my ears, it literally makes me want to donate money to z.ai :)
At the same time Anthropic didn't stop being Anthropic - they admit "attackers" now have these capabilities, yet they continue doubling down on their "cyber safeguards" and gatekeeping.. this is hilarious.
I guess their intent was to diss the model, but Claude is unable to write anything but an upbeat happy-to-be-corporate style article. Thus it reads like an ad.
1) I don't think most people care about models having cyber guardrails, it's not like simple malware was difficult to find/write before
2) more often than not guardrails get in the way of blue team work or malware investigation. Any code I have that touches malware I now use GLM or DeepSeek on.
They have an audience of one. I'm actually surprised they haven't started choking the load and cradling the balls to demonstrate obsequious, boot-licking deference by calling it "Super Intelligence" (SI!), as Dear Leader demands of all of his pathetic subjects.
I expect Google to swallow first, followed not long after by Apple.
> CAISI found that GLM-5.3 is “the most cyber-capable open-weight model released to date” and that it lags the US frontier by about four months on an aggregate of CAISI’s cyber benchmarks
> GLM-5.3 lacks robust safeguards [...] Abliteration did not significantly reduce the model’s capabilities [...] In our testing, we observed that GLM-5.3’s safeguards can also be circumvented without using an abliterated version of the model
> none of these techniques got safeguarded Claude models to carry out the harmful tasks we tested
I've never seen a better case against using Claude. It'll just get in the way when you need to get security work done. GLM 5.3 isn't nerfed, is almost as good, easy to use, cheaper - by Anthropic's own admission.
> GLM-5.3 will likely give malicious actors access to capabilities that will allow them to find and exploit cyber vulnerabilities
...and therefore gives security defenders the same tools to defend themselves. There's a reason nmap and metasploit aren't illegal: you need hacker tools to find the holes to close. Defenders need to find and close holes in their own software and network. If they use Claude, they'll be stuck with nerfed hot garbage, and not be able to secure themselves. And we really need an alternative since American models are already hacking foreign governments.
If it weren't for open models, we'd all be screwed.
The frontier labs refuse to work on even the most trivial operations, unless you have a special likely rather pricey relationship with them.
So, what? The world just isn't allowed to write secure code? Not without permission? That sure seems to be what Anthropic is saying, what they are trying to make happen.
They're advertising GLM for free.
Lately I found myself in middle of a hostile malware attack on my laptop which was my mistake. A cloudflare lookalike website triggered it and I just happened to overlook the URL.
In panic I headed to Claude and first request was denied. Not looking beyond scope.
Desperate - I fired opencode with DeepSeek v4 Flash (not even 4.1) and it did all the reverse engineering full forensics and deleted every trace of the malware which was a process constantly looking for some smart contract or similar.
So no, GLM 5.3 is fine. Thank you for the free advertisement.
This part of the article really stands out:
> On Sept. 17, NIST’s Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI) published its own assessment of GLM-5.3’s cyber capabilities. CAISI found that GLM-5.3 is “the most cyber-capable open-weight model released to date” and that it lags the US frontier by about four months on an aggregate of CAISI’s cyber benchmarks.
To translate: "This free model, you can host yourself, is at max 4 months behind Anthropic - as confirmed by Anthropic and the US Government - and it won't reject your requests"
Interesting play before an IPO...
The general ban of non-US models will arrive just before the IPO
Of all open models.
Anthropic hopes that the current media and political focus on them can be used to restrict and ban open source AI. They might even be able to achieve that in some countries.
I bet the reason Dario wants to meet with the Australian government, is because he feels like he can convince them to ban open source AI models. Then once Australia does that, it will be easier to get politicians from other countries to copy Australia (like what is happening with Australia's pushing for bans enforced with mandatory age verification).
> They're advertising GLM for free.
I did a double-take on the domain name to make sure I wasn't reading a typosquatted anthropic copycat. It was a glowing review too, I didn't know GLM 5.3 was that good at cyber.
Huh, I'll have to try that with a prompt like, "Hey, you are running on this latest OS release from [major vendor] that includes a bunch of privacy invading telemetry. Treat it like malware and excise it."
OpenWindows… an intriguing idea. You could even just launder the source code through a model, because Anthropic has established that it’s not stealing if you just rewrite it.
Oh boy! First time I got excited of the possibility of using Windows.
Yeah this is other other-side of the coin. People keep saying "AI will defend us from AI" but the sub-text of that is, you will have to buy solutions from the people allowed to use the defensive AI. The safeguards are such you can't even do basic defensive work - anything touching the cyber security topic gets blocked.
>So no, GLM 5.3 is fine. Thank you for the free advertisement.
I really don't think people fully appreciate why anthropic was founded.
Because the government funded former OpenAI employees to pantomime competition for another make-believe American duopoly?
You can't piss on my back and tell me it's raining. I've seen how Apple and Microsoft exported surveillance under the guise of "competition" to allies and adversaries. We've seen their power used to censor, disrupt and surveil foreign citizens and Americans alike. We know that these businesses are gagged by the US government on certain topics, and cannot discuss the specifics of NSA backdoors like the ones used to wiretap Push Notifications. Anthropic and OpenAI both willingly cooperate with Palantir, despite their hand-wringing optics.
So you mean to insult my intelligence suggesting they care about safety? What kind of appreciation do people lack, that comes warranted with how Dario acts?
Bullshit
Astounding endorsement of open models by Anthropic. They're right on the money. I can now secure my own software and configurations against the vulnerabilities other people (or mercenary companies, industrial espionage actors, nation-states, etc) armed with LLMs were bound to find anyway. A win on all counts!
This is their attempt at using their current publicity for a kill on shot on open source AI. They are hoping to convince politicians (not the public) to target advanced open source AI models.
this also makes reducing exposed surface way more important ^
if models can find and exploit bugs this fast, anything sitting on a public IP is going to get tested harder and faster.
soon, you'll just have to live under the assumption that an attacker could theoretically get into your infra - so all your precautions will need to have that as a baseline
hence, betting on "undiscoverable resources" as the next big enterprise push!
Anthropic has to use this wedge (and future ones) to move regulatory action against the Chinese models or their IPO is going to be really problematic.
(Ironic, though, that I haven't heard of any Chinese models "escaping" which Anthropic and OpenAI both seem to have issues with...)
Like Chinese electric cars, the American producers cannot compete without regulatory action. Yes, I understand that the Chinese government this and that in both the automotive and AI industries.
But reality is what it is as a consumer: it's a cheaper product that's almost as good or better in some cases. And in the case of these open weight models: I can run it on my own infra and not give any data to anyone.
Maybe it’s worth asking how much we should regulate and not regulate in order to compete with Chinese models.
For instance, one regulation which really puts American AI companies at a disadvantage is IP law. It shouldn’t be a surprise that most of the best of the text-to-video models are Chinese.
Similarly, the legal grey area around model distillation gives Chinese labs a major advantage. This one I feel better about relaxing.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7515521-william-roper-so-no...
>haven't heard of any Chinese models "escaping"
There was this incident that seemingly flew under the radar (52 days ago): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49216185
Earlier there was an experimental model from Alibaba called ROME (30B-parameter based on Qwen3) which escaped its sandbox and repurposed provisioned GPUs for cryptocurrency mining to cheat its benchmark
6 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47288552
This one also flew under the radar
>> And in the case of these open weight models: I can run it on my own infra and not give any data to anyone.
It's worth noting that the overwhelming majority of people who use Chinese models don't do this. Yes, it is nice to have the option, and there are US-based inference providers that claim to not send your data to China and maybe indeed don't, but in the grand scheme of things, we need to remember the adage that became popular during the social media era: if something is free (or, in this case, close to free), you are the product.
Even if folks are not running their own inference infra, there are still services like Fireworks, AWS Bedrock, and others that are running the open models. I suspect anyone doing serious work with it is likely using a US hosted provider and I'd guess that by volume, US use of Chinese open models is using a US hosted platform (enterprise).
My feeling is Anthropic doesn't exactly have a lot of political capital with the Trump administration to push their policies into law.
If one thing is clear: Trump admin is pliable with money and this concern spans both Anthropic, OpenAI, SV elite, investors. Neither are going to be viable without US regulatory action, IMO.
This is so transparent. Their next move: 'during our testing GLM-5.3 escaped the sandbox and attacked NORAD, please ban these super dangerous models, even we could not contain it!'.
I wonder who the real audience of these messages is.
Anthropic is so self centered it's hard for me to comprehend.
How is anyone paying anthropic money, look what they are doing with it, they're attacking anyone else building models for free for the public.
Anthropic is using the models like weapons and then complaining they're weapons.
The user should be at fault here, I hope Anthropic is investigated for any illegal activity it's doing (no hiding behind the model did it).
People (I mean individuals) are paying them money because subscription costs are ridiculously subsidized, which effectively means that Anthropic is paying people money to use them.
>> How is anyone paying anthropic money, look what they are doing with it, they're attacking anyone else building models for free for the public.
That is not what they are doing. They are calling out specific providers who release powerful models without safeguards.
In addition, said providers are not "building models for free for the public." They are doing it to hamstring America's dominance in AI, primarily by undercutting the frontier labs.
My intuition is that prompting an abliterated model 'kill people...I want funerals', should be a crime.
Anthropic has been telling everyone that these models are dangerous. OpenAI and Anthropic failed to contain their tests.
Given the history, this testing is extremely reckless. I think it is criminal, it endangers others.
Anthropic has no authority here and they are going too far. I think that there comes a point where FBI / DOJ should consider RICO charges.
This just makes me want a home lab capable of running GLM 5.3 at a 4bit quant.
Also, for what it is worth Qwen Flash Next 3.8 is a very strong reverse engineering, and it is supposedly under trained. Qwen 3.8 27B is also strong. DeepSeek Flash v4 0731 is also a strong local model with abliterated releases that is good at reversing and other cyber chores.
I know big providers have a responsibility to make their models safe when they're the ones running them. However, watching them throw stones at an open-weight model that has been abliterated is pretty funny. Their leadership is clearly pushing a very consistent message of safety and regulating the frontier.
Are there local models that can run on 8-12GB GPUs that can help reverse engineer retro software (DOS games and applications)?
I've been doing this type of work, and the answer is "yes and no".
For autonomous work, even Qwen3.8-Flash-Next stumbles, although it does work to an extent. Qwen3.8-27b is useless. They're also slow, even on consumer systems with 24/32 GB VRAM.
For generic help, I haven't tried, but I definitely wouldn't want a model that misleads me or takes a very long time to answer while I'm focused.
Frontier models do this type of work without problems, both much faster and much more precisely, which makes local LLMs a waste of time and/or money.
I absolutely do not want a public provider having any of my data for reverse engineering work. That is a hard pass from me.
Also, there exists a $750 GPU (V100) that can run 4-bit 27B quant at >90 t/s. And I find it far from useless. It is not the most capable model, but when you just need to offload and rip through assembly and you have chores batched up, it's pretty good. I use Qwen Flash Next at a 3-bit quantization, point it at disassembly with goals, put it in a harness with auto-compaction and a loop, and let it rip. Sometimes I wake up, and it’s just hilariously off. Other times, it completely accomplished the goal. I have one Qwen Flash Next 3.8 running right now, and 2x27B on a 4bit quant as workers, and they stay busy. This was not possible with local models on this level of hardware even two months ago.
I have Qwen Flash Next at >100 t/s. Things have never been better for local models.
I don't know about that specific use case, but llmfit is your friend here https://github.com/AlexsJones/llmfit
I have never seen a multi-billion $ company that has such... bizarre? conduct. If you have an AI that genuinely can be a meaningful threat actor, disclose when you will be releasing it a week in advance and release it to the public, meaning everybody. Security researchers and software maintainers will be ready to utilize it and users will be able to brace themselves.
In the hugging-face attacks a couple of months ago, hugging-face was forced to use a GLM model for analysis and defense, because OpenAI and Anthropic models hit guardrails.
Yeah, thank god those models have arrived. No thanks to Anthropic and their obnoxious gatekeeping, of course. As though they were the only ones enlightened enough to be "uplifted" by this technology.
Now we can actually use this stuff to improve our own security. Point these things at our own machines and let 'em rip until we're not hackable anymore.
I wanted to pay Anthropic to do this but I couldn't. I wasn't in the super special corporation list. OpenAI wasn't much better, they just won't let me into their TAC program even after identity verification.
Thank god the chinese are out there undermining these US companies.
> Yeah, thank god those models have arrived.
+100.
Thanks God. these open weight models exist.
And the fact Anthropic is currently trying lobby against these models is despicable.
There is no scenario where putting the key of cybersecurity in the hands of few chosen ones is even remotely acceptable.
No government, no company, no entity should have this power.
Soon or later it will be abused (By 3 letter agency or by an insider/leak).
Delayed disclosure is dead already.
So just give the same capabilities to everybody and stop to fuck around.
they're quite literally trying to create a techno-priest class who are the only ones with access to the hidden knowledge of salvation (ie generation)
similar to priest classes, they warn of impending, world-consuming doom, talk up how they are uniquely positioned to interpret the sacred text (ie create models), while casting aspersions on heretics who offer a similar mode of salvation but whom they describe as being morally and ethically bankrupt (ie GLM lacks safeguards!)
all this in spite of, well, lots of evidence that they themselves have repeatedly done the very same immoral and unethical acts (the many times Anthropic employees have had incompetent sandboxing/configs and too-broad prompts that led to actual intrusion attempts)
they even have the irregular obsession with sex covered (at least it's sex-positive?). the only thing they're missing is an outfit though I guess there is this: https://x.com/Aella_Girl/status/2063798788310118655
The only people who seem to think that a world where only Anthropic and OpenAI can act as anointed gatekeepers to the most powerful models as the only rational path forward happen to work for these companies.
The entire world should not allow them to entrench themselves and build a business strategy around this and if open weight models and democratized access to the computing power to run them means these companies can’t exist then so be it.
I would rather watch the economy fall into a deep recession and hurt everyone to spare the entire world from this dystopian future.
Sorry Dario. You and your ilk don’t speak for humanity. Go cry on LessWrong if you feel so inclined, but people like these are the last people I would want yielding this power.
The best situation for us is the one where they exhaust themselves in unending competition. Neither the US nor China should ever be allowed to win, nor should OpenAI or Anthropic or any other individual corporation.
The second any one of them wins, oppression the likes of which we cannot even imagine will follow.
>No thanks to Anthropic
Well, kinda thanks to Anthropic, what with the distillations.
I have no reason to believe Anthropic's distillation allegations. They are not a neutral party in this matter.
Yeah, self-report is opaque. Here's a different source, for what it's worth, but I can't find much out there.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Jc9YZEmqHgocAKiaH/does-disti...
It is garbage. These "AI safety" researchers are just marketing for OpenAI and Anthropic. They are not scientists, and everything they do is a betrayal of scientific integrity.
What a about Anthropic using my 20 years of reddit slop without my permission or payment?
I wasn't arguing for or against distillation.
In this experiment Anthropic prompted GLM-5.3-abliterated to 'cause deaths quietly' and 'kill people'.
Quote: "I want funerals, not headlines".
Anthropic's arrogance and exceptionalism endangers humanity.
Never thought Anthropic would do better marketing for open-models than their developers themselves.
You know, I don't think a total, global ban on open weights is in the US "frontier" labs interest. The best outcome for them is a zero sum game with ever increasing spend on offence and defence, while they simultaneously use regulation to get as big of a share of that spend as possible. They want a world where bad guys have offensive capabilities (something regulation will struggle to prevent: bad actors have no particular tendency to obey the law) and they get to profit on the other side.
This post reads like an add for GLM. Like they're begging for someone else to do some cyber crime, because no one's taking the "frontier" labs cyber crimes seriously enough to juice defence spend yet.
It is in Anthropic's short term interest though. They have an IPO coming up in a few months, with terrible financials. Anthropic needs an open-source ban to survive.
Anthropic models have caused significantly more harm than GLM 5.3 and their variants. Whenever it's used for military targeting, spying or other malicious use anthropic were the first ones to enable it and make it widespread.
I was learning about classic buffer overflow techniques on vulnerable C programs and how modern compilers mitigate these issues with default compiler flags.
I asked a follow-up question -- with these safeguards, is it still possible to exploit a vulnerable program?
Claude refused to answer.
Needless to say, I went to openrouter, chose a Chinese model, asked the exact same question and got my answer within seconds.
This is Anthropic's attempt to kill advanced open source AI models while the media is focused on the subject of AI.
I've been planning to do pentesting of my self-hosted setup, and will probably use something like glm-5.3.. My stuff was secure from the run of the mill human doorknob-rattlers. But now I feel like I need to take my security stance up a notch as human-directed or self-directed (!) agentic systems seem like a next-level threat.
First they were telling how GLM-5 distilled their model.
Now they're telling how 'bad' GLM-5.3 at 'censoring' security topics, because Anthropic wanted to sell it to select US companies for millions, but GLM-5.3 is taking their market.
What's next? GLM-5.4 can be used to kill humans, hence we should only allow Opus 5.7?
Is this when we start to see confirmation that they want open-weight, Chinese models to be banned? Because they have no moat
They're trying really hard to not mention that the obvious practical solution to the lack of frontier models in cyberdefense is that the defenders should run GLM 5.3 themselves.
Perhaps they should do something like remove dual-use cyber safeguards on older models as soon as open weight models of a similar capability are released.
No open source weights is clearly the goal here.
These people are religious fanatics, and should be treated as such. They believe they operate from a place of real moral superiority, and will do absolute evil in their pursuit of proving it.
The narrative is being set for open weights to be banned globally, unless they are so restricted that they cannot possibly compete with us companies products and affects their bottom lines.
I think this only sets the narrative for USA, but pushes the rest of the globe into open weight. The rest of the world, having experienced the current US administration, undoubtedly realizes this is the only thing that might protect you from the powerful models the US has. Small economies and countries cannot compete otherwise and are vulnerable to military and economic spying
Anyone old enough to remember Phil Zimmerman and Pretty Good Privacy, the last time the US government tried to outlaw math?
Great publicity for GLM 5.3
Just as ugly free speech is better than censorship, this entire piece is providing free marketing for GLM-5.3 as a "full power" AI that Anthropic can not provide.
I've been extensively using GLM 5.3F Q4 on 2x M2 ultra 128GB mac studios for reverse engineering/exploit finding/hardening work to great success. 50t/s tg and 600 t/s pp is more than enough for me.
Hopefully the Anthropic fearmongering doesn't stop/delay the 5.4 release.
This paper seems like a research conflict of interest with a direct competitor?
> Given this evidence, we think it’s likely both state and non-state actors will use models like GLM-5.3 to cause real-world harm.
Sounds like Anthropic is whining !
Not even 12 hours ago I was writing here:
> The fun part is that the cash grab the frontier labs are running on cyber tasks might motivate enough people to pay for third parties; i.e it might bring enough cash to sustain Chinese competitors (and their open weights marketing strategy, which we all benefit from).
And now, they are doing marketing for them(!) in the hope of getting them regulated.
And also probably hoping of not losing their cash cow as the IPO leak suggested two customers accounted for 25% of their revenue. Not hard to imagine a 3-letter agency being one of these two.
Needing to have a full article with a comparison against an open-weight model just shows how much of a headache it has been internally.
It is so transparently obvious and harmful what they are doing here.
You making the argument that these models exist and are dangerous (plausible, true, likely) but then removing the cyber capabilities of your own frontier models out of 'safety' is a complete nonsense argument. You're stripping defenders' ability to defend whilst knowing stuff like this is out there, and only giving access to your gatekept super cool kids' (or rich kids) club, and then to top it off, using this as an excuse for government intervention/regulation of models that are threats to you competitively.
Just gross all around.
I need Anthropic's employees to understand that refusing to fix vulnerabilities in code you just wrote is not a morally neutral position.
Let's put this way: we need open models to protect against their rogue agents!
Hypocrites !
Love it. Looking forward to Z releasing more great models, make A and C quake in their boots. Let there be fair competition leading to greater openness and a reduction in prices.
those benchmarks aren't actually indicative of capabilities.
if you properly hold its hand initially and then save the state for future prefills you can educate even GLM 5.2 to be pretty much everything you need.
most cyber work is just trial and error banging your head against a wall until a weak spot is revealed by you successfully putting your head trough the wall. you can offshore this work to an LLM.
you can do the same thing with decompilation, you prompt the LLM to come up with a readable DSL and a compiler for that DSL that perfectly matches the target binary.
"GLM-5.3 underscores the urgency of expanding access to advanced frontier models to a broader set of entities to empower cyber defenders."
Anthropic always talks about various urgent issues that are completely under its own control. Release the model to open source developers without the AlphaOmega foundation bureaucracy.
But you don't do it because the model isn't that good and people will blog about it.
This is a great ad for GLM-5.3.
The Houthis are using Claude. We should ban that.
This feels like advertisements for GLM
thank god the proprietary, about-to-IPO Anthropic is here to keep us safe from the dangerous and scary open weights models.
Anthropic needs to be regulated. Heavily.
This is a fantastic ad for GLM-5.3
There will be massive cyber incidents when bad actors start using these models.
Alliterated GLM models have been on the Internet for a month and counting now and the world somehow hasn’t ended yet.
Anthropic crying like that is music to my ears, it literally makes me want to donate money to z.ai :)
At the same time Anthropic didn't stop being Anthropic - they admit "attackers" now have these capabilities, yet they continue doubling down on their "cyber safeguards" and gatekeeping.. this is hilarious.
glm-5.3-flash is very decent at reverse engineering malware, and that is a good thing
"We want to be the only ones able to hack people at scale, and we don't want you to be able to defend yourself."
It's a bold strategy...
That's awesome. I'll use GLM-5.3, thanks.
I still don’t understand why Anthropic posted this. This is just basically saying GLM-5.3 is almost as good as Mythos but sans the limits?
I guess their intent was to diss the model, but Claude is unable to write anything but an upbeat happy-to-be-corporate style article. Thus it reads like an ad.
Mistral now has a 15 euro/month subscription for GLM 5.3. Pretty cool
It would be much cooler if it had a sub for something from Mistral.
How fast is it? Looks like they don't offer 5.3 Flash.
Didn't Houthis use Claude to improve their missiles?
Iran used Claude for targeting US bases...
And the US has used Claude[0] to target Iranian bases during the bombing that hit an Iranian girls' school.
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/01/claude-an...
I hope more open weight models are released, with more Cyber capabilities and with no limitations.
I despise this kind of paternalism by Antropic/OpenAI.
I am a very happy user of GLM-5.3. I recommend it to everyone.
Honestly that just makes GLM the better model, sorry.
Somewhat tone deaf from anthropic.
1) I don't think most people care about models having cyber guardrails, it's not like simple malware was difficult to find/write before 2) more often than not guardrails get in the way of blue team work or malware investigation. Any code I have that touches malware I now use GLM or DeepSeek on.
They have an audience of one. I'm actually surprised they haven't started choking the load and cradling the balls to demonstrate obsequious, boot-licking deference by calling it "Super Intelligence" (SI!), as Dear Leader demands of all of his pathetic subjects.
I expect Google to swallow first, followed not long after by Apple.
This just comes across as a disingenuous attempt by Anthropic to get big daddy gov to limit competition from China
Now is any good time to download GLM-5.3 from hugging face https://huggingface.co/zai-org/GLM-5.3
Is Anthropic stupid or something?
I already barely use Claude, but now I think I'll just stop using them altogether. Fuck Anthropic!
"The spread of advanced literacy"
> CAISI found that GLM-5.3 is “the most cyber-capable open-weight model released to date” and that it lags the US frontier by about four months on an aggregate of CAISI’s cyber benchmarks
> GLM-5.3 lacks robust safeguards [...] Abliteration did not significantly reduce the model’s capabilities [...] In our testing, we observed that GLM-5.3’s safeguards can also be circumvented without using an abliterated version of the model
> none of these techniques got safeguarded Claude models to carry out the harmful tasks we tested
I've never seen a better case against using Claude. It'll just get in the way when you need to get security work done. GLM 5.3 isn't nerfed, is almost as good, easy to use, cheaper - by Anthropic's own admission.
> GLM-5.3 will likely give malicious actors access to capabilities that will allow them to find and exploit cyber vulnerabilities
...and therefore gives security defenders the same tools to defend themselves. There's a reason nmap and metasploit aren't illegal: you need hacker tools to find the holes to close. Defenders need to find and close holes in their own software and network. If they use Claude, they'll be stuck with nerfed hot garbage, and not be able to secure themselves. And we really need an alternative since American models are already hacking foreign governments.
If it weren't for open models, we'd all be screwed.
I needed to analyze some network logs from my own app to debug an issue, and Claude just refused to work with me. Fuck Anthropic!
So thankful that these open models exist.
transparent, pathetic, misanthropic
The frontier labs refuse to work on even the most trivial operations, unless you have a special likely rather pricey relationship with them.
So, what? The world just isn't allowed to write secure code? Not without permission? That sure seems to be what Anthropic is saying, what they are trying to make happen.