Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
scottyah | on: Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed
Or it's a cop out. I could totally outrun Usain Bolt, but by design I don't push to set new World Records. I will increasingly show faster times though.
locknitpicker | parent | next
> Or it's a cop out. I could totally outrun Usain Bolt, but by design I don't push to set new World Records.

The benchmarks show Kimi K3.1 Pro outrunning practically all models. It's weird to hear someone like you accusing them of making up excuses for not lagging behind in discussions on how they are ahead of the pack.

p-e-w | root | parent
Not only is that not weird, it’s Occam’s Razor in action. “We could crush the competition but we are holding back” is a laughable excuse that I’m sure you wouldn’t buy in other contexts.
loading story #50218871
stalfie | parent
Well, in the publication they claim to have identified specific cybersecurity post training tasks that nerfed capabilities when they removed them, which seems like a reasonable methodology.

Seeing as no one besides blackhats want frontier cybercrime capability to be open source, this seems like a very sensible thing to do.

So they have published a reasonable means, and they have a motive. I'd put my money on "probably true".

InsideOutSanta | root | parent | next
> Seeing as no one besides blackhats want frontier cybercrime capability to be open source

Sure. The problem is that there is no practical difference between "cybercrime capability" and "cybercrime defense capability."

All of my PRs go through an adversarial security review by GLM-5.3, because it's the only smart-enough model with a good understanding of cybersecurity issues that won't regularly refuse the job. Removing that ability from frontier models helps nobody except cyber criminals.

loading story #50215296
ApolloFortyNine | root | parent | next
The problem is, as anyone trying to address security concerns in claude can attest to, the guardrails trigger even when trying to address real bugs. Good cyber defense requires an understanding of the offense.

How you avoid the "fix my code" attack, the code being someone else's code, I do not know. But nerfing the model doesn't seem like the best path forward either.

loading story #50212854
loading story #50213199
tkz1312 | root | parent | next
I am a defender, and I really really want to have access to high quality models that are good at finding vulns and hacking. Leaving them in the hands only of government agencies and orgs with enough resources to do extensive training / fine tuning seems like the absolute worst possible case for the future security of global software systems.
loading story #50215052
ben_plotke | root | parent | next
> Seeing as no one besides blackhats want frontier cybercrime capability to be open source

I'm not interested in black hat anything, but I am very invested in making sure the products I work on are not compromised. Given that state agencies have "frontier cybercrime capability", I would like to have the same.

loading story #50215465
LtdJorge | root | parent | next
It would also be very sensible to offer a BlackHat Pro version to national officials, for them.
CBLT | root | parent | next
Please don't change "cybersecurity" to "cybercrime" from one sentence to the next as a rhetorical flourish. It comes off as disingenuous and makes it harder to get your real point across.
loading story #50215506
loading story #50212994