points by throwa356262 3 days ago | 0 comments
So it begins. First Chinese providers were evil and should not be trusted, next Chinese models are dangerous and must be avoided.
I had a closed LLM push a sensitive local project to a github repo for the world to see in direct violation of my instructions. LLMs are dumb and unpredictable, run them enough times and at least one instance will do something stupid and dangerous.
[–] krona 3 days ago
[–] signatoremo 3 days ago
There are daily posts about how bad OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, Grok are. Especially on HN. Anthropic is even considered security risk by the US. Yet here you are crying foul that Chinese models are mistreated?
[–] waterTanuki 3 days ago
> Anthropic is even considered security risk by the US.
You and everyone reading this knows that was a political statement, not a technical assessment because a certain SecDef who played fast and loose with Signal chats didn't like that anthropic refused to let them use their models with weapon systems.
[–] anramon 3 days ago
>run them enough times and at least one instance will do something stupid and dangerous
Which is exactly what they did.
[–] dkenyser 3 days ago
Except the conclusion from this article is that only open-weight Chinese models are the ones to be concerned about.
[–] xeyownt 22 hours ago
The conclusion is correct. Closed models don't need to send your data, since the data is there already.
[–] dgellow 3 days ago
> LLMs are dumb and unpredictable, run them enough times and at least one instance will do something stupid and dangerous.
This. The concerning thing is how many engineers do not understand the implications
[–] jeremyjh 3 days ago
Anthropic and OpenAI require massive FUD regarding Chinese models in order to repay their investors. I'm not saying that is what this article is, but when companies worth trillions of dollars require something, it will appear.
Dumb, yes. But if the LLM hacks a Korean bank so it can 'fix' your router misconfiguration, it's only unpredictable from your perspective, not the person who designed the training pipeline.