> I feel pretty confident saying that uncensored next gen models becoming "open" would be a net negative for society.

Explain it, please.

I'm in the tech crowd, and I find your inability to explain the danger insufferable and infantilizing. I get a real laugh out of people that hand-wring without being able to articulate what the dangers actually are. I'm not emotionally inclined to identify with your hysteria, and I'm not mentally inclined to respect your authority without seeing the logic you use to derive this conclusion. So you're directly contributing to the attitude that annoys you by demanding respect from a position of emotional dejection rather than substance and authority on the subject.

Remember GPT-3? Yeah, it was "too dangerous" and could have made bio-weapons or super-nukes or whatever. At least, in theory it could, according to the diligent, world-class "researchers" at OpenAI. Oh, and when GPT-4 came out with the ominous "sparks of AGI" that would be used for precious little besides MCP servers and agentic tool calling. Still no AI-nuke being made yet. GLM 5.2 can whistle Daisy into a payphone and launch ICBMs! Fable is going to hack the banks!!! We get access for a month, and society is fine. How often this "research" insults the intelligence of ordinary people, let alone the tech crowd at large. You must expect us all to have the memory of a goldfish, huh?

You're Chicken Little. You're the boy crying wolf. You want us to actually see the danger? Take us to it and make it personal, rub our noses in it. Your disappointment is your own fault.

Yup - who cares about x-risk or red lines for domestic mass surveillance anyways? I draw my red lines at prioritizing profitable customers when heavily resource constrained. That's the true definition of evilness!

If it's that big of a problem to you, you're free to just... not use the freebie?

It’s an interesting thing to bring up because it’s this classic thing we’ve seen for decades now.

The ramifications go beyond the individual which is why I assume they mentioned it. They don’t need to use it/not use it for it to have interesting implications.

so it'd be preferable if they didn't include the model at all?

I didn’t say that and I don’t have a feeling on that either way. But this is a limited time trial and calling it out as such is valid.

Is it nice we get the trial? Sure. Is it also a common play in the playbook of tech companies? Yes.

It's not a freebie, it still requires a subscription and burns tokens twice as fast as Opus.

Then you better not complain how expensive it is to use (Just like the other companies are doing) or the next time Claude goes down then.

Anthropic does not care about us and isn't going to talk to you either and will extract from you as much as possible.

The true answer is local models.

HN needs to take a chill pill. Could it be that Mythos is expensive and they just want to give people a taste of it? I mean the alternative is not offering it at all?

its unclear how they can offer it broadly but only for half a month.

why do they have capacity now that they wont in a few weeks?

Break between training runs?

It’s offered broadly after, for more money. It’s subsidized as marketing

They are almost certainly an OAI employee, reading their history.

For some reason I don't see you calling OAI petty when they donated $20M to Trump & worked a secret deal with Hegseth to usurp Anthropic and erase the red lines they had in place.

Starting a race to the bottom where every AI company agrees to "all lawful use" such as mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons, probably increasing p(doom) by some amount.

All to stick it to Anthropic. That's not petty to you?

To me it is an order of magnitude bigger than all of the stuff you've described. I suspect some people here just work for OAI.

Pretty sure that was a bug, I had the same issue but updating fixed it

Rose tinted glasses

Nah, until recently i still had access via web chat interface, and often paste a transcript and files for somethong 4.7 keeps fucking up, paste response into files as appropriate, and attempt to continue with 4.7.

I swear 4.6+ looks for reasons to ask clarifying questions sometimes, even when really not required, and this fucks flow/quality up in a big way.

I just wish there was a "im not stupid" checkbox you can use to get a minimalistic interference access to claude. Im starting to use local models again, which I havent in a while because claude was so much better, but once i fully lose access to 4.5 it might be time to go back to fully local for good. 4.6+ fails to add value for me, projects 4.5- did good jobs on first try now require multiple prompts and feedback. Exact same initial prompt and project files extracted from archive. I liked claude because it aced those tests while local required handholding. Now claude requires handholding, so why use it over local? Once 4.5 leaves openrouter it might just be time.

4.5 was clearly better than .6 and .7. Like, clear as day.

.6 is some sort of quantized or distilled .5 with a bit more RL, and the current .5 is that same cost reduced model without the extra RL.

Spent a lot of time with "open models." None of them come close. They are benchmaxxed. But you won't hear many of the open model fans on HN admit this.

The open model mentality is also just so bizarre to me. You're going to use an inferior model to save, what, a couple hundred bucks a month? Is your time really worth that little?

No one working on a serious project at a serious company is downgrading their agent's intelligence for a marginal cost saving. Downgrading your model is like downgrading the toilet paper on your yacht.

> The open model mentality is also just so bizarre to me. You're going to use an inferior model to save, what, a couple hundred bucks a month? Is your time really worth that little?

I agree that people who claim that open models are as good as claude/openai/z are lying, delusional, or not doing very much. I've tried them all, included GLM 5.1.

GLM is not bad but the hardware needed will never recoup the ROI vs just using a commercial provider through its API.

That being said, you're being reductive here. For many use cases local models offer advantages that can't obtained through a commercial API : Privacy, ownership of the entire stack, predictability. They can't be rugpulled, they can't snitch on you. They will not give you 503.

Those advantages are very valuable for things like a local assistant, as an agent, for data extraction, for translations, for games (role playing and whatnot), etc.

That being said I know that many people are like you, they don't give a second thought about privacy. They'd plug Anthropic to their brain if they could. So I understand the sentiment. I just think that you should in turn try to understand why someone would use an open model.

Glm 5.1 getting 5% on ARC-AGI 2 private is all anyone needs to know.

The cost is so small relative to the increase. The cost whining on HN is bizarre to me. Feels like everyone here is on an individual plan and has no understanding of what margins look like for actual business.

Meta pays $750k+ TC and makes far more profit/eng, do you think they care about $5k/eng/mo in inference? A 1.1x increase would be so significant that it would justify the cost easily, especially when you can just compress comps to make up for it

Nobody is whining here.

What? You don't think businesses do financial planning and calculations for profit margins?

Do you really think they go on vibes - "welp, this AI thing seems to improve developer performance, I guess. Heck, what's an extra 5k per developer anyways, amirite".

Well, maybe they really do in your neck of the woods. Explains a lot, I guess.

Yes most companies do in fact operate like this. There are tens of thousands of companies that will pay more for the best thing and call it at that, because the cost is dwarfed by what even marginal gains in quality unlock for the business.

> the cost is dwarfed by what even marginal gains in quality

That is just, like, your opinion, man.

Also, I doubt these kinds of companies have "quality" of anything, never mind "gains in quality".