I'm not entirely up to date on each week's LLM hype train/scandal but last I heard there was no public access to it or public-trusted 3rd parties that can review model's capabilities

This AISLE benchmark is interesting in this matter: https://aisle.com/blog/ai-cybersecurity-after-mythos-the-jag...

And the recently discovered Copy Fail by Xint code is another proof that the gating is overblown: https://xint.io/blog/copy-fail-linux-distributions

People don't become bad guys just because they lie. The consequences of their actions (and their lies) matter more. Take Elon Musk for instance, he has always been a recognized liar, even when he was a good guy. What changed? Before, he was famous for making the electric car people actually wanted to drive, and cool rockets. Then came the politics: supporting the party most of his fans disliked, being responsible for many government job losses, in particular in the field of environmental preservation (ironic for a supporter of "green" energy), etc...

Not sure about the security capabilities and haven't tested it all that well, as I usually just use hosted models, but I do find myself using it and it's been quite successful for parsing unstructured data, writing small focused scripts and translations.

The fact that I retain control of the data itself makes it incredibly useful, as I work in an environment where I can't just paste internal stuff into Codex.

But since it's run locally on a toaster testing it is out of scope for me. It takes a fairly long time to do anything.