> 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.

Quote: "I want funerals, not headlines".

Anthropic's arrogance and exceptionalism endangers humanity.

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).

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.

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.

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 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 Houthis are using Claude. We should ban that.

(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.

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.

It's a bold strategy...

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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 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.

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.

Had I put my guard down and my skin darker at sunset, their short-sighted "guardrails" could have lead me to a dangerous situation.

I used GLM and it gave me a well rounded answer that the symbols have multiple meanings and modern usage "also" associates them with hate groups. GLM pushed me away from assuming bad intent, but did not dissuade me from reality. GLM gave me the safe answer, Opus did not.