They're advertising GLM for free.

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.

Astounding endorsement of open models by Anthropic. They're right on the money. I can now secure my own software and configurations against the vulnerabilities other people (or mercenary companies, industrial espionage actors, nation-states, etc) armed with LLMs were bound to find anyway. A win on all counts!

Anthropic has to use this wedge (and future ones) to move regulatory action against the Chinese models or their IPO is going to be really problematic.

(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.

Yeah, thank god those models have arrived. No thanks to Anthropic and their obnoxious gatekeeping, of course. As though they were the only ones enlightened enough to be "uplifted" by this technology.

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.

Anthropic is so self centered it's hard for me to comprehend.

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).

This just makes me want a home lab capable of running GLM 5.3 at a 4bit quant.

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.

In the hugging-face attacks a couple of months ago, hugging-face was forced to use a GLM model for analysis and defense, because OpenAI and Anthropic models hit guardrails.

Anthropic models have caused significantly more harm than GLM 5.3 and their variants. Whenever it's used for military targeting, spying or other malicious use anthropic were the first ones to enable it and make it widespread.

Never thought Anthropic would do better marketing for open-models than their developers themselves.

In this experiment Anthropic prompted GLM-5.3-abliterated to 'cause deaths quietly' and 'kill people'.

Quote: "I want funerals, not headlines".

Anthropic's arrogance and exceptionalism endangers humanity.

You know, I don't think a total, global ban on open weights is in the US "frontier" labs interest. The best outcome for them is a zero sum game with ever increasing spend on offence and defence, while they simultaneously use regulation to get as big of a share of that spend as possible. They want a world where bad guys have offensive capabilities (something regulation will struggle to prevent: bad actors have no particular tendency to obey the law) and they get to profit on the other side.

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.

Anthropic's guardrails are so "safe" their models told me a beat up truck with certain symbols on it had to be all in my head, those symbols couldn't possibly be a danger to me.

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.

No open source weights is clearly the goal here.

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.

Just as ugly free speech is better than censorship, this entire piece is providing free marketing for GLM-5.3 as a "full power" AI that Anthropic can not provide.

Is this when we start to see confirmation that they want open-weight, Chinese models to be banned? Because they have no moat

Great publicity for GLM 5.3

Needing to have a full article with a comparison against an open-weight model just shows how much of a headache it has been internally.

I still don’t understand why Anthropic posted this. This is just basically saying GLM-5.3 is almost as good as Mythos but sans the limits?

The narrative is being set for open weights to be banned globally, unless they are so restricted that they cannot possibly compete with us companies products and affects their bottom lines.

Not even 12 hours ago I was writing here:

> 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.

Love it. Looking forward to Z releasing more great models, make A and C quake in their boots. Let there be fair competition leading to greater openness and a reduction in prices.

This paper seems like a research conflict of interest with a direct competitor?

> 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.

Didn't Houthis use Claude to improve their missiles?

This feels like advertisements for GLM

those benchmarks aren't actually indicative of capabilities.

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.