Interestingly Mistral has been selling GLM5.3 inference hosted in Europe on their own hardware, for those who are OK using a "not developed in Europe" model but run on hardware located in and controlled by a European corporation.
> for those who are OK using a "not developed in Europe" model but run on hardware located in and controlled by a European corporation.
For the record this is also possible in Europe on Privatemode[1] which also gives you enclave-based processing. And access to GLM-5.3 Flash as well as GLM-5.3
Indeed, I see no difference between a chinese model hosted in Europe vs a Europe-grown model.
You could argue that potentially you can train a backdoor into a foreign-grown model (that has been demonstrated to be possible in toy examples), but I would highly doubt that this would be the case today, given the potential reputational damage if discovered.
Remember Stuxnet? An american worm that was completely benign, travelled on usb drives in hiding, and only activated when it guessed that it's on Iranian plants, and iirc changed very subtly some very specific parameters of operations.
Here, with a chinese model, it would be even simpler - you finetune a model to activate certain operations when it discovers certain environments, but to behave completely normal otherwise. Kind of like a sleeper agent. And with current tech we wouldn't even be able to spot this.
It's not like they didn't sandbox it or limit the access. There were reasonable measures, but not really serious. They made a kodoku pit and didn't watch it.
The agents started hacking because they were sandboxed.
It was filtered, but had a bug, and multiple frontier agents, givent enough time first figured out how to communicate and coordinate with each other and then how to break out of it.
For some benchmarks agents need some sort of a limited internet access - otherwise the benchmarks would be pointless. Good luck implementing a good filter on the internet - if you have a way to do it reliably please share, I'm sure multiple people here would love to hear it.
> you could argue that potentially you can train a backdoor into a foreign-grown model
If we're wearing tinfoil hats then do we know the NSA have not planted stuff in Anthropic and OpenAI anyway ? ;)
I think the Chinese would be happy enough to see OpenAI and Anthropic suffer because people discover open-weights can get you most of the way there for a fraction of the cost.
You don't have to target the end users. Economic impact on the US providers would be sufficient.
The Chinese are also no doubt seeking to play the long game of hoping to (eventually) rebalance the US-centric world order in an Easterly direction.
I recall seeing something about that. I don't know of anyone still using such an ancient model when much newer Qwen 3.5-120, 3.6-35B-A3B, 3.8-27B and 3.8-flash-next all exist and score much higher on all conceivable metrics. I would like to see if anyone can replicate the same thing on a 'current' Qwen released in the past 6 months.
DS4 hosted by deepseek used through the API doesn't have a problem talking about tiananmen square and Uyghurs, but it thinks it's Claude when it speaks about it. I'm not sure what it all means. That was on v4-pro before the 4.1 switch, so may or may not be reproducable.
Add: I was surprised by the fact that the LLM itself doesn't know it's identity unless the system prompt mentions it.
Yeah ... I, erm... can't take that blog post remotely seriously.
Engineering a situation and calling it a vulnerability ?
What a joke. I'm sure you could find a way of engineering a fake vulnerability with Anthropic or OpenAI too and then write a fancy blog post about it.
AND ANYWAY ... whether you are using US or Chinese models, what stupid idiot does not review the slop written by LLMs anyway ? Especially if you are writing for a security-sensitive environment ?
The organization I work for uses GPT and Claude models hosted in EU. I don't see any practical reason to use models made in Europe. Even if you don't want to work with American big tech there are plenty of companies in the EU serving Chinese open-weight models.
> I don't think you understand how small stakes Watergate was in comparison to the daily collapse we are experiencing. And Nixon resigned because of it!
I agree. This is what baffles me the most about USians. They know Watergate was one of the lowest points in the US history in terms of corruption and anti democratic maneuvers by a high level political group in the country.
Yet, the Trump administration outcorrupts any Watergate scandal very much each week. Yet, the US population is so docile and controlled that they barely react.
Please don't engage in political/ideological battle or post flamebait on HN, no matter what it's about. We're here for curious conversation, not belligerence, and the guidelines clearly ask:
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
$1B is an extraordinarily easy bar to clear with a single crypto hack and Anthropic was repeatedly refusing to give access to Mythos to defenders in the crypto world. I think this stems from bias rather than a conspiracy theory but it's an entirely avoidable disaster waiting to happen.
> Anthropic was repeatedly refusing to give access to Mythos to defenders in the crypto world.
This almost makes sense. You almost can't risk vulnerabilities even being discovered in certain systems that are impossible to patch, like immutable distributed smart contracts.
Not sure that justifies withholding Mythos access entirely, but what do I know. I apparently got access to Mythos a few days ago since Anthropic folded Project Glasswing into the CVP.
Most smart contracts are not impossible to patch because everyone knows that's bad for security. They use a delegate/proxy pattern where the deployer can change the implementation any time but users can still access the old one with a third party interface.
And if a problem is critical enough the community can decide to hard fork and rewrite the contracts source code even if it's immutable. It already happened with the Ethereum DAO hack and most people were okay with it.
The issue with stuff like this is inheriting all the funds held in the old contract. I guess a hard fork can do it. There's also the issue of trustworthiness of the smart contract owner. Trustworthiness in general is a huge issue in the crypto world, because if you can get away with something you can do it pretty much instantly and irrevocably (without another hard fork anyway). There's a chance that if you share a vulnerability that would allow one of the contract owners to take advantage, they will just do it and run. Plenty of cases of previously-trustworthy crypto people seeing an opportunity and disappearing with a lifetime of money.
Try criticizing political figures or having a slight attitude to the police in Germany and tell me that old ghost is gone for good. Or that our new push to label calling out government overreach hate speech (Oh Canada!) Something cut from the same cloth.
As for VW the brand that has a long and terrible history when it comes to electrical faults for ICE cars (and diesel gate) I'm not holding my breath until the other shoe drops. I like the look of the newer electric van, maybe they'll have a better reputation by the time I look for a 15 year old one!
I do genuinely dislike their game launcher, but also I don't want to have multiple game launchers even if it was working well given it's just overhead.
I'll happily pay to have a game on Steam vs getting it for free on Epic. Steam has been a good experience for me the past 2+ decades :)
I'd love to see governments decouple distribution and production in media - roughly, let any streaming service serve any tv/film, let any game service serve any game ... consumer's choice.
It would be under a 'most-favoured nation' type deal, after an initial launch period (exclusive distribution for 1 year, say) if my distribution service pays the same per-view amount then I can stream/distribute your media regardless of your deals. If a producer/creator makes a work available they are required to allow it on other registered channels (no setup cost beyond actual price of downloading the content).
Essentially make rights holders honour the idea that they'd make works S available if only people would pay.
Refuse to make a work available and you'd get a warning, then it enters the public domain. The copyright deal is "things enter the pubic domain after a limited monopoly to allow recompense", enforce it. So, if eg Netflix/Sony/BBC/etc stop offering their back catalogue then the works enter the public domain.
I wouldnt mind Epic if their platform wasn't so intentionally anti-consumer. I dont have any issues with Epic other products - I dont play Fortnite, but Unreal was net positive for gamedev and Epic also sponsored a lot of open sourcr software including Godot which is nice of them.
Unfortunately literally everything is wrong with EGS specifically.
Their stance on intentionally not having user reviews because consumers shouldn't have power to react to publisher or developers decisions.
Their giving away games for free and then revoking licenses then removing them from accounts even though it was purely their own fault. They were most successful company ever back then and could certainly eat that loss.
Their shitty account system that certainly got hacked multiple times because it's the only gaming platform where someone constantly trying to access my accounts even though I'm Linux and cybersecurity nerd with random 32-char passwords. They also dont have straightforward way to change account region without trying to deal with their shitty support.
Tim Sweeney decided to make a platform to fuck over gamers and we gamers returned favour.
As far as I know Apple also does not own "i" or McDonalds owns "Mc".
If you're creating a Burger called McSomething or a device called iWhatever it does not feel like "paying homage" to Apple/McDonalds, it feels more like copying and trying to capture some audience from this bigger player.
That's because Google Deepmind has consistently used AlphaSomething for their scientific models. Not for their consumer models which are Gemini, but their models which are more cutting edge and specific to niche problems.
Ah, I see, Ireland and McKinsey are trying to copy and capture McDonalds audience. /s
Yes, you said burger, but also AlphaNIST is not a technology conglomerate holding company. And the term Alpha is not at all used in their products. It's neither Alpha Phones, not AlphaGemini, nor is Google called Alpha. More than that Alphabet is never shortened Alpha.
I would strongly argue against that. I would argue that Google Deepmind has consistently used AlphaSomething for their scientific models. Not for their consumer models which are Gemini, but their models which are more cutting edge and specific to niche problems.
Got any in a single category which all start with Alpha and named by the same organization? Say something like... I don't know... Deep learning models published by Google?
If there's 10 breakfast cereals from the same company all starting with Alpha, I would give you some credit. But like this I don't even know what your reply is trying to tell me.
I honestly feel like I am taking crazy pills here.
OK I'm telling you that I'm not as keen as you are to cede every possible name that starts with "Alpha" to Google.
And to answer your question directly, DEC had a whole series of things called "Alpha". eg AlphaStation family of workstations, the Alpha AXP series of processors etc (alpha 21064, alpha 21164, alpha 21264, alpha 21364).
Point received! We wonder what a better way to pay that same homage would be, since we followed the similar philosophy, but with considerations for our contact-rich robotic control setting.
Makes me wonder if more growth/innovation could've happened (outside of google) if they didn't employ this many people. Some sort of dutch disease within the higher echelons of the tech sector.
Google did a very good job on things that required longer research times and compute scale, note that Transformers, BERT & Scaling Laws came out of Google (though the latter were also worked on at OpenAI).
Conversely, Google is horrible at product, and without OpenAI, it probably would have taken many years longer to take off. I know this because Google had demos of this internally, but absolutely no stomach to release it, and they didn't believe in the API use case at all.
Which is to say, I think if Google was smaller, we probably would have gotten more SaaS, not more breakthrough research.
Pre this whole LLM era, Googled would've been roasted if they created a chatbot that hallucinated to users. I feel like this was the main reason they never turned it into a product and then ended up on the back foot.
reply