GLM-5.3 and the spread of advanced cyber capabilities (anthropic.com)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

First they were telling how GLM-5 distilled their model.

Now they're telling how 'bad' GLM-5.3 at 'censoring' security topics, because Anthropic wanted to sell it to select US companies for millions, but GLM-5.3 is taking their market.

What's next? GLM-5.4 can be used to kill humans, hence we should only allow Opus 5.7?

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

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.

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.

Great publicity for GLM 5.3

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Let's put this way: we need open models to protect against their rogue agents!

Hypocrites !

It is so transparently obvious and harmful what they are doing here.

You making the argument that these models exist and are dangerous (plausible, true, likely) but then removing the cyber capabilities of your own frontier models out of 'safety' is a complete nonsense argument. You're stripping defenders' ability to defend whilst knowing stuff like this is out there, and only giving access to your gatekept super cool kids' (or rich kids) club, and then to top it off, using this as an excuse for government intervention/regulation of models that are threats to you competitively.

Just gross all around.

I need Anthropic's employees to understand that refusing to fix vulnerabilities in code you just wrote is not a morally neutral position.

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.