[hedora]

The actual story here: The Trump administration is going to choose which organizations get access to which AI models when.

This will establish an asymmetry where the chosen organizations get to secure their stuff and break other people’s systems with each new model release.

If you believe the “good guys” will be the ones given asymmetric offensive access, then you’re either severely misinformed or support things like ethnic cleansing (which these models are already being used for).

Mythos’ slightly higher performance is a nothing burger. It is not even the current top model. According to anthropic, gpt 5.5 is!

Personally, I’m switching to open weight models asap, and probably will start sending money to Chinese vendors since they have values more compatible with western democracy.

[Versipelle]

I tend to agree but open weight model seem to still be lagging behind in terms of capacity, even the recent ones like GLM 5.2. If anything I hope the sudden, unpredictable changes of policy will make EU companies think twice before putting all their eggs in the same AI vendors's basket, all US based. Vendors coming back on their retention policies like they did with Fable 5 or plainly cutting the service without notice should be a gigantic red flag about your business continuity.

It's maddening how the corporate world can get shy of using any of those Chinese models, just because they are Chinese. This kind of FUD makes little sense when the inference is done in-house or by an EU/US cloud provider.

[ForHackernews]

Companies have never secured their stuff and it's not because they didn't have access to Mythos. No one cares and breaches don't cost them money or customers. If I sound cynical it's because I am.

There's no functional difference between

"Hey npm says this is vulnerable, we need to fix it!" / "Nah, later."

and

"Hey Mythos says this is vulnerable, we need to fix it!" / "Nah, later."