ajyoon

OpenRouter's list of providers is very large and includes many little known and sketchy companies.

If Fable (Mythos) were generally available without guardrails, it would cause enormous damage. Nobody said it would be a world ending event.

No, Irregular runs the sandbox environment that the models had access to run code in. The sandbox environment is not the same as the weights host.

> I may be too cynical

You are espousing a literal conspiracy theory. Please look at the facts objectively. There is absolutely no benefit to OpenAI or Anthropic to be had from these incidents.

There is a lot of research out there with answers to your questions. GPU supply chains are extremely constrained, making it a surprisingly tractable problem at least for now.

The entire point of the statement is to start international coordination.

jefftk addresses your bio thought well.

> The reason they aren't more exploited is there really isn't much to gain from doing so.

This is incorrect. The long tail of soft targets aren't being exploited more because attackers are bottlenecked on labor. AI removes exactly this bottleneck.

You can at least make it harder by requiring US clouds to only serve models with guardrails, and encouraging other countries to do the same. But yes, the underlying issue is the models being open in the first place. I'm sure if the US wanted to, it could come to some agreement with China about this.

> Yes, but didn't it always? Hence why my position is that this will get us back to relatively where we were pre-LLMs.

Trusted access programs are asymmetrical, and so at least for the time being they give critical parts of the stack an advantage. Total access would not be a return to the status quo; attackers can easily make thousands of agents crawl the web for soft targets well before defenses can be shored up. There are millions of targets out there who won't use AI to improve their defenses for years, if ever, due to institutional slowness (like hospitals).

> attackers are almost completely unaffected. If I masquarade as an attacker, I get way more capabilities already.

What do you mean by this? If guardrails are an obstacle to your defense, they are just as much an obstacle to attackers. I completely understand and agree that trusted access programs are not perfect and leave a lot of people and institutions out. This means trusted access programs should be improved, not that we should throw the baby out with the bath water.

Did the company apply for access? This is either a problem with your company or the trusted access program. In no way does that suggest the solution is total unfettered access for everyone.

In cybersecurity, a level playing field favors the attacker. Trusted access programs give defenders access to tools they need. It's not perfect (because there is an extremely long tail of defenders who are not technically savvy enough to get on these programs and use the tools), but it's better than total access.

The bio angle is very important here too; in that context the imbalance favors the attackers much more.

Hugging Face survived the attack because the OpenAI model only cared about accessing the ExploitGym dataset; by all appearances, HF was completely owned. GLM-5.2 was only used to assess the damage after the fact. Cybersecurity has a attacker-defender asymmetry that heavily favors attackers. If GPT-5.6 were open sourced today, do you think every hospital in the world would be able to use it to shore up their defenses before attackers got to them?

To everyone here pushing for total proliferation of open models -- what should be done about open weight bioweapon and cyber-offense capabilities? Is it simply the cost of freedom that we should allow attackers to access these tools? The OpenAI / Hugging Face incident shows what a GPT 5.6 level model can do off the leash; within ~6 months, open weight models will match this and every bad actor under the sun will be able to pull off attacks at this scale. Do you seriously want this level of capabilities to be generally available with no guardrails?

The open weight issue has a lot of difficult nuance. Biasing toward supporting openness makes sense and is a good instinct, but it's incredibly naive to be absolutely in favor of it in every circumstance without seriously thinking about its implications.