OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

taspeotis•10 minutes ago

I don't know what the solution to this is, but I find it somewhat unfair that I pay money to Anthropic, and I pay money to OpenAI, and neither of them will let me use their best models for securing the software I work on.

Admittedly Opus 4.8 xhigh does a good job, but are my customers not entitled to have more security from a Fable/Mythos or GPT-5.5-Cyber audit over the codebase? Or I guess the inverse question: why aren't they allowed that audit?

(Fable/Mythos being unavailable notwithstanding.)

It seems OpenAI will at least let me do this narrowly, at greater cost, by using one of their partners. But I already pay them money!

tetrisgm•6 minutes ago

It's a pretty interesting opportunity. I wonder if they will reach to companies and tell them how many things they could fix and how many are critical, before selling them the solution.

throwaway888abc•26 minutes ago

Can someone on HN with access to it fix the Fable / Mythos so it's secure to use again and therefore available ?

lionkor•39 minutes ago

This is how you do it when you're not AS childish. You go "here's a model for cybersecurity" and put a price on it. I know they're releasing it to some vendors first, etc. but the lack of a clown spectacle is nice.

The whole "it's too dangerous to release!" is complete hogwash.

A person can take a hammer, walk out in the street, and we can count how many people he can kill with the hammer before he is stopped. My local hardware store still sells hammers, and I haven't seen the CEO of it claim that their hammers are much more dangerous and it's totally going to end the world if you allow any random person to have one!

ragequittah•5 minutes ago

If that hammer could allow people to go into people's homes / work en masse, steal all their information, blackmail them, steal their identities, break their systems (including those of hospitals and other critical infrastructure) and generally help fund bad actors through it all we'd think of having restrictions on hammers too. A hammer can't screw people over by the millions.

I don't like this argument specifically with AI. Facial recognition everywhere you go is just a tool. Your job creating a detailed profile on exactly how you work, who you talk to, and about what is just a tool. The tools have become so good and easy to use we have to have serious discussions about them before things get out of hand.

bob1029•21 minutes ago

The risk of catching federal charges, proper jail time and aggressive responses from law enforcement is a far more effective means of preventing malicious behavior than anything proposed so far.

I can go into stores that sell things that are much more dangerous than hammers (or frontier cyber models) and no one will give me a hard time about it.

raincole•22 minutes ago

It's amusing that what Anthropic does is basically:

1. Browse the internet

2. See what people hate about OpenAI

3. Adopt the worse version of it

4. Profit?

Sam Altman fearmongered about AI alignment - we fearmonger harder.

OpenAI is CloseAI now - we are even less open.

OpenAI is going to IPO - we IPO first.

ralphington•5 minutes ago

I don't have a horse in the race, but these comments are remarkably toxic. This reminds me of the RTFM epidemic on early Stack overflow.

daflip•27 minutes ago

I guess eventually the whole process can be completely autonomous, what could possibly go wrong :-)

arikrahman•21 minutes ago

It's good looking forward to wrapping it around Reasonix

ramon156•about 1 hour ago

AI companies yearn for otgs built on AI tools

brcmthrowaway•29 minutes ago

Gamechanger

OpenAI DayBreak – GPT-5.5-Cyber

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion (12 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews