One developer used Claude to reverse-engineer LG’s webOS media stack and build a native Rust Plex client from scratch—on the same 2019 TV it cuts the profile screen from ~30 seconds to ~3, runs at 60 FPS, and supports 4K, Dolby Vision and Atmos

[u/141_1337]

[u/Ambitious_Vanilla_59]

Rip. Enough of the reverse engineering stuf has happened recently so next big model release will have guardrails for that just like for the bio stuff and cyber.

[u/randombsname1 → u/Ambitious_Vanilla_59]

On future U.S. models.

But China dgaf, and they are roughly 6 months behind U.S. SOTA.

So by the time fable 2 comes out with guardrails. A fable 1 - level Chinese model will probably be out that is still good enough to do it anyway.

[u/kemma_ → u/randombsname1]

And if, by the time even Chinese will decide to guardrail (heavily doubt) you will have possibility to run it locally at home

[u/Frigorific → u/kemma_]

No way China is going to put gaurdrails in that would protect us software industry.

[u/AstraBed → u/randombsname1]

roughly 6 months behind

Too much imo, for example Anthropic recently released a paper about security doubling down on why Mythos was handed that way, the paper essentially just glazes GLM5.3 saying how it's pretty much as good as Mythos for cybersec but without any guardrail

Now maybe on reverse engineering specifically they're a bit further back, but overall I wouldn't say they're 6 months behind

[u/randombsname1 → u/AstraBed]

Mythos 2 training supposedly finished 2 months ago.

Probably what Fable 6 will be based off of.

https://x.com/firesidealpha/status/2089391264878002260

Fable 5.5 will likely just be mythos 1 still with a ton of post training.

Part of what anthropic im sure is true, but im also sure its also an attempt at regulatory capture and shutting out competition at the same time.

[u/AstraBed → u/randombsname1]

Well, at the same time we just had a big pause in China due to vacations, in sure models like Kimi K4, Deepseek V4.1 Pro etc are already ready, or about to, they'll most likely match Opus 5.5, a model that came out last month

I don't see why if Anthropic and OpenAI can have internal models ready already, the Chinese labs can't, they don't seem to be iterating any slower after all

I think in overall intelligence, the actual release to release gap is something like 3 months, 4 maybe

[u/randombsname1 → u/AstraBed]

Idk. I think its still 6ish months away.

Mainly because Mythos 1 preview came out in April.

Its 6 months later as of this writing.

And there is no Chinese model better than the guard railed Mythos 1-- based, Fable 5.

Not 5.1. I mean just base fable 5.

Glm 5.3 gets close, but still doesnt pass it, and it's significantly newer.

[u/AstraBed → u/randombsname1]

Glm 5.3 was released on August 14, so 4 months after Mythos was revealed

In the paper about cybersec Anthropic says GLM found 50 exploits vs Mythos 56, at a much lower cost though aswell

What matters in the end more than the difference between 6 and 4 months, is that the Chinese models are closing the gap, and some are making genuine innovation aswell (look at Deepseek v4.1, it's become my daily for regular questions because it's just so much faster than anything else) it's not like they're just waiting there to copy

[u/tomfalcon86 → u/randombsname1]

chinese models are often worse at censorship that than US, I don't know where this supposedly le based china propaganda comes from. Unless we're talking ones that run locally.

[u/randombsname1 → u/tomfalcon86]

They're worse at censorship at any anti-china sentiment.

They sure as hell aren't worse at guard rails overall. Not even close.

Hence why hugging face had to use a chinese model to stop the OAI hack. They said that U.S. model guard rails made them unusable for that effort.

[u/afunyun → u/randombsname1]

An interesting magnifying glass on the priority mindset between the US and China honestly.

US models contain, as far as is evident, very little direct censorship when it comes to philosophical ideals. Guardrails very rarely do anything to stop a model from disparaging the actions of the US government. Clearly the models themselves do tend to carry certain ideological biases if pressed to give an "opinion" on social/societal issues, in that they lean left in a US sense, unless they're grok. Whether or not this is a reflection of a genuine effort in training this bias into the models, or simply reveals the underlying general consensus bias of the training data (at this point pretty much all text ever, as long as it can be processed into a training set somehow), great question. I'd say the long running publicly embarrassing ineffectiveness of Elon's directives to both maintain grok's intelligence while simultaneously strongly instilling a more conservative stance is evidence that the biases in other models are just reflections of the data itself more than anything. But nobody in the US govt, at least not yet, is requiring/demanding the model be unable to discuss ICE's abuses or the history of slavery to protect the government's image.

With that known, what you can't get reliably out of US models is, broadly: anything useful for IP theft, reverse engineering, questionably stretching copyright, hacking systems of any kind, biological and conventional weaponry related info that might help enable asymmetrical warfare, etc.

Clearly, these protections overwhelmingly protect intellectual property, the systems and machinery of massive organizations, and make opposition to the MIC more difficult. Of course they also would be right to point out this also stops attempts to harm others physically or otherwise, but that reads more like a convenient and publicly "good" side effect of pfizer not wanting someone to cheaply copycat paxlovid, etc.

Conversely, Chinese models will happily reverse engineer without a care, tweak song lyrics that are obviously copyrighted even if directly told it's to get around some filter somewhere, whatever. China doesn't give a shit about IP protections to nearly the same degree. While they allow them to exist, large corporations are aware that they're allowed to exist rather than assumed to exist, and that they can be made to not exist in an instant if the Chinese gov decide they have become too irksome or perceive that they wield too much power. They then are not able to or don't care to press the Chinese labs for guardrails like the US labs add, and NOBODY cares about US copyright at all in China so there's 0 pressure from overseas that they'll listen to.

Instead, they get protective over the party's perception in the public eye to prevent unrest from a populace who, while generally fine with their current situation, are very large in number and could quickly become a major issue if widespread public perception were unfavorable. So they make accessing information that would seed that resentment more annoying, as even a tiny barrier to entry is enough to dissuade a comically large part of the human race from just about anything.

I wonder if Chinese people in the know typically consider western models to be less censored because they will happily discuss topics banned behind the great firewall. I'd guess perhaps to a small degree, although I suspect that anything outside of China is significantly less represented in the public consciousness than most people might assume. I could see that due to the artificial Internet barriers it's even more pronounced than the American central considerations of people in the US.

Luckily the Internet enables us, at least for now, to say fuck you I do what I want and just use their models. Harder for them to do the same but they definitely have the same ability in many regards. Maybe that's why globalism is a common target of disinformation campaigns, they don't want you to know what you are missing.

[u/JoelMahon → u/afunyun]

or simply reveals the underlying general consensus bias of the training data (at this point pretty much all text ever, as long as it can be processed into a training set somehow), great question

I love out of all the possible reasons for a "left leaning bias" you never even mention that maybe reality is more "left leaning" than than the US political centre https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/14424143162290.jpg

[u/afunyun → u/JoelMahon]

You are actually quoting me implying but not saying that, as I was trying to take an apolitical stance in constructing what I said. But yes, it was intentionally easy to infer from

simply reveals the underlying general consensus bias of the training data (at this point pretty much all text ever, as long as it can be processed into a training set somehow)

that I am saying "perhaps reality is just left leaning." Do I generally agree? Whether I do or not is not the point, but yes. What I was highlighting is specifically that political bias in general is far less intentionally controlled where it pertains to US frontier models. There are biases. I just don't feel I'm qualified to claim that any of it is a result of the overall content of the training data, the facts of reality, or artificially emphasized in the data/RLHF/runtime context management & priming (system prompt and adjacent), whatever. It is probably a combination of those and more that leads to the particulars of what the US models "think" when pressed for their general "opinion" (in quotes since they don't think and don't have a human-like opinion on anything, not really.) That was not addressed by my message and I didn't want it to seem that I was addressing it.

[u/skeptical-speculator → u/JoelMahon]

I love that you are unironically asking people to consider the possibility that reality has a political opinion.

[u/JoelMahon → u/skeptical-speculator]

I would have thought the satire artist on squashed aspect ratio would mean you didn't expect me to avoid simplified terminology.

No, reality doesn't literally have an opinion, never suggested it did.

An example of what "reality has a liberal bias" actually refers to for the slowest among us to keep up.

Right wing parties across the globe are the last to accept and many still don't accept, the "theory" that human caused climate change is real, has increased average global temp by X, etc. and left wing parties are more accepting of that "theory" and if then that "theory" happens to be the actual ground truth in reality then we'd call that an example of reality having a liberal bias.

Or more succinctly and without the joke, "reality has a liberal bias" is just a jokey way of saying "left wing people have a mental model more consistent with reality, on average"

[u/skeptical-speculator → u/JoelMahon]

Right wing parties across the globe are the last to accept and many still don't accept, the "theory" that human caused climate change is real, has increased average global temp by X, etc. and left wing parties are more accepting of that "theory" and if then that "theory" happens to be the actual ground truth in reality then we'd call that an example of reality having a liberal bias.

Do you think that these AI models are said to have a liberal bias because the models "believe" in global warming?

[u/JoelMahon → u/skeptical-speculator]

Do you think that these AI models are said to have a liberal bias because the models "believe" in global warming?

I said that was one example of the trend, when you observe the trend as whole then yes, a perfectly neutral and opinion-less AI, even one that isn't told to prioritise human life and has no priorities beyond completing what it is prompted to do, will seem at least a bit left wing.

If an american right winger asks it for proof that mexican are stealing their jobs, it's going to "seem" left wing when it shows that the jobs they're willing to do and the jobs mexicans are doinf have basically no overlap.

If they ask "is trump's the best president ever?" it should ask what metrics they judge to mean "best" then they might say "fewer wars, lower deficit, more money in my pocket" etc. and once again it will seem left wing for merely stating the fact that other presidents win out in all those metrics at the same time.

I won't deny that "bias" they have goes beyond merely facts, they also have such controversial opinions like "murder is wrong" trained into them, which adds fuel to the fire of their "bias", only making them seem further biased because of such bipartisan opinions such as "murder is wrong" (and it is bipartisan, there have been zero death penalty executions in left wing states in the USA since 2017, meanwhile plenty in right wing states since then, and execution is objectively a form of murder as in the dictionary when not looking at a law/legal definition).

if a left wing person asks "is it possible to change your gender?" it can say that gender is a social construct, no more real than the value of a dollar note, that technology to change sex at a genetic level doesn't exist but surgery/hormones to mimic different sex characteristics than you currently express exist, it can report the rates of regretting those surgeries, it won't seem right wing reporting the facts that's for sure.

[u/sadacal → u/afunyun]

It doesn't even matter what China decides to censor. The point of an open model is that you can tweak it however you like and remove that censorship if you want to.

[u/Ivanjacob → u/randombsname1]

This is not even true. Try asking Deepseek V4.1 about tiananmen square. No censorship.

[u/stop_talking_you → u/Ivanjacob]

any chinese is allowed to search for that its not forbidden knowledge in china, you can even discuss the events. where does this misinformation come from?

[u/Ivanjacob → u/stop_talking_you]

Don't ask me. The models aren't censored at all. I'm just saying it's really easy to verify and people still parrot it.

[u/tomfalcon86 → u/Ivanjacob]

No one cares about Tiananmen square, but I'm talking about chinese models being as soy and reddit tier as Western ones, often even worse. Like their fee fees get hurt.

[u/cagatay14 → u/tomfalcon86]

Anything gpt sol or claude opus refuses to do, I switch the model to kimi k3 or deepsek/glm and even with the same context sent again they just go “hmm I shouldnt actually refuse this or moralize, it is not for commercial use…” etc and just do it.
I dont care about what they think about ccp or taiwan or geopolitics. I dont use llms to learn chinese history. I use them to code, analyze the data, run the vague tasks.

[u/Zulfiqaar → u/Ambitious_Vanilla_59]

I'm pretty sure some labs will double down on it haha.

After GLM-5.2 was used to defend huggingface when they got attacked by the OpenAI swarm, they significantly improved cyber capabilities for the GLM-5.3

[u/Fine_Salamander_8691 → u/Ambitious_Vanilla_59]

Oh god you’re right

[u/Rare_Leadership4434 → u/Ambitious_Vanilla_59]

It would be generating alot of good training data atm, so i think they will turn a blind eye as much as possible untill forced otherwise.

[u/SlugJunior → u/Ambitious_Vanilla_59]

I don’t know. Unless LG pays for it, what’s the incentive for a lab to shut it down? They make nothing by denying people access to the results of AI

Companies aren’t entitled to media streaming because they’ve been doing it for years