HN Reader

Am I the only one who thinks mention of “safety tests” for LLMs is a marketing scheme? Cars, planes and elevators have safety tests. LLMs don’t. Nobody is going to die if a LLM gives an output that its creators do not like, yet when they say “safety tests”, they mean that they are checking to what extent the LLM will say things they do not like.

Probably the results were worse than K2 model released today. No serious engineer would say it's for "safety" reasons given that ablation nullifies any safety post-training.

My hobby: monetizing cynicism.

I go on Polymarket and find things that would make me happy or optimistic about society and tech, and then bet a couple of dollars (of some shitcoin) against them.

e.g. OpenAI releasing an open weights model before September is trading at 81% at time of writing - https://polymarket.com/event/will-openai-release-an-open-sou...

Last month I was up about ten bucks because OpenAI wasn't open, the ceasefire wasn't a ceasefire, and the climate metrics got worse. You can't hedge away all the existential despair, but you can take the sting out of it.

Probably ClosedAI's model was not as good as some of the models being released now. They are delaying it to do some last minute benchmark hacking.

It's worth remembering that the safety constraints can be successfully removed, as demonstrated by uncensored fine-tunes of Llama.

Pointless security theatre. The community worked out long ago how to strip away any safeguards.

> this is new for us

So much for the company that should never be new to that

My pet theory is that they delayed this because grok-4 released because they explicitly want to not be seen as competing with them by pulling the usual trick of releasing right around when google does. Feels like a very sam altman move in my model of his mind.

Wow. Twitter is not a serious website anymore. Why are companies and professionals still using it? Is it really like that now, with all that noise from grok floating to the top?

What is their business purpose for releasing an open-weights model? How does it help them? I asked an LLM but it just said vague unconvincing things about ecosystem plays and fights for talent.

Maybe they’re making last minute changes to compete with Grok 4?

why would OpenAI release an open weight model? Genuinely curious.

Honestly, they’re distancing themselves optically/temporally from HerrGrokler newslines

Is it now coming before or after the release of AGI, which OpenAI, "knows how to build now" ?

we'll never hear about this again

To be completely and utterly fair, I trust Deepseek and Qwen (Alibaba) more than American AI companies.

American AI companies have shown they are money and compute eaters, and massively so at that. Billions later, and well, not much to show.

But Deepseek cost $5M to develop, and made multiple novel ways to train.

Oh, and their models and code are all FLOSS. The US companies are closed. Basically, the US ai companies are too busy treating each other as vultures.

Not sure if it's coincidental that OpenAI's open weights release got delayed right after an ostensibly excellent open weights model (Kimi K2) got released today.

https://moonshotai.github.io/Kimi-K2/

OpenAI know they need to raise the bar with their release. It can't be a middle-of-the-pack open weights model.

Delays aside, I wonder what kind of license they're planning to use for their weights.

Will it be restricted like Llama, or fully open like Whisper or Granite?