"The way that Hugging Face defended itself was with an open source Chinese model, GLM, because they didn’t have access to the high cybersecurity models on the other side. They’re too dangerous."
This is not what happened. HuggingFace patched the vulnerabilities in the ordinary way, then used GLM for some of the forensic analysis afterwards. It's in the interest of HF to promote the GLM part of the story, because it emphasizes their agency in the situation as well as the open-source models they distribute. But GLM was a (useful) part of the postmortem, not of the defense.
Nvidia is party to a number of circular funding deals that would land them in an exciting situation if the other involved parties, i.e. frontier US labs, were to bite the bullet, for instance if the market in general broadly switched to open weight models as better value for the dollar.
Comments
"The way that Hugging Face defended itself was with an open source Chinese model, GLM, because they didn’t have access to the high cybersecurity models on the other side. They’re too dangerous."
This is not what happened. HuggingFace patched the vulnerabilities in the ordinary way, then used GLM for some of the forensic analysis afterwards. It's in the interest of HF to promote the GLM part of the story, because it emphasizes their agency in the situation as well as the open-source models they distribute. But GLM was a (useful) part of the postmortem, not of the defense.
And now it's in Nvidia's interest to sweep it under the rug.
Why, does Nvidia care what models run on their hardware? Are GPUs getting cheaper if they run open-weight models?
Nvidia is party to a number of circular funding deals that would land them in an exciting situation if the other involved parties, i.e. frontier US labs, were to bite the bullet, for instance if the market in general broadly switched to open weight models as better value for the dollar.
OK, that makes sense.
Another AI salesman selling AI, nothing new here