MIT Technology Review
filed
2h
Open models have real benefits. Do they outweigh the risks?
read it at the source — MIT Technology Review →
“MIT Technology Review Explains: Let our writers untangle the complex, messy world of science and technology to help you understand what’s coming next. You can read more from the series here. Late last month, Anthropic released a report arguing that the model GLM-5.3 poses a major cyberattack risk. The report’s core concern is that the…”
← the whole board
Three kinds of line, three kinds of source. Every measurement is computed from primary artifacts we read ourselves — Hugging Face model cards and file listings, GitHub release feeds, OpenRouter's model catalogue. Every headline comes from the publisher's own feed, linked and attributed; no aggregator sits in between, and nothing is rewritten. Where a publisher syndicates a short summary in that same feed, it is shown under the headline the way a headline is — translated on the Korean page with the published original kept underneath it. Only the summary field is ever shown. The field that carries the article is read and never shown: it screens out 'summaries' that are really the article's opening lines, and — for a publisher's own announcements only — it is the evidence the event pages' What-happened notes are written and checked against. One exception, since 2026-09-03: the page a discussion thread links to is fetched and read once, to write a single sentence saying what it claims, labelled as the post's own claim; nothing from it is quoted. Every discussion is a public thread, linked, with its top comments in the order that thread ranked them and in the words they were written — selected by it, not by us.
lashhill · Models we are measuring · how this site works · RSS