4 ms·
Curious why they didn't use DeepSeek... They could've probably built one tuned for this type of campaign.
by kenjackson 11mo ago
Curious why they didn't use DeepSeek... They could've probably built one tuned for this type of campaign.
- synapsomorphy 11mo agoChinese builders are not equal to Chinese hackers (even if the hackers are state sponsored). I doubt most companies would be interested in developing hacking tools. Hackers use the best tools available at their disposal, Claude is better than Deepseek. Hacking-tuned LLMs seems like a thing that might pop up in the future, but it takes a lot of resources. Why bother if you can just tell Claude it's doing legitimate work?
- tw1984 11mo ago> I doubt most companies would be interested in developing hacking tools. welcome to 2025. Chinese companies build open weight models, those models can be used / tuned by hackers, companies that built and released those models don't need to get involved at all. That is a very different dev model compared to the closed Anthropic way. > Claude is better than Deepseek No one is claiming DeepSeek to be better, in fact all benchmark results show that Chinese KIMI, MiniMax and GLM to be on par or very close to the closed weight Claude Code.
- nerevarthelame 11mo agoPerhaps other groups are. But Anthropic wouldn't be able to publish a blog article about those.