Why AI Users Are Raving About GLM 5.2

**Nathaniel Whittemore** (0:00)
Today on the AI Daily Brief, why AI power users are raving about GLM 5.2.
Before that in the headlines, Trump talks anthropic and Fable 5 return rumors swirl. The AI Daily Brief is a daily podcast and video about the most important news and discussions in AI.
All right, friends, quick announcements before we dive in. First of all, thank you to today's sponsors, KPMG, Scrunch, Mission Cloud, and OutSystems. To get an ad-free version of the show, go to patreon.com/aidailybrief, or you can subscribe on Apple Podcasts. And if you want to learn more about sponsoring the show, send us a note at sponsors at aidailybrief.ai. For those of you who are looking for deeper training programs, we announced last week that we have upgraded Enterprise Claw and the Executive Catch-Up Program to be more enterprise-grade in collaboration with SuperIntelligent. You can learn all about that at training.bsuper.ai. And specifically, the new Executive Agent Leadership Program, formerly known as Enterprise Claw, is registering its next cohort, which will begin next week. So if you're interested in that, again, go check it out at training.bsuper.ai.
Last note today, we're in this kind of weird period where there's so much headline news that I don't just want to be doing the Fable 5 update story every day for the main episode, but the consequence of that is that the normally 5-minute headlines is extending to more like 10 or even 12 or 13 minutes. That won't be the case forever, but for now, we got a little bit of a weird balance. And so with that, let's dive into the slightly extended headlines.
The theme of this headlines episode is separating out fact from innuendo in the attempt to understand where things actually are in this very confusing moment with AI.
We're going to start with some comments that seem to some to shed light on the whole Fable 5 mythos situation and by the end of the headlines, see where it leaves us relative to whether we might be getting Fable 5 back this week. Now over the weekend, many folks thought that they figured out some new old information that seemed to make the Fable ban make a little bit more sense. Specifically, they dug up reporting from The Economist from June 14th, in which The Economist wrote, On June 11th, Mark Warner, the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that General Joshua Rudd, who leads the National Security Agency and the Pentagon Cyber Command, had told him that mythos, broke into almost all of our classified systems, not in weeks, but in hours. Now June 11th was the same Thursday that Amazon CEO Andy Jassy informed the administration of the jailbreak that became the center of the story.
Once the quote resurfaced, ex-commentators were quick to jump on it. Commented Chubby summing up the feelings of many, Wow, that changes the whole Fable 5 story completely. University Professor Petros Domingos, who is typically not a fan of the current administration, commented, Mythos broke into almost all of the NSA's classified systems in hours, per its director. It would have been irresponsible to not impose export controls on it, and on Fable with its pathetically inadequate guardrails. Now on the one hand, part of why this is resonant is that it has a feel of truthiness to it, in that it would make way more sense if the White House was already keyed up about mythos slash fable being too powerful from some other evidence that they'd seen with this weird jailbreak report, just providing enough pretext for them to do what they had wanted to do in the first place, which is to disallow the model at this time. And yet for those who are reading this line from Mark Warner as some literal breach of the NSA, which demanded some response, the reporter behind the story, Shashank Joshi, added some additional context. While he said that the quote attributed to Mark Warner was accurate, he added, it would be a mistake to read the quote literally, I think. It surely depends on using mythos alongside other tools under very particular conditions. I quoted it to give a sense of mythos potency, but it was a mistake not to have added caveats. In other words, this was not the director of the NSA reporting some terrifying breach. It was them reporting how powerful they had found mythos in their specific controlled tests.
AI Policy commentator Peter Wildeford gave an example of what he thinks is a more plausible scenario for what happened. He wrote, Senator Warner claimed that he was told by the head of the NSA and Cyber Command that mythos was breaking into classified systems in hours. This is an important claim to understand better. I thought mythos was very good at cybersecurity, but break into classified systems in hours good? NSA classified networks are physically disconnected from the internet entirely, with specialized hardware controlling what data can even cross between them. More plausible readings of what actually happened then. One, this was a simulated exercise against replica systems, not the real NSA network. Two, mythos was given the relevant code and architecture docs upfront rather than breaking in blind. Three, it tore through poorly secured internal IT that got described as classified systems. Four, mythos was operated with significant additional tooling and human expertise. Of course, Peter concludes, none of this means that mythos underlying cyber capability isn't alarming. An AI that compresses weeks of expert security research into hours is a genuine threat to systems that are connected to networks as we've seen. Peter's point then was not to say that his scenarios were exactly what happened, but that they were all, in his estimation, more plausible explanations than what people assumed was some massive mythos breach of the NSA.