<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>An Independent Safety Evaluation of Kimi K2.5 · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2604.03121/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2604.03121/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>An Independent Safety Evaluation of Kimi K2.5 — mentioned by eddyg</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49081877</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2604.03121:49081877</guid><pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2026 10:32:11 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;If nothing else, the article has a really good timeline of the OpenAI/HuggingFace “incident”. But to me, it underscores the impending cliff of doom from the continued release of open-weight models: there&amp;#x27;s no cryptographic or architectural way to give someone full weights while withholding the nefarious capabilities those weights encode. As noted in this paper⁽¹⁾, “publicly releasing weights is an act of irreversible proliferation”. I’m sure this will be an unpopular opinion on HN, but open weights are the thing that scares me the most about “A.I.”. There is a lot of research in this area⁽²⁾…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2604.03121/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CR</category></item></channel></rss>
