51–60 of 921 posts
"oops, our latest unreleased model is so good at hacking, we're afraid of it! literal skynet! more literal than the last time!" almost like they have an incentive to exaggerate
It will be interesting to see where this goes. If its actually this good, and Apple and Google apply it to their mobile OS codebases, it could wipe out the commercial spyware industry, forcing them to rely more on hacking humans rather than hacking mobile OSes. My assumption has been for years that companies like NSO Group have had automated bug hunting software that recognizes vulnerable code areas. Maybe this will level the playing field in that regard.
It could also totally reshape military sigint in similar ways.
Who knows, maybe the sealing off of memory vulns for good will inspire whole new classes of vulnerabilities that we currently don't know anything about.
The system card for Claude Mythos (PDF): https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/53566bf5440a10affd749724787c89... Interesting to see that they will not be releasing Mythos generally. [edit: Mythos Preview generally - fair to say they may release a similar model but not this exact one] I'm still reading the system card but here's a little highlight: > Early indications in the training of Claude Mythos Preview suggested that th…
Since most of us here are devs, we understand that software engineering capabilities can be used for good or bad - mostly good, in practice.
I think this should not be different for biology.
I would like to reach out and talk to biologists - do you find these models to be useful and capable? Can it save you time the way a highly capable colleague would?
Do you think these models will lead to similar discoveries and improvements as they did in math and CS?
Honestly the focus on gloom and doom does not sit well with me. I would love to read about some pharmaceutical researcher gushing about how they cut the time to market - for real - with these models by 90% on a new cancer treatment.
But as this stands, the usage of biology as merely a scaremongering vehicle makes me think this is more about picking a scary technical subject the likely audience of this doc is not familiar with, Gell-Mann style.
IF these models are not that capable in this regard (which I suspect), this fearmongering approach will likely lead to never developing these capabilities to an useful degree, meaning life sciences won't benefit from this as much as it could.
One of the things I'm always looking at with new models released is long context performance, and based on the system card it seems like they've cracked it: GraphWalks BFS 256K-1M Mythos Opus GPT5.4 80.0% 38.7% 21.4%
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty optimistic that not only does this clean up a lot of vulns in old code, but applying this level of scrutiny becomes a mandatory part of the vibecoding-toolchain. The biggest issue is legacy systems that are difficult to patch in practice.
Wait. Wasn't AI supposed to alleviate the burden of legacy code?!
I am thinking of situations where one of those aren't true - where testing a proposed update is expensive or complicated, that are in systems that are hard to physically push updates to (think embedded systems) etc
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty optimistic that not only does this clean up a lot of vulns in old code, but applying this level of scrutiny becomes a mandatory part of the vibecoding-toolchain. The biggest issue is legacy systems that are difficult to patch in practice.
Wait. Wasn't AI supposed to alleviate the burden of legacy code?!
> glass in the name
Let's fast forward the clock. Does software security converge on a world with fewer vulnerabilities or more? I'm not sure it converges equally in all places. My understanding is that the pre-AI distribution of software quality (and vulnerabilities) will be massively exaggerated. More small vulnerable projects and fewer large vulnerable ones. It seems that large technology and infrastructure companies will be able to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are a for-profit company, working on a project to eliminate all human labor and take the gains for themselves, with no plan to allow for the survival of anyone who works for a living. They're definitionally not your friends. While they remain for-profit, their specific behaviors don't really matter.
I work for a tech company that eliminates a form of human labour and they remain for profit