At what point do these companies stop releasing models and just use them to bootstrap AGI for themselves?
Can LLMs be AGI at all?
System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]
121–130 of 687 posts
Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]
#122At what point do these companies stop releasing models and just use them to bootstrap AGI for themselves?
I would assume somewhere in both the companies there's a Ralph loop running with the prompt "Make AGI".
Kinda makes me think of the Infinite Improbability Drive.
Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]
#123-- Impressive jumps in the benchmarks which automatically begs the need for newer benchmarks but why?. I don't think benchmarks are serving any purpose at this point. We have learnt that transformers can learn any function and generalize over it pretty well. So if a new benchmark comes along - these companies will syntesize data for the new benchmark and just hack it?
-- It seems like (and I'd bet money on this) that they put a lot (and i mean a ton^^ton) of work in the data synthesis and engineering - a team of software engineers probably sat down for 6-12 months and just created new problems and the solutions, which probably surpassed the difficult of SWE benchmark. They also probably transformed the whole internet into a loose "How to" dataset. I can imagine parsing the internet through Opus4.6 and reverse-engineering the "How to" questions.
-- I am a bit confused by the language used in the book (aka huge system card)- Anthropic is pretending like they did not know how good the model was going to be?
-- lastly why are we going ahead with this??? like genuinely, what's the point? Opus4.6 feels like a good enough point where we should stop. People still get to keep their jobs and do it very very efficiently. Are they really trying to starve people out of their jobs?
Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
That has also been my experience. And if Mythos is even worse, unless you have a significantly awesome harness, sounds like pretty unusable if you don't want to risk those problems.
I think are fundamental issues with the story that Anthropic is selling. AGI is very close, we will definitely get there, it is also very dangerous...so Anthropic should be the only ones trusted with AGI. If you look at recent changes in Opus behaviour and this model that is, apparently, amazingly powerful but even more unsafe...seems suspect.
[dead]
Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
If one is to believe the API prices are reasonable representation of non subsidized "real world pricing" (with model training being the big exception), then the models are getting cheaper over time. GPT 4.5 was $150.00 / 1M tokens IIRC. GPT o1-pro was $600 / 1M tokens.
You can check the hardware costs for self hosting a high end open source model and compare that to the tiers available from the big providers. Pretty hard to believe its not massively subsidized. 2 years of Claude Max costs you 2,400. There is no hardware/model combination that gets you close to that price for that level of performance.
Yes that's why I said API price. I once used the API like I use my subscription and it was an eye watering bill. More than that 2 year price in... a very short amount of time. With no automations/openclaw.
Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]
#126In French a "mytho" is a mythomaniac. Quite fitting.
[deleted]
Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]
#127Combined results (Claude Mythos / Claude Opus 4.6 / GPT-5.4 / Gemini 3.1 Pro) SWE-bench Verified: 93.9% / 80.8% / — / 80.6% SWE-bench Pro: 77.8% / 53.4% / 57.7% / 54.2% SWE-bench Multilingual: 87.3% / 77.8% / — / — SWE-bench Multimodal: 59.0% / 27.1% / — / — Terminal-Bench 2.0: 82.0% / 65.4% / 75.1% / 68.5% GPQA Diamond: 94.5% / 91.3% / 92.8% / 94.3% MMMLU: 92.7% / 91.1% / — / 92.6–93.6% USAMO: 97.6% / 42.3% / 95.2%…
Are these fair comparisons? It seems like mythos is going to be like a 5.4 ultra or Gemini Deepthink tier model, where access is limited and token usage per query is totally off the charts.
Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
A jump that we will never be able to use since we're not part of the seemingly minimum 100 billion dollar company club as requirement to be allowed to use it. I get the security aspect, but if we've hit that point any reasonably sophisticated model past this point will be able to do the damage they claim it can do. They might as well be telling us they're closing up shop for consumer models. They should just say they…
This is why the EAs, and their almost comic-book-villain projects like "control AI dot com" cannot be allowed to win. One private company gatekeeping access to revolutionary technology is riskier than any consequence of the technology itself.
Couldn't agree more. The "safest" AI company is actually the biggest liability. I hope other companies make a move soon.
Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
That has also been my experience. And if Mythos is even worse, unless you have a significantly awesome harness, sounds like pretty unusable if you don't want to risk those problems.
I think are fundamental issues with the story that Anthropic is selling. AGI is very close, we will definitely get there, it is also very dangerous...so Anthropic should be the only ones trusted with AGI. If you look at recent changes in Opus behaviour and this model that is, apparently, amazingly powerful but even more unsafe...seems suspect.
> AGI is very close
Based on? Or are you just quoting Anthropic here?
Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're completely right.
uhh the model found actual vulnerabilities in software that people use. either you believe that the vulnerabilities were not found or were not serious enough to warrant a more thoughtful release
So did GPT-4.
https://arxiv.org/html/2402.06664v1
Like think carefully about this. Did they discover AGI? Or did a bunch of investors make a leveraged bet on them "discovering AGI" so they're doing absolutely anything they can to make it seem like this time it's brand new and different.
If we're to believe Anthropic on these claims, we also have to just take it on faith, with absolutely no evidence, that they've made something so incredibly capable and so incredibly powerful that it cannot possibly be given to mere mortals. Conveniently, that's exactly the story that they are selling to investors.
Like do you see the unreliable narrator dynamic here?