Project Glasswing: Securing critical software for the AI era

Post by woeirua » Tue, Apr 07, 2026, 8:22 PM UTC

redfloatplane wrote: post #77

slacktivism123 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/53566bf5440a10affd749724787c89... "5.10 External assessment from a clinical psychiatrist" is a new section in this system card. Why are Anthropic like this? >We remain deeply uncertain about whether Claude has experiences or interests that matter morally, and about how to investigate or address these questions, but we believe it is increasingly important to try. We also report independen…

A thought experiment: It's April, 1991. Magically, some interface to Claude materialises in London. Do you think most people would think it was a sentient life form? How much do you think the interface matters - what if it looks like an android, or like a horse, or like a large bug, or a keyboard on wheels? I don't come down particularly hard on either side of the model sapience discussion, but I don't think dismissi…

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 07, 2026, 8:24 PM UTC

torginus wrote: post #53

redfloatplane wrote: post #13

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…

Just reading this, the inevitable scaremongering about biological weapons comes up. 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 capab…

Post by ollin » Tue, Apr 07, 2026, 8:25 PM UTC

bredren wrote: post #150

Can anyone point at the critical vulnerabilities already patched as a result of mythos? (see 3:52 in the video) For example, the 27 year old openbsd remote crash bug, or the Linux privilege escalation bugs? I know we've had some long-standing high profile, LLM-found bugs discussed but seems unlikely there was speculation they were found by a previously unannounced frontier model. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I…

Post by pizlonator » Tue, Apr 07, 2026, 8:25 PM UTC

SheinhardtWigCo wrote: post #163

pizlonator wrote: post #154

It's messed up that Anthropic simultaneously claims to be a public benefit copro and is also picking who gets to benefit from their newly enhanced cybersecurity capabilities. It means that the economic benefit is going to the existing industry heavyweights. (And no, the Linux Foundation being in the list doesn't imply broad benefit to OSS. Linux Foundation has an agenda and will pick who benefits according to what is…

> picking who gets to benefit from their newly enhanced cybersecurity capabilities You could say this about coordinated disclosure of any widespread 0-day or new bug class, though

Post by throwaway13337 » Tue, Apr 07, 2026, 8:27 PM UTC

dralley wrote: post #153

throwaway13337 wrote: post #82

I really wanted to like anthropic. They seem the most moral, for real. But at the core of anthropic seems to be the idea that they must protect humans from themselves. They advocate government regulations of private open model use. They want to centralize the holding of this power and ban those that aren't in the club from use. They, like most tech companies, seem to lack the idea that individual self-determination i…

That is unequivocally true with some things. You don't want people exercising their "self-determination" to own private nukes.