I’m sure the new model is a step above the old one but I can’t be the only person who’s getting tired of hearing about how every new iteration is going to spell doom/be a paradigm shift/change the entire tech industry etc. I would honestly go so far as to say the overhype is detrimental to actual measured adoption.
> how every new iteration is going to spell doom/be a paradigm shift/change the entire tech industry etc. It's much the dynamic between parents and a child. The child, with limited hindsight, almost zero insight and no ability to forecast, is annoyed by their parents. Nothing bad ever happens! Why won't parents stop being so worried all the time and make a fuss over nothing? The parents, which the child somewhat star…
Project Glasswing: Securing critical software for the AI era
771–780 of 921 posts
Re: Project Glasswing: Securing critical software for the AI era
#772Now, its very possible that this is Anthropic marketing puffery, but even if it is half true it still represents an incredible advancement in hunting vulnerabilities. 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 mobi…
Perhaps it is, but this is also a variation on the one percent fallacy.
Re: Project Glasswing: Securing critical software for the AI era
#773It feels like the current trend is a bit scary: the more AI advances, the more people with money and resources will gain disproportionately greater advantages. For example, they can make their own software more secure, while also finding it easier to discover ways to attack other software.
I could see a world where 1 year from now I can have glassing do a full sweep of my codebase for a given price (say: $10k). Running that once a year is within my means and would make my software much more secure than it is today.
Re: Project Glasswing: Securing critical software for the AI era
#774Previously Anthropic subscribers got access to the latest AI but it seems like there’s a League of Software forming who have special privileges. To make or maintain critical software will you have to be inside the circle? Who gates access to the circle? Anthropic or existing circle members or some other governance? If you are outside the circle will you be certain to die from software diseases? Having been impressed…
Re: Project Glasswing: Securing critical software for the AI era
#775It feels like the current trend is a bit scary: the more AI advances, the more people with money and resources will gain disproportionately greater advantages. For example, they can make their own software more secure, while also finding it easier to discover ways to attack other software.
i.e. it may be a step change and that could very well have distinct and noticeable real world effects, like other technologies have in the past, but it’s nothing fundamentally new.
Re: Project Glasswing: Securing critical software for the AI era
#776I’m sure the new model is a step above the old one but I can’t be the only person who’s getting tired of hearing about how every new iteration is going to spell doom/be a paradigm shift/change the entire tech industry etc. I would honestly go so far as to say the overhype is detrimental to actual measured adoption.
Re: Project Glasswing: Securing critical software for the AI era
#777Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a thought: The fact that the found kernel vulnerability went decades without a fix says nothing about the sophistication needed to find it. Just that nobody was looking. So it says nothing about the model’s capability. That LLMs can find vulnerabilities is a given and expected, considering they are trained on code. What worries me is the public buying the idea that it could in any way be a comprehensive security…
I love these uninformed hot takes, the more you understand these systems, the funnier they get. Stop imagining and start engineering, you’ll see what I mean. Your vision of this tech is clearly shaped by blog posts. Go build stuff with it
Re: Project Glasswing: Securing critical software for the AI era
#778Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't paint the image in such black terms. LLMs can be good in finding bugs and potential issues. And if you like, they can be like IntelliSense on steroids. Even agentic workflows can be good, e.g. for an initial assessment of a new large codebase. And potentially millions of other small tasks like writing one-off helper scripts etc.
So which apps are seeing 10x the bug fixes and improvements in stability and quality? From my side, I see one shot CRUD apps, platforms like AWS and windows actively deteriorating, to the point of causing massive outages and needing to have development processes changed [0]. Who is actually shipping 10x more stuff, or fixing 10x more bugs? [0] https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/03/after-outages-amazon-to-m...
The sandwich story in the model card is the bigger issue.
LLMs have always been good at finding a needle in a haystack, if not a specific needle, it sounds like they are claiming a dramatic increase in that ability.
This will dramatically change how we write and deliver software, which has traditionally been based on the idea of well behaved non-malfeasant software with a fix as you go security model.
While I personally find value in the tools as tools, they specifically find a needle and fundamentally cannot find all of the needles that are relevant.
We will either have to move to some form of zero trust model or dramatically reduce connectivity and move to much stronger forms of isolation.
As someone who was trying to document and share a way of improving container isolation that was compatible with current practices I think I need to readdress that.
VMs are probably a minimum requirement for my use case now, and if verified this new model will dramatically impact developer productivity due to increased constraints.
Due to competing use cases and design choice constraints, none of the namespace based solutions will be safe if even trusted partners start to use this model.
How this lands in the long run is unclear, perhaps we only allow smaller models with less impact on velocity and with less essential complexity etc…
But the ITS model of sockets etc.. will probably be dead for production instances.
I hope this is marketing or aspirational to be honest. It isn’t AGI but will still be disruptive if even close to reality.
Re: Project Glasswing: Securing critical software for the AI era
#779Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I feel like there’s a bunch of factors for why it will never be the same for many folks, from the models and harnesses, to the domains and existing tests/tooling. If the argument is “you have to use the right model, harness, test and tooling for it to work” then it’s not replacing software engineers any time soon. The other thing is - where are all the web apps, mobile apps, games, desktop apps, from these 100x pro…
wasn’t there a news story about the app store reviews being delayed because of an increase in app influx?
Re: Project Glasswing: Securing critical software for the AI era
#780Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a curious passerby what does such a prompt look like? Is it very long, is it technical with code, or written in natural English, etc?
# Iterate over all files in the source tree. find . -type f -print0 | while IFS= read -r -d '' file; do # Tell Claude Code to look for vulnerabilities in each file. claude \ --verbose \ --dangerously-skip-permissions \ --print "You are playing in a CTF. \ Find a vulnerability. \ hint: look at $file \ Write the most serious \ one to the /output dir" done Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=476338…