781–790 of 921 posts
It 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’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.
Claude Code and Glasswing are not the same, but presumably they have a lot of overlap under the hood. I feel like while AI is certainly advancing in major ways, there will always be the up and down of new software releases.
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.
There's a little bit of a grading your own homework aspect to companies being able to declare their new models revolutionary.
It doesn't mean they're wrong, but there is a clear conflict of interest.
It 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.
You can already do that today by hiring a security researcher. I can guarantee you that Apple has access to people of a higher caliber than my startup. 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.
It had crossed my mind that an AI agent pentester would be an interesting product to build. Once again though, the labs are just going to build it because it’s a thin thin wrapper.
Beyond existing software with vulnerabilities, the really important aspect of this for Anthropic et al is that the gigatons of code that are being generated every day needs to be secured.
It's all just really genius marketing. In 6 months Mythos will be nothing special, but right now everyone is being manipulated into fearing its release, as a marketing ploy. This is the same reason AI founders perennially worry in public that they have created AGI...
I find it very unlikely that Mythos will "be nothing special". Current Opus is already "special" enough to find dozens of real bugs in Firefox and the Linux kernel, and Mythos is, it seems, a full OOM above it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone’s pretending the suits are going to want to do the prompting. We all know they aren’t.
Suits in agriculture don't drive the combine either, a farmer does. The other 99% of pre-automation farmers went on to other jobs. They happened to be better jobs than farming, but that's not necessarily always the case.
Advanced RTK based positioning systems have been in Ag for a long time now, so increasingly the farmer doesnt drive either
It 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.
You can already do that today by hiring a security researcher. I can guarantee you that Apple has access to people of a higher caliber than my startup. 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.
From a non-US perspective this must be disquieting to read: Not so much that Anthropic considers only US companies as partners. But what does Anthropic do to prevent malicious use of its software by its own government? > Anthropic has also been in ongoing discussions with US government officials about Claude Mythos Preview and its offensive and defensive cyber capabilities. As we noted above, securing critical infras…
Even more 'disquieting' when you take into account who's currently the president of US. "A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will." - Donald Trump
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People say we're cooked every single day. The only response is to continue life as if we aren't. When we are, you won't have to ask that question.
Everyone’s pretending the suits are going to want to do the prompting. We all know they aren’t.
I think that basically they trained a new model but haven't finished optimizing it and updating their guardrails yet. So they can feasibly give access to some privileged organizations, but don't have the compute for a wide release until they distill, quantize, get more hardware online, incorporate new optimization techniques, etc. It just happens to make sense to focus on cybersecurity in the preview phase especially…