81–90 of 298 posts
Quote: "My personal conclusion can however not end up with anything else than that the big hype around this model so far was primarily marketing. I see no evidence that this setup finds issues to any particular higher or more advanced degree than the other tools have done before Mythos. Maybe this model is a little bit better, but even if it is, it is not better to a degree that seems to make a significant dent in co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anthropic using marketing to convince people their models are more advanced, better built, or that AI is a threat that needs to be regulated because only they have the answer? I’m shocked. More seriously, so far I haven’t seen much indication that Mythos is more than Opus with a security focused code analysis harness. That said, the fact it can find these bugs in an automated fashion is the more important takeaway ou…
>> Anthropic using marketing to convince people their models are more advanced, better built, or that AI is a threat that needs to be regulated because only they have the answer? I’m shocked. I remember when OpenAI was saying GPT-2 was too dangerous to release.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I seem to be totally outside the hype bubble I'm surprised you say that because it is all over Hacker News. Every single post is co-opted into promoting AI. Try finding a submission with fifty points or more than doesn't have AI or LLM's mentioned somewhere in the comments.
Feel free to retire from the field if you grow tired of seeing its latest developments.
That’s not really the point though. I have no doubt AI is useful, I just don’t want to have it shoved in my face every five minutes.
> An amazingly successful marketing stunt for sure. This. Well done by Antropic. It even reached the CISO of my small semi-government org in the Netherlands, who slightly panicked at the announced 'tsunami' of vulnerabilities that was coming with Mythos. Got us some more money and priority with the board, though. Never waste a good marketing scare.
> An amazingly successful marketing stunt for sure. This. Well done by Antropic. It even reached the CISO of my small semi-government org in the Netherlands, who slightly panicked at the announced 'tsunami' of vulnerabilities that was coming with Mythos. Got us some more money and priority with the board, though. Never waste a good marketing scare.
It's an entirely different thing to have the company conduct research on LLMs in general being a cybersecurity threat, instead of going "our new model is just too powerful" and shift the discussion to revolve around that. It's slimey.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Anthropic using marketing to convince people their models are more advanced, better built, or that AI is a threat that needs to be regulated because only they have the answer? I’m shocked. I remember when OpenAI was saying GPT-2 was too dangerous to release.
I remember when there was a guy at Google years a few years ago that was convinced that they had an internal, sentient creature in their labs (I think maybe 4 years ago?) If I’m not mistaken, after the media cycle, he lost his job for breaking confidentiality. That was the opposite of marketing, Google really didn’t get how to turn this into a product until ChatGPT happened.
> An amazingly successful marketing stunt for sure. This. Well done by Antropic. It even reached the CISO of my small semi-government org in the Netherlands, who slightly panicked at the announced 'tsunami' of vulnerabilities that was coming with Mythos. Got us some more money and priority with the board, though. Never waste a good marketing scare.
Anthropic has is quickly destroying customer goodwill by repeatedly pulling the same stunt. Horrible marketing, imho. It's an entirely different thing to have the company conduct research on LLMs in general being a cybersecurity threat, instead of going " our new model is just too powerful" and shift the discussion to revolve around that. It's slimey.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Anthropic using marketing to convince people their models are more advanced, better built, or that AI is a threat that needs to be regulated because only they have the answer? I’m shocked. I remember when OpenAI was saying GPT-2 was too dangerous to release.
"it can almost like write 2 paragraphs!" "It might be conscious" "this is basically AGI, we had to fire someone who spilled the beans"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, it is a very good data point. Curl uses all sorts of tools, including AI tools to find bugs. These tools, according to the article found hundreds of bugs including a dozen CVE. Mythos found one vulnerability. It means the Mythos is just another tool, not the revolution it claims to be. It is common that when a new tool is introduced that a bunch of bugs are found, with diminishing returns. Mythos finding one v…
The question is how many security vulnerabilities are actually left in the code after all the recent AI attention. Either Mythos is a nothingburger, or it's substantially more powerful but there's nothing left to do. Even a large amount of C can be correct eventually. Curl has the _potential_ to become a good data point maybe 6-12 months from now - if researchers and new tools find many more vulnerabilities then Myth…
And it is not overkill, the proof is that it found that vulnerability. It is like saying the new version of some static analyzer with some new rules is "overkill" because it only found only one more bug than the previous version. Deciding whether it is overkill or not is more about context. Using a very expensive model like Mythos for some little used non-critical software is overkill, but for Curl, it absolutely isn't.
If Mythos found loads of vulnerabilities in Firefox but not in Curl, I wouldn't say that's because of Mythos is so good, but rather that with the release of Mythos, they did some testing that could have been done before using the same tools Curl have used.