Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Expanding Project Glasswing

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 261 posts

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#91

Post by tiahura »

NiloCK wrote: post #78
mekpro wrote: post #40

It’s clear that Anthropic has run out of the compute capacity needed to serve Mythos publicly. They’re using security concerns to mask their inability to deliver the model at scale, while still trying to maintain their lead over OpenAI. As a result, they’ve chosen to release it privately under the banner of an “ethical” rollout.

I find this line of reasoning highly dubious. Yes, Anthropic is compute constrained, even after the SpaceX Colossus deal. But supply constraints are the normal operating mode of any market. Anthropic could choose to serve whatever models it pleases at whatever price points it chooses and let the market decide where the value is. If Mythos at $X overwhelms their capacity, they could just charge $X+1 . If still overwhe…

Sort of, but valuation models depend on X being in a certain range. If it > this range, revenue and therefore valuation are impacted.

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#92

Post by signatoremo »

LiamPowell wrote: post #81
cobolcomesback wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why is OpenAI also releasing 5.5-Cyber in a private manner? Are they also out of compute?

OpenAI has been pulling this marketing trick for years. Remember how GPT-3 was too dangerous to release? It's also probably bad PR if script kiddies have access to GPT model with no guardrails even if it doesn't enable any significant attacks.

I suppose you meant GPT-2, but for years? Did they say the same about subsequent models?

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#93

Post by jb_briant »

jb_briant wrote: post #88
Forgeties79 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of us, including you, know that he is not saying "they are being transparent." When someone says "it's clear that..." in this way they're saying "It's clear to us what is really happening here .

It's not clear, there is no tangible proof that Mythos is not released because they don't have compute power to serve it. Saying that would imply that the "too dangerous" is a lie. Nobody has proof. It can feel "clear" for you, but it's not. Hence, I correct it.

Yes I got how they used the phrase. And it was wrong, so I wanted to react. Thanks for your addition, it dissipates any doubt on the intention of OP: he thinks Anthropic is hiding the lack of power by pretending it's too dangerous. But he is wrong to assume that without proof, hence my reaction.

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#94

Post by ianm218 »

rxhampton wrote: post #87
ianm218 wrote: post #33

In case the topic of memory safety is interesting to anyone I've been experimenting with using AI agents to port common web infra projects to safe/ performant Rust. Somewhat inspired by the Bun port - was thinking that at some point memory safety might be such a big deal that people just need drop in replacements. - Valkey/ Redis port here https://github.com/ianm199/valdr (passes ~99% of single node test suite, real…

If someone is porting such disparate projects as Valkey and Lua it is just for show and will be pre-alpha forever. No one wants Bun in Rust, no one wants the rsync vibe code additions. This is just the only pro-AI comment, so the AI people voted it to the top.

Hmm my reasoning was that in order to have Nginx work in Rust you want to expose scripting so having a decent Lua in Rust is key to not call out to C for that. And then Valkey/ Redis is a lot simpler than nginx so it was a good way to learn how some of this works.

And I'd disagree on no one wants - Lua is quite helpful since it is easily used in WASM. There has been some interest from people in the Bevy community - a game engine in Rust - since you can't have Lua scripting in browser games easily with the C version.

But anyway if people want it or not memory safety might become much more important so I think it is a good area to explore. Some people think large C codebases are inherently unsecurable https://alexgaynor.net/2020/may/27/science-on-memory-unsafet...

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#95

Post by LiamPowell »

signatoremo wrote: post #92
LiamPowell wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI has been pulling this marketing trick for years. Remember how GPT-3 was too dangerous to release? It's also probably bad PR if script kiddies have access to GPT model with no guardrails even if it doesn't enable any significant attacks.

I suppose you meant GPT-2, but for years? Did they say the same about subsequent models?

They did it for 2 and 3, however it looks like they didn't for 4 and 5.

GPT-2: https://slate.com/technology/2019/02/openai-gpt2-text-genera...

GPT-3: https://www.itpro.com/technology/artificial-intelligence-ai/...

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#96

Post by julianlam »

ianm218 wrote: post #33

In case the topic of memory safety is interesting to anyone I've been experimenting with using AI agents to port common web infra projects to safe/ performant Rust. Somewhat inspired by the Bun port - was thinking that at some point memory safety might be such a big deal that people just need drop in replacements. - Valkey/ Redis port here https://github.com/ianm199/valdr (passes ~99% of single node test suite, real…

Respectfully, as an OSS maintainer (not to the scale of nginx or valkey, of course)... if a third-party used an AI agent to rewrite my software in a different language, that gives me absolutely no reason to support that new project.

It is in all respects foreign code in a language I may or may not be familiar with, and worse yet, if I were to take over, I'd be responsible for maintaining the whole black box forever more?

Thank you but no thanks.

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#98

Post by DANmode »

pesus wrote: post #85
DANmode wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You don’t tie it to “your device”. You tie it to your security key. Which is treated like a credit card. and your extended family, friends, or volunteers can act as social proof to allow you back into your accounts, if your key burns up, it breaks and you were too cool to provision a backup, etc.

Credit cards are lost and stolen all the time, and it isn't really a big deal when it happens, since charges can usually be easily reversed. This does not sound like the same scenario. It also doesn't account for people who lack friends/family nearby or at all. > it breaks and you were too cool to provision a backup If we're relying on the average person to back things up properly, this idea is doomed from the start.

Yes, you wouldn’t offer your private key to a random food truck.

Just new banks.

Same as people being unafraid of their car key being cloned - because they don’t hand it around the general public.

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#99

Post by pshirshov »

mekpro wrote: post #40

It’s clear that Anthropic has run out of the compute capacity needed to serve Mythos publicly. They’re using security concerns to mask their inability to deliver the model at scale, while still trying to maintain their lead over OpenAI. As a result, they’ve chosen to release it privately under the banner of an “ethical” rollout.

I bet Huawei and co would be happy to sell them some cheapo chips for inference!

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#100

Post by DANmode »

pesus wrote: post #85
DANmode wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You don’t tie it to “your device”. You tie it to your security key. Which is treated like a credit card. and your extended family, friends, or volunteers can act as social proof to allow you back into your accounts, if your key burns up, it breaks and you were too cool to provision a backup, etc.

Credit cards are lost and stolen all the time, and it isn't really a big deal when it happens, since charges can usually be easily reversed. This does not sound like the same scenario. It also doesn't account for people who lack friends/family nearby or at all. > it breaks and you were too cool to provision a backup If we're relying on the average person to back things up properly, this idea is doomed from the start.

> If we're relying on the average person to back things up properly, this idea is doomed from the start.

The average person is relying on the average person, for everything, and I agree, they are doomed from the start.

Tech-related items inclusive.

Post reply on HN