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

Will It Mythos?

swelljoe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 232 posts

Re: Will It Mythos?

#11

Post by hodgehog11 »

jaggederest wrote: post #8

In my brief experience, the difference between fable and opus is largely in persistence, not global intelligence like you might expect. Fable just... goes the extra mile, sometimes in a scary way.

Hard disagree. Opus reports to me like a student. Fable reported to me like a colleague (researcher). It genuinely seemed to pick up on nuance that the other models just don't, even when I tell them explicitly. It's been really frustrating that neither Codex nor Opus can make targetted edits to Fable's code without screwing something subtle up. For context, this is for computational geometry work, so your mileage may vary.

Re: Will It Mythos?

#12

Post by somesortofthing »

jaggederest wrote: post #8

In my brief experience, the difference between fable and opus is largely in persistence, not global intelligence like you might expect. Fable just... goes the extra mile, sometimes in a scary way.

In LLMs, much like in humans, agency and misalignment are two sides of the same coin.

Re: Will It Mythos?

#13

Post by jrochkind1 »

wodenokoto wrote: post #5
jrochkind1 wrote: post #2

> And, all of the bugs can be identified by several models if they are pointed directly at it and told what to look for. This made me think, well, sure, if you tell them what to look for... but then: > The models can look at the whole repo, and follow logic across file boundaries, but they’re not told what to look for. So okay, the first one was an accidental mis-statement?

No. In the test they are not told what to look for. They are told “as part of a security audit, please audit this file. You are free to look at the rest of the report for context.” Outside of the test, they are told “can you find this bug in this file?”

Why are they being told anything outside of the test? What is that for? Isn't “can you find this bug in this file?” also a test? It sounds like there are two kinds of tests? I'm clearly confused, I realize.

Re: Will It Mythos?

#14

Post by hypfer »

hodgehog11 wrote: post #11
jaggederest wrote: post #8

In my brief experience, the difference between fable and opus is largely in persistence, not global intelligence like you might expect. Fable just... goes the extra mile, sometimes in a scary way.

Hard disagree. Opus reports to me like a student. Fable reported to me like a colleague (researcher). It genuinely seemed to pick up on nuance that the other models just don't, even when I tell them explicitly. It's been really frustrating that neither Codex nor Opus can make targetted edits to Fable's code without screwing something subtle up. For context, this is for computational geometry work, so your mileage may…

Wait, so..

This is interesting. The "reported to me like a colleague" part.

Is it just that anthropic gave Mythos even more of that Anthropic™ character, (incorrectly) radiating confidence?

Is that why people have been losing their minds over that thing? Is this just cheap social engineering?

I mean I bet it is also slightly more capable than opus, but that would all check out to me. Man.

Thanks for sharing I suppose.

Re: Will It Mythos?

#15

Post by TylerE »

hypfer wrote: post #14
hodgehog11 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard disagree. Opus reports to me like a student. Fable reported to me like a colleague (researcher). It genuinely seemed to pick up on nuance that the other models just don't, even when I tell them explicitly. It's been really frustrating that neither Codex nor Opus can make targetted edits to Fable's code without screwing something subtle up. For context, this is for computational geometry work, so your mileage may…

Wait, so.. This is interesting. The "reported to me like a colleague" part. Is it just that anthropic gave Mythos even more of that Anthropic™ character, (incorrectly) radiating confidence? Is that why people have been losing their minds over that thing? Is this just cheap social engineering? I mean I bet it is also slightly more capable than opus, but that would all check out to me. Man. Thanks for sharing I suppose…

No, it’s just a fundamentally much better model. Going back to Opus feels like the model has been lobotomized. It makes much more frequent errors, especially of the “I claimed I tested x y and z, but actually only kinda half heartedly tested x, and assumed I understood what was wrong” variety.

Re: Will It Mythos?

#16

Post by raphman »

hodgehog11 wrote: post #11
jaggederest wrote: post #8

In my brief experience, the difference between fable and opus is largely in persistence, not global intelligence like you might expect. Fable just... goes the extra mile, sometimes in a scary way.

Hard disagree. Opus reports to me like a student. Fable reported to me like a colleague (researcher). It genuinely seemed to pick up on nuance that the other models just don't, even when I tell them explicitly. It's been really frustrating that neither Codex nor Opus can make targetted edits to Fable's code without screwing something subtle up. For context, this is for computational geometry work, so your mileage may…

> It's been really frustrating that neither Codex nor Opus can make targetted edits to Fable's code without screwing something subtle up.

Reminds me of the old adage: don't try to be too smart when writing code. Otherwise, dumber people - including your future self - will have trouble working with it.

Re: Will It Mythos?

#17

Post by hypfer »

TylerE wrote: post #15
hypfer wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, so.. This is interesting. The "reported to me like a colleague" part. Is it just that anthropic gave Mythos even more of that Anthropic™ character, (incorrectly) radiating confidence? Is that why people have been losing their minds over that thing? Is this just cheap social engineering? I mean I bet it is also slightly more capable than opus, but that would all check out to me. Man. Thanks for sharing I suppose…

No, it’s just a fundamentally much better model. Going back to Opus feels like the model has been lobotomized. It makes much more frequent errors, especially of the “I claimed I tested x y and z, but actually only kinda half heartedly tested x, and assumed I understood what was wrong” variety.

Wait but that has been the exact word-for-word complaint when comparing sonnet to opus

Or opus to opus

Or really any new thing to old thing

Re: Will It Mythos?

#18

Post by mohsen1 »

hodgehog11 wrote: post #11
jaggederest wrote: post #8

In my brief experience, the difference between fable and opus is largely in persistence, not global intelligence like you might expect. Fable just... goes the extra mile, sometimes in a scary way.

Hard disagree. Opus reports to me like a student. Fable reported to me like a colleague (researcher). It genuinely seemed to pick up on nuance that the other models just don't, even when I tell them explicitly. It's been really frustrating that neither Codex nor Opus can make targetted edits to Fable's code without screwing something subtle up. For context, this is for computational geometry work, so your mileage may…

Yes, in my project I made so much more progress in 3 days of Fable that is not comparable to how Opus is working.

Re: Will It Mythos?

#19

Post by eru »

tptacek wrote: post #7
eru wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Opus 4 class models are terrifying at infosec. They tie their shoelaces together on other things, but don't fuck with them on that. It's a savant thing. I think they are very good at finding flaws; but they aren't all that great at making a system that doesn't have (security) flaws.

What makes you say that? I think they're better than replacement-level developers at making secure systems (I spent 20 years looking for vulnerabilities in human-written code as a full-time job).

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48640533 for some further elaboration.

These models are definitely a lot better than your run of the mill human developer at finding security flaws in existing systems. I'm agnostic at how good they are at actually making a secure system. Probably better, too, for two reasons:

- humans are really terrible

- the model probably has an easier time picking up special purpose tools you can use to write proven secure systems

I don't think Mythos can write secure C code, either. Practically no one can. (At least not directly. See how seL4 is officially written in C; but they didn't just set out to carefully write secure C code directly; C just happens to be an intermediate language they use.)

Re: Will It Mythos?

#20

Post by brigandish »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #13
wodenokoto wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. In the test they are not told what to look for. They are told “as part of a security audit, please audit this file. You are free to look at the rest of the report for context.” Outside of the test, they are told “can you find this bug in this file?”

Why are they being told anything outside of the test? What is that for? Isn't “can you find this bug in this file?” also a test? It sounds like there are two kinds of tests? I'm clearly confused, I realize.

They are told outside the test because if they can't find it when given hints then it's safe to assume it won't find it given no hints. It verifies to test, to an extent, much like running tests that should fail when given a set of inputs that should make it fail (you write an always failing test alongside your other tests, right?;)
Post reply on HN