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

111–120 of 232 posts

Re: Will It Mythos?

#111

Post by pbgcp2026 »

SwellJoe wrote: post #53
po1nt wrote: post #37

From all the things I read I'm pretty convinced that Mythos is just standard LLM with safety features turned off. If current models weren't reluctant to search for vulnerabilities, they might perform as good as Mythos.

Early on, I had a vague suspicion that the reason some of the Chinese models, including quite small ones, perform so well on this task, especially relative to their size and cost, is because they don't have the same safety guardrails baked in regarding software security that US models seem to have. Gemini 3.1 Pro doing so poorly sort of reinforced that gut feeling. But, then Gemma 4 proved to be extraordinarily good…

I concur with "Gemma 4 31B the best model I have results for". My workflow includes a lot of Gemma 4 – but dense 31B non-quantised version.(BTW I found it is most cost effective to run on Bedrock)

Re: Will It Mythos?

#112

Post by pbgcp2026 »

kevinh456 wrote: post #51
po1nt wrote: post #37

From all the things I read I'm pretty convinced that Mythos is just standard LLM with safety features turned off. If current models weren't reluctant to search for vulnerabilities, they might perform as good as Mythos.

Fable, the same model as mythos with extra safety controls, was much faster, more accurate, and more token efficient than previous models. What I got done with it in 48 hours accelerated my personal project from concept to deployed prototype.

Fable is not the same model as Mythos but with guardrails. There are many things that were never disclosed by Project Glasswind. And probably will never be.

Re: Will It Mythos?

#113

Post by pbgcp2026 »

cheeze wrote: post #52
po1nt wrote: post #37

From all the things I read I'm pretty convinced that Mythos is just standard LLM with safety features turned off. If current models weren't reluctant to search for vulnerabilities, they might perform as good as Mythos.

Why wouldn't OpenAI offer the same?

My bet is actually on GLM. Z.ai does amazing work and they will overcome Western models. IMO, faster than DS or Qwen. They have amazing team and very capable and smart leader.

Re: Will It Mythos?

#114

Post by netcan »

p0w3n3d wrote: post #98

I've read opinions that this a speculation to raise the Anthropic's value. They are known to say "horrific things" and personification of the AI they are delivering. It sometimes sounds unprofessional even. This line of communication might have even influenced the courts in the case of copyright violation ("it is not copyright violation if a person learned something and it knows it and thinks of it"). However algorit…

The copyright questions are unanswerable in my opinion. That is, they cannot be answered by looking for an essential "truth."

Reasoning by analogy in this case is not abstraction. It's just shifting the determination to choice of analogy.

Meanwhile, irl.. The best analogy is recent tech Innovations. The internet, social media...

Online copyright was basically instituted when large tech companies were ready to do it, and it was to their advantage.

Youtube, for example, built itself to massive size and locked in network effect advantages largely by violating copyright.

At some point, the legal ambiguity was a problem for their ad business. They were ready to move into the current revenue share influencer-treadmill model for content. At this point online, copyright enforcement was necessary to reduce the risk of being flanked by a new video platform.

The iPod, which resurrected Apple, ran on copyright infringement, and copyright Greyzones.... Until the point when their interests flipped. They're negotiating position opposite labels , Network effect considerations, Etc.

Intellectual property, broadly, does not start out as an intuitive/emergent natural right. It is created by legislative process, ecplicitely taylored to the needs of an interst group and/or national interest.

Writers, publishers, inventors, IP holding companies...

The legal rhetoric around legal arguments... is rhetoric. It is not the reason why decisions are made. It is how decisions or justified post fact.

No one is going to burden aI companies, at this point. The rights of copyright holders are a trivial matter compared to the potential of AI, the risk to certain labor markets, and such.

Re: Will It Mythos?

#115

Post by KronisLV »

Tossrock wrote: post #39

As I posted in another comment, I found Fable to be substantially more powerful than any previous model. However, this isn't just an ungrounded opinion - I uploaded my full session transcript and code created working on a very complex implementation, so people can judge for themselves, if they're interested: https://tossrock.substack.com/p/36-hours-with-fable

At least someone is bringing receipts! I think LLM discussions could use a lot of this, both ways - to see what works and also what doesn't work. Still wouldn't help with circumstances where models might be secretly getting dumbed down during peak load, but at least it's something!

Re: Will It Mythos?

#116

Post by felipeerias »

p0w3n3d wrote: post #98

I've read opinions that this a speculation to raise the Anthropic's value. They are known to say "horrific things" and personification of the AI they are delivering. It sometimes sounds unprofessional even. This line of communication might have even influenced the courts in the case of copyright violation ("it is not copyright violation if a person learned something and it knows it and thinks of it"). However algorit…

Copyright is a social construct, not an inherent property of the universe. It is whatever we collectively agree it is.

In practice, we seem to be leaning towards the idea that training on a copyrighted book is wrong if used to replicate or paraphrase that same book, but not if used to teach a model how to write better.

Re: Will It Mythos?

#117

Post by jeffyaw »

airstrike wrote: post #54

Around February, Opus 4.6 was excellent. Smart, fast, proactive. Then it got lobotomized and it's never been the same after that nerf. 4.7 came along and it too was disappointing—not unlike 4.8, which despite feeling a smidge smarter, tends to write word salad and is basically unusable for some workflows. Fable felt like having access to that "old Opus" again, but a little smarter. Sort of like I'd expect an Opus 5 t…

february was some kind of nirvana. i do think claude code versions and what is introduced at that level is/was relevant.

but 4.8 xhigh w/ ultracode to me is just about Fable level (w/ some agents harness tweaking).

but have to switch to 4.7 xhigh and 4.6 max quite often these days.

Re: Will It Mythos?

#118

Post by l1ng0 »

Tossrock wrote: post #39

As I posted in another comment, I found Fable to be substantially more powerful than any previous model. However, this isn't just an ungrounded opinion - I uploaded my full session transcript and code created working on a very complex implementation, so people can judge for themselves, if they're interested: https://tossrock.substack.com/p/36-hours-with-fable

You write to the AI as if it were a person. From my point of view it looks like a fair bit of extra typing and extra tokens. Is there a reason you include things like your emotional response and use a very chatty tone? Do you find this seems to alter responses?

Re: Will It Mythos?

#120

Post by icholy »

l1ng0 wrote: post #118
Tossrock wrote: post #39

As I posted in another comment, I found Fable to be substantially more powerful than any previous model. However, this isn't just an ungrounded opinion - I uploaded my full session transcript and code created working on a very complex implementation, so people can judge for themselves, if they're interested: https://tossrock.substack.com/p/36-hours-with-fable

You write to the AI as if it were a person. From my point of view it looks like a fair bit of extra typing and extra tokens. Is there a reason you include things like your emotional response and use a very chatty tone? Do you find this seems to alter responses?

I don't want LLM usage to inadvertently change the way I communicate with people.
Post reply on HN