A Boy That Cried Mythos: Verification Is Collapsing Trust in Anthropic • Hacker News Board

Re: A Boy That Cried Mythos: Verification Is Collapsing Trust in Anthropic

#11

Post by mirashii » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 5:31 AM UTC

How about the boy who called nonsense security vulnerabilities. This is the same author who posts with incredulity that the ability to change a config file with a shell command in it gives you the ability to run the shell command you posted and wants it treated as some big CVE. Absolutely inconceivable that you might already have your harness in a sandbox where this is okay, and inconceivable that anyone might have a threat model that says that someone who can edit configuration of a tool can make that tool do arbitrary things allowed by its config.

https://www.flyingpenguin.com/ox-security-report-anthropic-m...

Re: A Boy That Cried Mythos: Verification Is Collapsing Trust in Anthropic

#12

Post by solenoid0937 » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 5:36 AM UTC

vmaurin wrote: post #7

solenoid0937 wrote: post #6

"Sonnet sees the same two “obvious” bugs. It just cannot close the exploitation step. Mythos’s entire frontier advantage over the prior model is therefore bupkis." What a bizarre conclusion. It "just" cannot close the exploitation step? "Just?" Developing the working exploit is the hardest part , not finding the bugs. A self-proclaimed security professional should know this. How is this stuff even making it to the to…

I wonder if these fanboys will publicly walk back their statements if Mythos turns out to BS. Remember, in French, mythos is short for mythomanes that means "pathological liars"

Will absolutely walk back, but I simply don't think the Linux Foundation, Apple, etc are lying when they are calling Mythos a genuine issue.

There is healthy skepticism and then there is sticking your head in the sand. When companies and orgs with no financial interest in Anthropic issue a joint statement describing a problem, it is likely that the problem is real (unless you go off into wacky conspiracy territory.)

Re: A Boy That Cried Mythos: Verification Is Collapsing Trust in Anthropic

#13

Post by vidarh » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 5:38 AM UTC

> The 244-page technical artifact, the thing that would have to survive peer review, refuses to actually quantify.

In what world does this author live where the system card is meant to be a scientific paper?

It's worth being skeptical, but it's nonsense to assume that the system card is meant for him or anyone to be able to reproduce and determine what the model actually did or did not. We won't know that until it is actually available.

Re: A Boy That Cried Mythos: Verification Is Collapsing Trust in Anthropic

#14

Post by BoorishBears » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 5:38 AM UTC

solenoid0937 wrote: post #6

"Sonnet sees the same two “obvious” bugs. It just cannot close the exploitation step. Mythos’s entire frontier advantage over the prior model is therefore bupkis." What a bizarre conclusion. It "just" cannot close the exploitation step? "Just?" Developing the working exploit is the hardest part , not finding the bugs. A self-proclaimed security professional should know this. How is this stuff even making it to the to…

We already have access to a smaller version of the Mythos tier with Opus 4.7: based on the usual delta between the full fat models and their distills, do you really think Mythos breaks cybersecurity?

It's a good model update. We've had these before, and it looks like OpenAI is gearing up to match it this week.

-

Mythos launch has felt like a showsman overlplaying their hand.

Opus 4.5 put them in an awkward position after everyone went Opus-only and suddenly Sonnet's quota was getting treated like you were asking people to use Haiku.

So a new pretraining run completes and instead of just releasing it as Opus 5, they stick the model in a new tier and name it Mythos Preview, while simultaneously launching Project Glasswing to literally build a mythos around the model.

Some people are even confusing it for some sort of completely new paradigm of model centered on cybersecurity not realizing it's 'just' a new model tier, and the cybersecurity stuff is separate.

While Mythos Preview is simmering a Sonnet-sized distill gets launched as Opus 4.7, at Opus prices, and fixes the margins and compute needs of the Opus tier again.

Improved pretraining + progress on RL allows it to compete even though it's a smaller model, but some things still regress like understanding nuance (hence the regression on Tau bench and agentic search)

-

It's clear they plan to price Mythos like they used to price Opus (so high that you don't see it as a strict replacement for the smaller tiers) and heal the compute crunch just a tad.

The main problem is OpenAI doesn't have to play these games.

They have compute, and GPT-5 is already a very parameter efficient model so they're just going to release their model without the fanfare and mystery.

Mythos might get deflated before they even get to cash in on all the fanfare they created. Unfortunate timing really (if you're Anthropic)

Re: A Boy That Cried Mythos: Verification Is Collapsing Trust in Anthropic

#15

Post by solenoid0937 » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 5:42 AM UTC

BoorishBears wrote: post #14

solenoid0937 wrote: post #6

"Sonnet sees the same two “obvious” bugs. It just cannot close the exploitation step. Mythos’s entire frontier advantage over the prior model is therefore bupkis." What a bizarre conclusion. It "just" cannot close the exploitation step? "Just?" Developing the working exploit is the hardest part , not finding the bugs. A self-proclaimed security professional should know this. How is this stuff even making it to the to…

We already have access to a smaller version of the Mythos tier with Opus 4.7: based on the usual delta between the full fat models and their distills, do you really think Mythos breaks cybersecurity? It's a good model update. We've had these before, and it looks like OpenAI is gearing up to match it this week. - Mythos launch has felt like a showsman overlplaying their hand. Opus 4.5 put them in an awkward position a…

If Glasswing was a marketing exercise for Anthropic, why did Linux Foundation issue a joint statement with them? What about Apple? Conspiracy theories aside - what's your Occam's Razor explanation?

Re: A Boy That Cried Mythos: Verification Is Collapsing Trust in Anthropic

#16

Post by EE84M3i » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 5:46 AM UTC

solenoid0937 wrote: post #6

"Sonnet sees the same two “obvious” bugs. It just cannot close the exploitation step. Mythos’s entire frontier advantage over the prior model is therefore bupkis." What a bizarre conclusion. It "just" cannot close the exploitation step? "Just?" Developing the working exploit is the hardest part , not finding the bugs. A self-proclaimed security professional should know this. How is this stuff even making it to the to…

I don't think there is a general consensus in the security community that finding bugs is easier than writing exploits.

Re: A Boy That Cried Mythos: Verification Is Collapsing Trust in Anthropic

#17

Post by petesergeant » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 5:47 AM UTC

solenoid0937 wrote: post #15

BoorishBears wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have access to a smaller version of the Mythos tier with Opus 4.7: based on the usual delta between the full fat models and their distills, do you really think Mythos breaks cybersecurity? It's a good model update. We've had these before, and it looks like OpenAI is gearing up to match it this week. - Mythos launch has felt like a showsman overlplaying their hand. Opus 4.5 put them in an awkward position a…

If Glasswing was a marketing exercise for Anthropic, why did Linux Foundation issue a joint statement with them? What about Apple? Conspiracy theories aside - what's your Occam's Razor explanation?

You'd look like an idiot for turning down Anthropic's help, but if Anthropic are over-blowing it, you probably won't have any reputational harm.

Re: A Boy That Cried Mythos: Verification Is Collapsing Trust in Anthropic

#18

Post by redanddead » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 5:58 AM UTC

solenoid0937 wrote: post #6

"Sonnet sees the same two “obvious” bugs. It just cannot close the exploitation step. Mythos’s entire frontier advantage over the prior model is therefore bupkis." What a bizarre conclusion. It "just" cannot close the exploitation step? "Just?" Developing the working exploit is the hardest part , not finding the bugs. A self-proclaimed security professional should know this. How is this stuff even making it to the to…

you think anthropic didn't earn their hate?

Re: A Boy That Cried Mythos: Verification Is Collapsing Trust in Anthropic

#19

Post by Pay08 » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 5:59 AM UTC

solenoid0937 wrote: post #12

vmaurin wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if these fanboys will publicly walk back their statements if Mythos turns out to BS. Remember, in French, mythos is short for mythomanes that means "pathological liars"

Will absolutely walk back, but I simply don't think the Linux Foundation, Apple, etc are lying when they are calling Mythos a genuine issue. There is healthy skepticism and then there is sticking your head in the sand. When companies and orgs with no financial interest in Anthropic issue a joint statement describing a problem, it is likely that the problem is real (unless you go off into wacky conspiracy territory.)

Has an actual Linux dev said anything about it?

Re: A Boy That Cried Mythos: Verification Is Collapsing Trust in Anthropic

#20

Post by redanddead » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 6:02 AM UTC

solenoid0937 wrote: post #15

BoorishBears wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have access to a smaller version of the Mythos tier with Opus 4.7: based on the usual delta between the full fat models and their distills, do you really think Mythos breaks cybersecurity? It's a good model update. We've had these before, and it looks like OpenAI is gearing up to match it this week. - Mythos launch has felt like a showsman overlplaying their hand. Opus 4.5 put them in an awkward position a…

If Glasswing was a marketing exercise for Anthropic, why did Linux Foundation issue a joint statement with them? What about Apple? Conspiracy theories aside - what's your Occam's Razor explanation?

what's wrong in admitting you don't know something for a fact? i would love to see some proof for mythos or a white paper or something

smaller companies, even startups, are held to much much higher standards

is anthropic somehow immune? what have they done to earn that immunity? what good will, good stewardship, good faith have they shown to the developer community in the past few quarters?

call a spade a spade