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

111–120 of 261 posts

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#111

Post by atleastoptimal »

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.

Why do you think that? All these rumors about compute constraint just seem like speculation and not based on any data or information. All they would need to do is increase their prices to free up compute capacity.

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#113

Post by deaton »

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…

The question is, will anyone pay enough for Mythos to offset the opportunity cost of offering that much Opus? You don't want to end up in a spot where you don't have enough compute and your service's reliability degrades to an unusable state like xAI.

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#114

Post by rfgplk »

yanis_t wrote: post #20

Is there any evidence Mythos is qualitatively better than the Opus 4.x? I'm afraid that the usual mantra that "we just need more scale" that worked well for attracting investments, is not working anymore - bigger models provide marginal improvements while naturally get much more expensive to run. Is this why both Anthropic and OpenAI are rushing for IPOs this year?

It probably isn't, at least in terms of security or memory safety. The current models can already sniff out all memory vulnerabilities with relative ease, you can't really beat that.

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#115

Post by rfgplk »

3sk_ask8 wrote: post #70

Anthropic has the marketing of a weight loss product. - They still claim 10000 issues, but they found only one in curl. - They did not find rsync issues but Claude rather introduced rsync issues. - Facebook is a member of this cult program but Mythos did not find the account takeover flaw. - Mythos did not find the issues in Anthropic's own Bun rewrite . They will not release Mythos because it would be exposed as a f…

It's just pure marketing, and most people are falling for it. The primary issue stems from their definition of "vulnerability". Most C code will be _swimming_ in vulnerabilities depending on how you analyze it (ie function that accepts a pointer but doesn't validate -> potential vulnerability right there). The only thing that matters is if it's de facto exploitable or not.

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#116

Post by mattnewton »

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…

No insider info, but just wanted to mention that pricing signals things too. If Mythos is only servable at $X*Y dollars and isn’t Y times better than $X of compute at another provider, it’s quite possible that affects the IPO price negatively versus the halo of having the worlds most expensive model that is “too powerful to release” unpriced and unbenchmarked.

I think that most people at Anthropic are true believers from my interactions with them so I don’t believe this theory anecdotally. The simplest explanation is that it really is taking a while to gain confidence they won’t be used for a spree of bad cyber attacks. Knowing how long it takes institutions to fix security issues when filed by humans I would be more suprised if this wasn’t the case.

But I would forgive anyone who did think it was deliberately sandbagged; given the staggering sums at play, true believers might believe the ends justify the means to a little “marketing” like this.

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#117

Post by aspenmartin »

yanis_t wrote: post #20

Is there any evidence Mythos is qualitatively better than the Opus 4.x? I'm afraid that the usual mantra that "we just need more scale" that worked well for attracting investments, is not working anymore - bigger models provide marginal improvements while naturally get much more expensive to run. Is this why both Anthropic and OpenAI are rushing for IPOs this year?

> Im afraid that the usual mantra that "we just need more scale" that worked well for attracting investments, is not working anymore - bigger models provide marginal improvements while naturally get much more expensive to run.

It's super interesting to hear this refrain on HN, it is alarmingly common. Anthropic released benchmark numbers on Mythos, as they have for all of their models. Once models become public, people evaluate them in a myriad of ways. We have had reliable scaling laws for years and they still hold. Epoch capability index continues to grow exactly as expected. Where does this idea come from?

As for cost, the cost per token at a given level of performance drops up to 40x per year.

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#119

Post by insanitybit »

mentalgear wrote: post #5

Here's my big fear: Even IF (and that's a BIG if) we get all critical vulnerabilities fixed in tech (before adversarial/state-actors turn up with open attack models) - we still have (in at least a year) models that will be so good in social engineering that they can still (given enough tokens) gain access to whatever system they want. If society can't trust banks and other institutions to safely control their data, w…

A lot of social engineering attacks die the second you have domain bound 2FA. Not everything, but a lot.

But the idea that we'll squash all of the critical vulns is simply nonsense, despite the weird Firefox blog posts that indicate otherwise.

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#120

Post by aspenmartin »

aplthrowaway67 wrote: post #15

How "altruistic" of them. If only Anthropic extended this level of care to the environment or the economy.

Why do you think the impact to the economy is bad? Also, if youre talking about the environment from the lens of data centers, I agree they CAN be incredibly problematic and that should be regulated and pushed back against when they engage in problematic behaviors (stressing water supply in a drought area e.g.). But not blindly -- data centers can be a clear win-win in a lot of ways, especially if done right. "data centers = bad" is way way way too simplistic a picture
Post reply on HN