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

“Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?

kingy.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 189 posts

Re: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?

#121

Post by alt227 »

Lerc wrote: post #115
alt227 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Multiple people who have already used Mythos or been given its reports on their software have publicly stated that it's all hype, and that it is not really finding any new critical bugs which other models cant.

Do you have any good sources on that? I have seen things to suggest that not all of the hype is true, but so far I have not encountered anyone claiming all of the hype is untrue. Which is what I interpret "its all hype" (sic) to mean.

For example, It was recently let loose on cURL and its maintainer is less than impressed:

https://www.theregister.com/security/2026/05/11/anthropics-b...

Re: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?

#124

Post by jcims »

saithound wrote: post #63

It's pretty clear at this point that Mythos' capability to discover and exploit zero-day vulnerabilities at scale is but an incremental improvement over existing models like the ones available to OpenAI's Plus/Pro subscribers. Anthropic tries to create marketing hype around Mythos using two psychological tricks. 1. Put large numbers in the headlines. "Mythos discovered 271 vulnerabilities in Firefox" makes the model…

>Do the whole "too dangerous to release" shtick.

One aspect that isn't really discussed much in this context is how to wrap one's head around the corporate risk with models of ever increasing capability. It might not be too dangerous to society, but it could be too dangerous to Anthropic.

Re: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?

#125

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

Lord-Jobo wrote: post #114
InkCanon wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, slightly stretching the definition of terms consecutively, so the multiplicative meaning is really far from the truth. For example, 271 vulnerabilities were really mostly bugs - generally incorrect states, but which almost never led to any exploit.

Yes, an AI making massive gains in bug finding is hugely important and good, it may even lead to a net neutral with the amount of bugs introduced by other AI coding processes, but it’s a far cry from how mythos is portrayed most of the time: a automatic super hacker.

But I think that's a problem with the people portraying it that way, not with Anthropic's messaging. If you've invented "just" a massively more powerful bug finder, it still seems right that you ought to let banks and critical infrastructure providers run it on their systems before it gets in the hands of people who might want to hack them.

Re: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?

#126

Post by miroljub »

estearum wrote: post #110
miroljub wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we look at our human history, there are millions of examples where less intelligent beings destroyed highly advanced civilizations. It was never about intelligence, but about willingness to destroy (willingness to defend is not enough). Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, China, ... I won't mention current examples ...

1. "Less advanced civilization" != less intelligent people 2. The outcome of near-peer competition is surely highly dependent on factors like brutality, luck, tactics etc... the competition between the defenders of crops (i.e. makers of pesticides) and insects is not. Not only are the insects destroyed en masse successfully, but neither side even recognizes itself as party to a competition. The insect has no concepti…

> Do you have a reason to believe the gap between AI (not LLMs specifically, but AI generally) and human intelligence will peak near the difference between human competitors (what... 20-30 IQ points)?

So we established that competing human civilizations differ by 20-30 IQ points? Sounds reasonable.

> If so, please share why you believe this.

Basically two reasons:

1. there's no AI. There are LLMs, which basically do pattern matching on increasingly LLM generated data set. That inevitable leads to a local maximum where every advance is increasingly difficult for decreasing gain in "intelligence"

2. the energy required to reach an ever increasing level of "intelligence" (or let us just call it pattern matching performance) quickly becomes so huge that it's simply not sustainable.

I think the current LLM approach is a dead-end bound to plateau not much higher than the current level.

I'm not saying it's impossible to reach AI, but it would require a paradigm shift that I'm not even able to imagine at this level of available technology.

Re: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?

#127

Post by malfist »

moralestapia wrote: post #120
fwipsy wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fairly certain Amodei believes the "too dangerous to release" hype himself. Even if it's just an incremental improvement, better than getting frog-boiled by repeated 20% improvements until someone builds bioweapons in their backyard.

* sigh * Three things: * Delaying the release accomplishes nothing. * The barrier to someone building/not-building a bioweapon in their backyard is not access to an LLM. * Remember when GPT 3.5 was going to destroy the world? And how it was conscious? And how it was "trying to escape"? Lmao.

I think gpt 3.5 might have destroyed the world

Re: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?

#128

Post by MattRix »

kilroy123 wrote: post #86
saithound wrote: post #63

It's pretty clear at this point that Mythos' capability to discover and exploit zero-day vulnerabilities at scale is but an incremental improvement over existing models like the ones available to OpenAI's Plus/Pro subscribers. Anthropic tries to create marketing hype around Mythos using two psychological tricks. 1. Put large numbers in the headlines. "Mythos discovered 271 vulnerabilities in Firefox" makes the model…

I couldn't agree more. I think the recent moves to partner with xAI and Amazon are proof that they desperately need more compute and are doing everything possible to get it.

I mean everyone knows they need more compute. That’s not a secret or up for debate at all. They are maybe the fastest growing company in history.

Re: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?

#129

Post by saidnooneever »

smca wrote: post #53

(I work at Anthropic) We have publicly stated[1] that our goal is to deploy Mythos-class models at scale when we have the requisite safeguards for offensive cyber risks in place. Mythos is a general frontier model, not a cyber-specific model so there are many reasons why we think our users will benefit from access (with the aforementioned safeguards in place) in due course. Compute has also not factored into our deci…

no risk is added. all risk is already maxed out. release it.

Re: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?

#130

Post by thrawa8387336 »

IX-103 wrote: post #119
saithound wrote: post #63

It's pretty clear at this point that Mythos' capability to discover and exploit zero-day vulnerabilities at scale is but an incremental improvement over existing models like the ones available to OpenAI's Plus/Pro subscribers. Anthropic tries to create marketing hype around Mythos using two psychological tricks. 1. Put large numbers in the headlines. "Mythos discovered 271 vulnerabilities in Firefox" makes the model…

I work for a company that has been using Mythos for vulnerability detection in our software. The results we're getting are revolutionary to the point that our software security teams are heavily overloaded addressing the deluge of thousands of real bugs/vulnerabilities and design flaws across our billions of lines of code. For comparison, we are invested heavily the the AI space to the point where Anthropic is one of…

Read the above comment again. Both your comments and his/hers are compatible
Post reply on HN