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

141–150 of 189 posts

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

#141

Post by preommr »

bluGill wrote: post #133
Lerc wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

CURL has been scanned with multiple LLMs. Mythos was last and as a result found only 1 issue. If Myhos was really much better I'd expect it to find a lot more issues despite the others already there. Also, the competing models are getting better. Opus 4.5 was better than everyone else when it was new, but only a few months later and there are a lot of models that are better (not just the newer Opus models)

Is the CURL thing mostly from the primagen video, or did it break into the greater social media sphere and I just missed it?

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

#142

Post by usaar333 »

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.

How does delaying the release not solve anything? It puts everyone on a notice to fix all security vulnerabilities now

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

#143

Post by spooneybarger »

usaar333 wrote: post #142
moralestapia wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* 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.

How does delaying the release not solve anything? It puts everyone on a notice to fix all security vulnerabilities now

Because the only thing keeping those vulnerabilities in existence was laziness.

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

#144

Post by The_Blade »

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…

if you are invested heavily in the AI space, isn't it in your best interest for the froth around Mythos to be true and the comment you are responding to to be invalid? even if you are competing with Anthropic, a rising tide raises all ships

i'd like to see more facts and data one way or another!

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

#145

Post by evanelias »

jorisw wrote: post #81
saithound wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an AI-written slop article, which is hugged to death by HN in any case. It claims to be an evidence-based investigation, but basically invents the contents of the documents they supposedly investigated, such as the Anthropic Frontier Red Team writeup, from whole cloth. I don't think deeper engagement with it would promote good discussion.

So you say. I actually read the piece and didn't get AI vibes from it all, except for the graphics

Take another look at this blog's index https://kingy.ai/category/blog/ and click through more posts, and pay attention to the post dates.

Do you really think this singular author is writing multiple excessively-long blog posts about AI per day? There are ~650 of these posts over the past 18 months. And over on LinkedIn, the author describes himself as a "Specialist in Digital Marketing, Videography / Video Editing, Search Engine Optimization, Social Media, and B2B Sales."

YMMV but this post and entire site absolutely screams "slop" to me.

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

#146

Post by AlienRobot »

passivegains wrote: post #136
goldenarm wrote: post #28

When your logo is AI, your illustrations are AI, and you profile pic is AI, I'm going to assume the text is AI too and won't read it.

The text is just as you predict, but in fairness to the author using a .ai domain is a good way to set expectations up front.

This feels like it's performative AI. Just trying to use everything that has "AI" in it be more AI bro'er than other AI bro's.

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

#147

Post by andai »

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 don't get it. If the older / smaller models are almost as good as Mythos, that sounds like the opposite of comforting.

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

#149

Post by swingboy »

preommr wrote: post #141
bluGill wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CURL has been scanned with multiple LLMs. Mythos was last and as a result found only 1 issue. If Myhos was really much better I'd expect it to find a lot more issues despite the others already there. Also, the competing models are getting better. Opus 4.5 was better than everyone else when it was new, but only a few months later and there are a lot of models that are better (not just the newer Opus models)

Is the CURL thing mostly from the primagen video, or did it break into the greater social media sphere and I just missed it?

The cURL lead developer posted about it: https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2026/05/11/mythos-finds-a-curl-v...

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

#150

Post by phainopepla2 »

jorisw wrote: post #89
gofreddygo wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there are 31 emdashes in that piece. the domain ends with _ai_

I use emdashes all the time. They're correct punctuation as opposed to a minus sign. They're easy to type too: opt-shift-minus. If they were such a huge giveaway without ever being used by humans, models would be trained by now not to use them as much. The blog is about AI. So yeah the TLD is .ai

I've never seen writing created before the advent of LLMs that used emdashes in the same way and with the same frequency that LLMs regularly do. There's probably some out there but it would be a real outlier. LLMs overuse them to an absurd degree, putting them where most writers would put commas, occasionally semi-colons, or nothing at all.

I count 51 em-dashes on the page, which is extreme. They're also used in places where they don't really belong. It's very obviously LLM-generated, at least in part.

That said, it puzzles me why people don't prompt LLMs to change up the writing style a bit and remove some of the tells.

Post reply on HN