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

151–160 of 189 posts

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

#151

Post by lumost »

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 find it interesting that Mythos was announced the same day that GLM overtook opus4.6 in capability. To me this seems like a careful attempt to cool demand for opensource models which are about to take the overall lead.

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

#152

Post by alt227 »

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 Reg reported it:

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

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

#153

Post by iaw »

lumost wrote: post #151
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 find it interesting that Mythos was announced the same day that GLM overtook opus4.6 in capability. To me this seems like a careful attempt to cool demand for opensource models which are about to take the overall lead.

It's remarkable how capable GLM 5.1 is, what's amazing is the recent development of Qwen 3.6 27B being close in real world performance.

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

#154

Post by anon84873628 »

thrawa8387336 wrote: post #130
IX-103 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They are directly contradicting the claim that if you ran other models on the same codebases you would get similar results.

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

#155

Post by gpugreg »

hugh-avherald wrote: post #134
gpugreg wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to say, but it almost certainly is AI. - 51 EM-dashes - Section headings - Excessive repetitions: "The [...] are real. The [...] are real. The [...] is real. All three things are true at once." - Excessive use of "genuine", "genuinely", "honest", "real", "true" - Excessive use of "gap": "near-term gap", "the Compute Gap", "the Narrative Gap", "critical gap" - Corny and meaningless closing sentence: "Understandi…

I don't believe my 20 year old university essays were written by AI, despite your criteria.

Do your 20 year old university essays really fulfill all those criteria at once?

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

#156

Post by anon84873628 »

The_Blade wrote: post #144
IX-103 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

This is the "circumstantial" version of the ad hominem fallacy. Just because the author may benefit from the argument being true doesn't mean it is invalid.

They are clearly disputing the assertion the Mythos is an incremental gain rather than quantum leap. Of course objective unbiased data would be nice, but these anecdotes are all we have right now.

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

#157

Post by GenerWork »

grayhatter wrote: post #113
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…

are you able to detail a single safeguard you plan to implement, so that I can stop believing it's vaporware and/or a scam?

How would it be vaporware? It's out in the wild and has been used by individuals/corporations.

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

#158

Post by estearum »

miroljub wrote: post #126
estearum wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> there's no AI. There are LLMs

Obviously AI is physically possible, unless you think there's something universally special about the earthbound naked ape's brain-goo that imbues it with special intelligence-stuff.

> 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.

Every single human being has an existence (dis)proof inside their skull

> 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.

Explicitly not relevant to the question I posed

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

#159

Post by bluGill »

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?

I've been following him on mastodon and read it right there

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

#160

Post by fwipsy »

drakythe wrote: post #103
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.

He's made so many statements that fall under the "boy who cried wolf" category that even if he _does_ believe these statements he needs to be managed better. I'll never forget Anthropic's huge "Oh my God, the AI blackmailed a researcher to save itself!" and the prompt effectively told the AI to do that and gave it forged emails with easy blackmail targets, as if this isn't a common trope in mystery or suspense books/…

Imagine you're in a car and the car is driving towards a cliff. You shout at the driver "oh my god we're about to go over a cliff!" And he says "you said that two seconds ago, but we're still alive, you're just like the boy who cried wolf. Do you know exactly when we're going to go over a cliff? No? Maybe you're imagining the cliff."

I think it's very improbable that AI is as dangerous as Yud et al fear it is. But it's too soon to say and there seems to be significant long-tail risk. Mocking or criticizing people for being concerned about that risk seems counterproductive.

Seems like the life cycle of huge tech companies like meta, Google, Microsoft, Amazon is "do whatever's necessary to take over the world, then enshittify." I don't take it for granted that Amodei and Anthropic seem to not quite be maximally power hungry?

Re: second half of your comment. Understanding a threat doesn't neutralize it. Anthropic didn't make that big a deal of it either; it was news articles that blew it out of proportion.

Post reply on HN