Live data from Hacker News

NSA lost access to Mythos amid Anthropic dispute

nytimes.com

271–280 of 308 posts

Re: NSA lost access to Mythos amid Anthropic dispute

#271
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not as familiar with that. I do agree that it sounded substantial. I just think that a coreutils flaw is not as substantial as a rendering engine exploit.

Hadn't they spent a year hardening curl with various AI before they tried Mythos?

Yes, and Firefox had not.

Which I think points at Mythos not being some big jump in capability finding things earlier LLMs didn't, it seems to mostly come down to massively increased compute budget and they finally catching up in context sizes.

Re: NSA lost access to Mythos amid Anthropic dispute

#272

> The White House and intelligence officials had pushed forward a classified contract between Anthropic and the N.S.A., which would allow the spy agency to use the company’s technology for a variety of purposes, including intelligence analysis and detecting new computer vulnerabilities. Ironic that both sides are playing a horse shoe game: Gov: The model is both a supply chain risk and also we'll DPA you if you don't…

I mean graphite control rods do exist in nuclear reactors to absorb excess neutrons, preventing the fuel from going critical & making it technically safe for general use (THOUGH of course disasters have happened)

Re: NSA lost access to Mythos amid Anthropic dispute

#273
post #246
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that Anthropic is fully absolutely unethical. And they lied a lot. They were actively trying to make the doom happen while trying to cash out maximally on doom trolling. If they were actually concerned over social impact, they would try to minimize it. They could have sell their product as a tool to be used to make economy boom, they tried to sell it on promiss to make it shrink for most people. It really doe…

Economic growth and short-term job loss are both results of automation. Anthropic seems to have been pretty honest about that to me?

If only they wrote in normal calm economic terms as you seem to imply ... and I wrote "shrinking economy for most people" not growing.

Re: NSA lost access to Mythos amid Anthropic dispute

#274
post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of effort is spent to make the "conversation" feel just like a human-to-human interaction. This is not a naturally occurring phenomenon due to the technology, but rather a feature carefully engineered by those companies in order to get people hooked. Then they have all these tiny nudges like the typing animations or the "thinking..." popups before the next chat message appears. At some point you might have also…

POV OpenAI, early 2021. You have a pretty good next-token predictor called GPT-3. You noticed sometimes it can do useful things if you write out the start of a task and let it predict the next step. However, sometimes it's very difficult to frame a task that way. So instead you train it to predict the answer based on a question or instructions. Oh wait, it didn't get it right the first time... better let users iterat…

The "conversation" interface is exactly the same workflow as one used with google search: user states a query, page loads, user adapts query because they are not happy with the result, until they end up with a suitable result which makes them close the tab.

So they have made this amazing query-response system which is far superior to google due to the summarization of query results from the global web and the auto-translation to present them in the user's native language. This is the type of raw query-response capability which many software engineers are trying to use in their agentic coding sessions.

However, after achieving such innovation, the AI startups consciously choose to apply social media KPIs to their query-response startup, which incentivizes all the dark patterns we have seen in their user interface. They notice that a certain subset of users can be tricked into believing that the startup's query-response interface has human-like qualities such as a name and persona.

This user cohort shows amazing metrics in terms of time spent on app, so they adapt their user interface and their system prompts accordingly. The AI startup doesn't have to care if the reason for humans accepting the illusion of a simulated human interaction is due to social circumstances (lack of emotional intimacy) or an underlying psychological vulnerability that the startup is actively exploiting.

The AI startup only cares if their "simulated human interaction" product receives negative attention from normal people who are not part of the vulnerable cohort, e.g. the suicides or the parasocial romantic relationships with the chatbots.

It is exactly the same as in the gambling industry: There is a certain subset of users called "whales" who are the cash cows for casinos, but if you look at the actual humans who are labeled with this term one can see pathological gamblers, most of which are ruining their lives and families. Casinos do everything to prevent people from jumping from their roofs after they lost all their money.

If AI startups can use simulated human interactions to make vulnerable people act against their own interests in the same way as casinos and social media companies do, it will allow them to make shitloads of money.

But if you're actually a clever person then be honest to yourself and others about what you are working on, and why these human-like features are really added to the user interfaces of OpenAI or Anthropic or the other AI startups.

So this is my framing of the situation.

I don't think this kind of problem can be overlooked by the insiders, and we might see some internal rifts along these lines: Will our AI startup simulate a human interaction in order to exploit our vulnerable peers, or will our AI startup focus on delivering the best response to our user's queries?

Because now we have local models, which - assuming one has suitable hardware - provide 80% of the utility in terms of a query-response knowledge base.

As we are currently seeing, the AI startups with billion-dollar funding have very big economic incentives to focus on the "simulated human interaction" part of the equation, because their investors need returns.

The biggest strategic blunder I see at Google. Because if Google actually changes their excellent query-response user interface to a chat conversation which simulates a human interaction with persona, name, and voice, then they knowingly pivot to the same social media KPI driven business as OpenAI and Anthropic are struggling with.

Re: NSA lost access to Mythos amid Anthropic dispute

#275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yours and others' claims that it's impossible and nonsensical is based on lack of understanding. lol, no, it's really not. > Also when talking about encryption between servers within datacenters you seem to be missing that in order for such multi -stage/path encryption (separate certs/keys) to be possible the data first has to be decrypted at each point Why would I want the data to be decrypted at each point and wh…

> Why would I want the data to be decrypted at each point and why would datacenters do that? I think they mean the data must have existed in plain text before it was encrypted, and will exist in plain text after it is decrypted. At some point “your” server in a datacenter somewhere needs to decrypt the data to do something useful with it, after all you’re paying for compute, and homeomorphic encryption is too slow, s…

So the NSA streams the ram of every virtual machine and bare metal server on the internet to themselves so they can analyze the plain text that's being processed in ram and no one has noticed this network traffic? How could that even be possible? If I buy a 100Mbps network connection from someone, they just provision a bit more so that the NSA streaming doesn't impact or show up?

Re: NSA lost access to Mythos amid Anthropic dispute

#276
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are they going to MITM communications with certs that never left my machine? Are you suggesting they broke TLS or that they've somehow acquired every private cert generated?

You just intercept the traffic after its decrypted on the server side, or are you suggesting you somehow send encrypted traffic that never gets decrypted?

So the NSA streams the memory contents of every virtual machine and bare metal server on the internet to get the decrypted traffic? How would that even work at the scale of the internet?

Re: NSA lost access to Mythos amid Anthropic dispute

#277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of effort is spent to make the "conversation" feel just like a human-to-human interaction. This is not a naturally occurring phenomenon due to the technology, but rather a feature carefully engineered by those companies in order to get people hooked. Then they have all these tiny nudges like the typing animations or the "thinking..." popups before the next chat message appears. At some point you might have also…

To get more concrete are you using coding agents like Claude Code/ Codex/ opencode etc? What kind of work are you doing specifically? If you are doing the kind of median enterprise tech work these tools are just good enough to do it at a relatively high level or atleast heavily augment people doing it. Examples would be like adding routine CRUD features to APIs/ improving observability/ adding tests or accessibility…

It try to explain it better in my longer sibling comment. I'm not using any coding agents. Their engineers can't be bothered to design their own webapp properly so I don't trust their binaries.

For me both Claude and ChatGPT are query-response services and replacements for google. They help with error messages, single-file MVPs, and software design problems such as comparison of different modules.

In my experience everything that goes beyond 200 lines creates issues down the line, so I try to keep interactions really short. Of course they can convincingly add CRUD functionality or tests, but one needs to double check their correctness, and if the subtle bugs are finally spotted then one needs to fix them anyways.

It's good for a first draft but I wouldn't use agents on a codebase I actually care about.

Unfortunately the billion-dollar funding forces the AI startups to make a return, and they are finding it in a vulnerable cohort of people who respond positively to a simulated human interaction, which is why they are focusing so much on it.

The query-response knowledge interface was the moat of google, and nowadays it can be 80% replaced with a local GPU and an open model. They know it, which is why they try to hook people on the simulated human interaction aspect of their interfaces through chatbots and voice chat.

Re: NSA lost access to Mythos amid Anthropic dispute

#278
post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of effort is spent to make the "conversation" feel just like a human-to-human interaction. This is not a naturally occurring phenomenon due to the technology, but rather a feature carefully engineered by those companies in order to get people hooked. Then they have all these tiny nudges like the typing animations or the "thinking..." popups before the next chat message appears. At some point you might have also…

>A lot of effort is spent to make the "conversation" feel just like a human-to-human interaction. We'll in humans we call this an education and it takes quite a long time to get one.

Not a good comparison. Education is the part where they train on all digital content they can get their hands at, no matter the copyrights.

You get your education, you can replace google as a query-response interface to all digital content.

But then they use system prompts to simulate a fake persona and a user interface such as female voices or chat conversation in order to suggest that one is interacting with a real human being. This is clearly aimed at exploiting vulnerable cohorts of people, because the knowledge base part of this innovative technology is already solved.

Like casinos and social media companies, they know the profit is in the "whales" who can be psychologically manipulated to spend their time and money against their own interests.

Re: NSA lost access to Mythos amid Anthropic dispute

#279
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mathematicians in academia are paid a little less than AI researchers. Companies are willing to pay billions to steal the few people capable of driving development of frontier LLMs from each other. Cryptographers don't quite enjoy the same popularity.

Does getting paid more make people smarter? Especially academia tend to do their work out of interest, their monetary gain isn't their primary goal

When people with a particular aptitude and skillset can make 10x as much money doing job A than job B, there is a bias towards job A.

Of course, that doesn’t mean nobody will do job B for other, non-financial reasons.

Re: NSA lost access to Mythos amid Anthropic dispute

#280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are they going to MITM communications with certs that never left my machine? Are you suggesting they broke TLS or that they've somehow acquired every private cert generated?

> How are they going to MITM communications with certs that never left my machine? The long game. They: - make sure you wouldn't be in a position to need to transmit data anywhere that would receive it without CA's in their hypothetical pocket - manage the evolution of the cloud industry to make sure portable VM's and Containers can have their data archived (both in-RAM, disk, hey just send us the running VM!) - back…

And you're saying "they" (red flag) have done this with every cert generated?
Post reply on HN