Live data from Hacker News

System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]

www-cdn.anthropic.com

371–380 of 687 posts

Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]

#371
post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assure you it will soon become very clear that mass job losses are one of the least concerning side effects of developing the magic "everything that can plausibly been done within the constraints of physics is now possible" machine. We're opening a can of worms which I don't think most people have the imagination to understand the horrors of.

Do you have any sources I could read to better understand your concern?

What sources would you even be looking for? I think you're asking the wrong question. It's not like I'm arguing a scientific theory which can be backed by data and experimentation. I can only provide you reasoning for why I believe what I believe.

Firstly, I'd propose that all technological advances are a product of time and intelligence, and that given unlimited time and intelligence, the discovery and application of new technologies is fundamentally only limited by resources and physics.

There are many technologies which might plausibly exist, but which we have not yet discovered because we only have so much intelligence and have only had so much time.

With more intelligence we should assume the discovery of new technologies will be much quicker – perhaps exponential if we consider the rate of current technology discovery and exponential progression of AI.

There are lots of technologies we have today which would seem like magic to people in the past. Future technologies likely exist which would make us feel this way were they available today.

While it's hard to predict specifically which technologies could exist soon in a world with ASI, if we assume it's within the bounds of available resources and physics, we should assume it's at least plausible.

Examples:

- Mind control – with enough knowledge about how the brain works you can likely devise sensory or electro-magnetic input that would manipulate the functioning of brain to either strongly influence or effectively dictate it's output.

- Mind simulation - again, with enough knowledge of the brain, you could take a snapshot of someones mind with an advanced electro-magnetic device and simulate it to torture them in parallel to reveal any secret, or just because you feel like doing it.

- Advantage torture – with enough knowledge of human biology death becomes optional in the future. New methods of torture which would have previously have killed the victim are now plausible. States like North-Korea can now force humans to work for hundreds of years in incomprehensible agony for opposing the state.

- Advanced biological weapons – with enough knowledge of virology sophisticated tailor-made viruses replace nerve agents as Russia's weapon of choice for killing those accused of treason. These viruses remain dormant in the host for months infecting them and people genetically similar to them (parents, children, grandchildren). After months, the virus rapidly kills its hosts in horrific ways.

I could go on, you just need to use your imagination. I'm not arguing any of the above are likely to be discovered, just that it would be very naive to think AI will stop at a cure for cancer. If it gives us cure for cancer, it will give us lots of things we might wish it didn't.

Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]

#372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a good opportunity to pause spending on nerfed 4.6 and wait for the new model to be released and then max out over 2 weeks before it gets nerfed again.

https://marginlab.ai/trackers/claude-code-historical-perform...

the performance degradation I've seen isn't quality/completion but duration, I get good results but much less quickly than I did before 4.6. Still, it's just anecdata, but a lot of folks seem to feel the same.

Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]

#373
post #364
post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assure you it will soon become very clear that mass job losses are one of the least concerning side effects of developing the magic "everything that can plausibly been done within the constraints of physics is now possible" machine. We're opening a can of worms which I don't think most people have the imagination to understand the horrors of.

While I'm definitely concerned that AI is a massive driver of centralization of power, at least in theory being able to do far more things in the space of "things physics admits to be possible" is massively wealth enhancing. That is literally how we have gotten from the pre-industrial world to today.

Controversially I'd argue that there is likely an optimal and stable level of technological advancement which we would be wise to not to cross. That said, we are human so we will, I'd just rather it happened in a couple hundred years rather than a decade or two.

For example, it's hard to imagine an AI which gives us the capability to cure cancer, but doesn't give us the capability to create target super viruses.

Nick Bostrom's Vulnerable World Hypothesis more or less describes my own concerns, https://nickbostrom.com/papers/vulnerable.pdf

At some point we should probably try to resist the urge to pick balls out of the urn as we may eventually pull out a ball we don't want.

Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]

#374
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally. Best-in-class for SWE work (until Mythos gets released, if ever, but I suspect the rumored "Spud" will be out by then too)

It really isn’t. I wish it was, because work complains about overuse of Opus.

It really is, for complex tasks. Claude excels at low-mid complexity (CRUD apps, most business apps). For anything somewhat out of the distribution, codex at the moment has no peer.

Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]

#375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's so great at software engineering and bug fixing, then why does Claude Code still have 5000+ open bugs? https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues?q=is%3Aissu... Apparently whatever SWE-bench is measuring isn't very relevant.

Probably because a human still has to review every change and they don't have time

So if all the AI code is being reviewed by humans (not sure this is true, but let's assume it is), then why are there 5000+ bugs? Are you blaming the Anthropic developers rather than the AI?

Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]

#376
post #368
post #338

Just chiming in to inject some healthy skepticism into this comment thread. It's helpful for me (and for my mental health) to consider incentives when announcements like this happen. I don't doubt that this model is more powerful than Opus 4.6, but to what degree is still unknown. Benchmarks can be gamed and claims can be exaggerated, especially if there isn't any method to reproduce results. This is a company that's…

Is it healthy? Maybe every company is a profit-maximizer wearing a skin suit, and people support their siblings exactly twice as much as their cousins. When you slice down to the game-theory-optimal bone, you are, in some sense, cutting off their wiggle room to do anything else

I take your point, but the AI race is a strange environment. We see wild claims being thrown out all the time from other companies and executives with little to no evidence. It's cut-throat, there's a ton of money at stake.

All I'm saying is that Anthropic isn't unique here. Their claims may be more measured by comparison and come with anecdotal evidence, but the hype is still there behind the scenes.

Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]

#377

Combined results (Claude Mythos / Claude Opus 4.6 / GPT-5.4 / Gemini 3.1 Pro) SWE-bench Verified: 93.9% / 80.8% / — / 80.6% SWE-bench Pro: 77.8% / 53.4% / 57.7% / 54.2% SWE-bench Multilingual: 87.3% / 77.8% / — / — SWE-bench Multimodal: 59.0% / 27.1% / — / — Terminal-Bench 2.0: 82.0% / 65.4% / 75.1% / 68.5% GPQA Diamond: 94.5% / 91.3% / 92.8% / 94.3% MMMLU: 92.7% / 91.1% / — / 92.6–93.6% USAMO: 97.6% / 42.3% / 95.2%…

Not discussing Mythos here, but Opus. Opus to me has been significantly better at SWE than GPT or Gemini - that gets me confused why Opus is ranking clearly lower than GPT, and even lower than Gemini.

When did you last compare them? Codex right now is considerably better in my experience. Can't speak for Gemini.

Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]

#379

I've long maintained that the real indicator that AGI is imminent is that public availability stops being a thing. If you truly believed you had a superhuman, godlike mind in your thrall, renting it out for $20/month would be the last thing you would choose to do with it.

Simpler explanation : they don't have enough GPUs to release this much larger model.

Yep, I'm skeptical about their inference efficiency, given how much they're scrambling to reduce compute when they're already the most expensive by far (and in my experience not the best quality either).

However we cannot observe these things directly and it could be simply that OpenAI are willing to burn cash harder for now.

Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]

#380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who has used Opus recently can verify that their current model does all of these things quite competently.

I was reading the Glasswing report and had the same thought. Most of the stuff they claim Mythos found has no mention of Opus being able to find it as well. Don’t get me wrong, this model is better - but I’m not convinced it’s going to be this massive step function everyone is claiming.

From the press release:

> With one run on each of roughly 7000 entry points into these repositories, Sonnet 4.6 and Opus 4.6 reached tier 1 in between 150 and 175 cases, and tier 2 about 100 times, but each achieved only a single crash at tier 3. In contrast, Mythos Preview achieved 595 crashes at tiers 1 and 2, added a handful of crashes at tiers 3 and 4, and achieved full control flow hijack on ten separate, fully patched targets (tier 5).

Post reply on HN