Live data from Hacker News

Will It Mythos?

swelljoe.com

51–60 of 232 posts

Re: Will It Mythos?

#51
post #37

From all the things I read I'm pretty convinced that Mythos is just standard LLM with safety features turned off. If current models weren't reluctant to search for vulnerabilities, they might perform as good as Mythos.

Fable, the same model as mythos with extra safety controls, was much faster, more accurate, and more token efficient than previous models. What I got done with it in 48 hours accelerated my personal project from concept to deployed prototype.

Re: Will It Mythos?

#52
post #37

From all the things I read I'm pretty convinced that Mythos is just standard LLM with safety features turned off. If current models weren't reluctant to search for vulnerabilities, they might perform as good as Mythos.

Why wouldn't OpenAI offer the same?

Re: Will It Mythos?

#53
post #37

From all the things I read I'm pretty convinced that Mythos is just standard LLM with safety features turned off. If current models weren't reluctant to search for vulnerabilities, they might perform as good as Mythos.

Early on, I had a vague suspicion that the reason some of the Chinese models, including quite small ones, perform so well on this task, especially relative to their size and cost, is because they don't have the same safety guardrails baked in regarding software security that US models seem to have. Gemini 3.1 Pro doing so poorly sort of reinforced that gut feeling.

But, then Gemma 4 proved to be extraordinarily good for its size (better than Qwen), and kinda disproved that US models are any weaker at small sizes. I haven't published the replication results for Gemma 4, yet, where I gave it multiple opportunities, but the dense version was consistently able to find four of the nine bugs exactly, plus two other very difficult bugs that it found occasionally, sometimes with a not quite accurate description (which gets partial credit in its own column on the big benchmark), six altogether. Leaving three of the bugs in the corpus that no model other than Mythos ever found, but also making Gemma 4 31B the best model I have results for (but it got multiple attempts, which I assume would make any of the models perform better).

So, my conclusion, not very strongly held, is: Mythos is both better than other public models and it has fewer guardrails. But, also that the guardrails in current models are probably not strict enough to prevent this work. Only Gemini models when run under Antigravity refused to perform the work. Maybe Mistral silently refused due to guardrails, I'm not sure, since it failed to find any bugs. Maybe it just sucks.

Re: Will It Mythos?

#54
Around February, Opus 4.6 was excellent. Smart, fast, proactive. Then it got lobotomized and it's never been the same after that nerf. 4.7 came along and it too was disappointing—not unlike 4.8, which despite feeling a smidge smarter, tends to write word salad and is basically unusable for some workflows.

Fable felt like having access to that "old Opus" again, but a little smarter. Sort of like I'd expect an Opus 5 to be. It's not earth shattering, but it was a step in the right direction. And it was distinctively so, because having to go back to Opus 4.6/4.7/4.8 has been borderline depressing...

It understood more with less help, did more per turn, and was less argumentative. It also felt a little less trite in its answers, which is an understated improvement for those who use claude code all the time

Re: Will It Mythos?

#55
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the agent is becoming more accurate and thorough what would you expect to be reported?

Oh I am sure that it became somewhat more accurate, and with that, the labeling there is in fact technically correct. It just does not work as an explainer for the doomsday-ish hype that model has induced in a lot of people's brains. The user here is right in what they said but wrong in why they said it, essentially.

An analogy I keep coming back to with the current progress in LLMs is the progress in the 90s of 3D game engines.

Every upgrade made what came before it appear awful in comparison, to such an extent that every upgrade was called "photorealistic" and people kept forgetting that they'd been using that description for the previous engines that they were now dismissing.

https://archive.org/details/nextgen-issue-26

Re: Will It Mythos?

#56

As I posted in another comment, I found Fable to be substantially more powerful than any previous model. However, this isn't just an ungrounded opinion - I uploaded my full session transcript and code created working on a very complex implementation, so people can judge for themselves, if they're interested: https://tossrock.substack.com/p/36-hours-with-fable

Oh wow this is quite interesting, thanks for sharing.

Re: Will It Mythos?

#58

This just shows that Google needs to double down on its AI models fast. Even open source chinese models are beating 3.1 Pro and 3.5.Flash in almost everything.

Google said they would bring 3.5 Pro this month. I've been waiting for a month now.

Re: Will It Mythos?

#60

Gemini / antigravity didn't use to be this hamstrung. Something recently changed within the past couple months that makes doing security work very difficult to do. Even auditing/securing your own code now requires an insane amount of prompt engineering that is utterly ridiculous and did not use to be required.

Gemini CLI actually had an extension explicitly for security tasks: https://github.com/gemini-cli-extensions/security

But, Gemini CLI is deprecated. So, I tried to use Antigravity and it simply refused.

Weirdly, Gemma 4 has proven to be excellent at this task in subsequent tests. The best in its size/class. So, not everybody at Google is determined to break Google models for security work.

Post reply on HN