can you make cybersecurity blockchains?
not sure what the validation would look like but something that proves finding but not revealing exploits
System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]
591–600 of 687 posts
Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]
#592While we still have months to a year or two left, I will once again remind people that it's not too late to change our current trajectory. You are not "anti-progress" to not want this future we are building, as you are not "anti-progress" for not wanting your kids to grow up on smart phones and social media. We should remember that not all technology is net-good for humanity, and this technology in particular poses u…
Just because the path is bad doesn't mean it won't happen. The other thing you're failing to look at is momentum and majority opinion. When you look at that... nothings going to change, it's like asking an addict to stop using drugs. The end game of AI will play out, that is the most probably outcome. Better to prepare for the end game. It's similar to global warming. Everyone gets pissed when I say this but the end…
> The other thing you're failing to look at is momentum and majority opinion. When you look at that... nothings going to change, it's like asking an addict to stop using drugs. The end game of AI will play out, that is the most probably outcome. Better to prepare for the end game.
Perhaps I didn't sound pessimistic enough lol? I completely agree what you're saying here. This is happening whether we like it or not.
On global warming I also agree you're not going to get every nation to coordinate, but least global warming has a forcing function somewhere down the line since there's only a limited amount of fossil fuels in the ground that make economical sense to extract. AI on the other hand really has no clear off-path, at every point along the way it makes sense to invest more in AI. I think at best all we can expect to do is slow progress, which might just be enough to ensure the our generation and the next have a somewhat normal life.
My p(doom) is near 99% for a reason... I think that AI progression is basically almost a certainty – like maybe a 1/200 chance that no significant progress is made from here over the next 50 years. And I also think that significant progress from here more or less guarantees a very bad outcome for humanity. That's a harder one to model, but I think along almost all axises you can assume there's about 50 very bad outcomes for every good outcome – no cancer cure without super viruses, no robotics revolution without killer drones, no mass automation without mass job loss which results in destabilising the global order and democratic systems of governance...
I am prepping and have been for years at this point... I'm an OG AI doomer. I've been having literal nightmares about this moment for decades, and right now I'm having nightmares almost every night. It's scares me because I know all I can do is delay my fate and that of those I love.
Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]
#593Earlier quoted context omitted.
It won't get cheaper. It will be replaced with a better model at higher price. Like phones.
Open Weight alternatives are about 2 years behind frontier models. You'll still need a top-of-the-line laptop to run it most likely.
More like 6 months now. Qwen 3.5 is on Sonnet 4.5 levels
Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]
#594Earlier quoted context omitted.
Haven't seen a jump this large since I don't even know, years? Too bad they are not releasing it anytime soon (there is no need as they are still currently the leader).
not much of a jump 94.5% / 91.3%
Actually, going from 91.3% to 94.5% is a significant jump, because it means the model has gotten a lot better at solving the hardest problems thrown at it. This has downstream effects as well: it means that during long implementation tasks, instead of getting stuck at the most challenging parts and stopping (or going in loops!), it can now get past them to finish the implementation.
Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]
#595Earlier quoted context omitted.
GPT is shit at writing code. It's not dumb - extra high thinking is really good at catching stuff - but it's like letting a smart junior into your codebase - ignore all the conventions, surrounding context, just slop all over the place to get it working. Claude is just a level above in terms of editing code.
And as a bonus: GPT is slow. I’m doing a lot of RE (IDA Pro + MCP), even when 5.4 gives a little bit better guesses (rarely, but happens) - it takes x2-x4 longer. So, it’s just easier to reiterate with Opus
This. People drastically underestimate how much more useful a lightning fast slightly dumb model is compared to a super smart but mega slow model is. Sure, u may need to bust out the beef now and then. However, the overwhelming majority of work the fast stupid model is a better fit.
Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]
#596So far, each release of a new model is quite better than the last one, yes, but non of them lived up to the hype.
Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]
#597Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI 2027 is not a real thing which happened. At best, it is informed speculation.
Funny if you open their website and go to April 2026 you literally see this: 26b revenue (Anthropic beat 30b) + pro human hacking (mythos?). I don’t think predictions, but they did a great call until now.
I agree that they called many things remarkably well! That doesn't change the fact that AI 2027 is not a thing which happened, so it isn't valid to point out "this killed us in AI 2027." There are many reasons to want to preserve CoT monitorability. Instead of AI 2027, I'd point to https://arxiv.org/html/2507.11473.
Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]
#598Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If it can replace SWEs, then there's no reason why it can't replace say, a lawyer SWE is unique in that for part of the job it's possible to set up automated verification for correct output - so you can train a model to be better at it. I don't think that exists in law or even most other work.
What is the automated verification of correct output and who defines that? But before verification, what IS correct output? I understand SWE process is unique in that there are some automations that verify some inputs and outputs, but this reasoning falls into the same fallacies that we've had before AI era. First one that comes to mind is that 100% code coverage in tests means that software is perfect.
Right, and that's why it's only part of the job. The benchmarks they're currently doing compose of the AI being handed a detailed spec + tests to make pass which isn't really what developing a feature looks like.
Going from fuzzy under-defined spec to something well defined isn't solved.
Going from well defined spec to verification criteria also isn't.
Once those are in place though, we get https://vinext.io - which from what I understand they largely vibe-coded by using NextJS's test suite.
> First one that comes to mind is that 100% code coverage in tests means that software is perfect
I agree.. but I'm also not sure if software needs to be perfect
Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]
#599Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are these fair comparisons? It seems like mythos is going to be like a 5.4 ultra or Gemini Deepthink tier model, where access is limited and token usage per query is totally off the charts.
There are a few hints in the doc around this > Importantly, we find that when used in an interactive, synchronous, “hands-on-keyboard” pattern, the benefits of the model were less clear. When used in this fashion, some users perceived Mythos Preview as too slow and did not realize as much value. Autonomous, long-running agent harnesses better elicited the model’s coding capabilities. (p201) ^^ From the surrounding co…
I'm curious if frontier labs use any forms of compression on their models to improve performance. The small % drop of Q8 or FP8 would still put it ahead of Opus, but should double token throughput. Maybe then interactive use would feel like an improvement.
Re: System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]
#600Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alignment “appearing” better as model capabilities increase scares the shit out of me, tbh.
Conversely: in humans, intelligence is inversely correlated with crime. It doesn't go to zero, however!
> Conversely: in humans, intelligence is inversely correlated with crime.
Inversely correlated with crime that's caught and successfully prosecuted, you mean, because that's what makes up the stats on crime. I think people too often forget that we consider most criminals "dumb" because those who are caught are mostly dumb. Smart "criminals" either don't get caught or have made their unethical actions legal.