Live data from Hacker News

“Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?

kingy.ai

61–70 of 189 posts

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

#61
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 there any publicly verifiable sources that Mythos is that much more intelligent than Opus, so to be considered much more dangerous (as it is presented in the public discourse by Anthropic)

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

#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 seem extremely capable to the uninitiated.

But it's actually meaningless as a measure of capability _improvement_.

Anthropic gave away $100mil specifically as Mythos credits to these projects and companies (that's $2.5mil per project). Spending the same exorbitant amount of compute analyzing the same codebases in an older model like GPT 5.x Pro would have turned up 260 of these vulnerabilities, or could even have turned up more than 271 ones.

No need to speculate, since this is exactly what we saw in the few code bases where we have such comparisons (like in the curl codebase). Supposedly weaker models, working with a much lower budget, turned up dozens of vulnerabilities. Mythos turned up only one, which ended up as a low severity CVE.

2. Do the whole "too dangerous to release" shtick. This is one of Dario Amodei's favorite moves. When he was vice president of research at OpenAI, he declared GPT-3 (which wasn't able to produce coherent text beyond 3-4 sentences at the time) too dangerous [1] as well.

Long story short, it's the ChatGPT 4.5 situation again: a company trained a model that's too slow and expensive, but not much more capable than what came before. It therefore requires these marketing stunts.

[1] https://www.itpro.com/technology/artificial-intelligence-ai/...

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

#64
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They announced the pricing when they released preview: $25/$125 per million input/output tokens. I have no doubt they're already selling it to select customers.

They are. Mythos Preview is not free.

They gave away $100M in credits specifically for Mythos.

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

#65
post #61
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 there any publicly verifiable sources that Mythos is that much more intelligent than Opus, so to be considered much more dangerous (as it is presented in the public discourse by Anthropic)

It doesn't have to be _much more intelligent_ than Opus to be a risk. It doesn't even need to be _more intelligent_. It just needs to be _better at finding security problems_. Which could happen from just minor improvements in training data, or the harness, etc. Even a small improvement could shift it from finding very few new security holes, to reliably finding many at scale.

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

#66

Opus Fast Mode is 30$/150$/M Input/Output cost. Mythos's pricing (from model card) is 25$/125$ Input/Output cost. Based on this I doubt that Mythos pro is too dangerous to release or provides significantly more value.

As far as my understanding goes. It is not a breakthrough model itself but finetuned model with right tools and skills. Fairly similiar to today's coding agents with difference that they are made for software engineering not cyber security.

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

#67
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The HN hug of death

It's somehow nice to see an old-school HN hug of death once in a while, it has become a rare sight since most links are now to big platforms or to websites behind Cloudflare.

[dead]

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

#69

Conclusion: both are true which makes sense. The KV cache scaling yields both the emergent power and requires the enormous capacity.

Which does sort of hint at a (power/profitability) ceiling on the LLM line of AI… That should make the industry nervous.

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

#70
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…

Weird take to claim "generally intelligent frontier" (whatever rhat means) and restrict availability based on "offensive" cyber security alone (how can this be handled at all compared to fixing software also remain to be seen) all while competitors but more importantly sw maintainers (eg curl) estimate that the capability in finding cybersecurity bugs is similar to what other modern models produce, and this has just significatively risen in the last months for everybody.
Post reply on HN