Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?

kingy.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 189 posts

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

#71

Post by alt227 »

smca wrote: 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…

Multiple people who have already used Mythos or been given its reports on their software have publicly stated that it's all hype, and that it is not really finding any new critical bugs which other models cant.

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

#72

Post by bastawhiz »

ActionHank wrote: post #50
goldenarm wrote: post #28

When your logo is AI, your illustrations are AI, and you profile pic is AI, I'm going to assume the text is AI too and won't read it.

Now imagine that your work specs are generated by an AI agent that the EM is using. Do you still care about the work?

If my manager can't be bothered to do any actual work but expects me to, no. I'm quitting. Next question.

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

#73

Post by jorisw »

saithound wrote: post #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…

You're not really responding to the piece at all.

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

#78

Post by saithound »

jorisw wrote: post #73
saithound wrote: post #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…

You're not really responding to the piece at all.

It's an AI-written slop article, which is hugged to death by HN in any case.

It claims to be an evidence-based investigation, but basically invents the contents of the documents they supposedly investigated, such as the Anthropic Frontier Red Team writeup, from whole cloth.

I don't think deeper engagement with it would promote good discussion.

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

#79

Post by ACCount37 »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #69
waynecochran wrote: post #52

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.

Does that follow at all?

High end AI is at its most useful when you use it to replace high end human labor. You can't buy 9000 cybersec specialists on demand, but you can buy more Mythos tokens.

Then we get into all the scaling curves. Such as: LLMs getting more capable per FLOP, per byte of weights, per byte of VRAM, etc. And: inference compute getting cheaper over time.

I see a lot of "should make the industry nervous", but when you try to dig into it? It's wishful thinking, every fucking time.

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

#80

Post by [deleted] »

saithound wrote: post #78
jorisw wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not really responding to the piece at all.

It's an AI-written slop article, which is hugged to death by HN in any case. It claims to be an evidence-based investigation, but basically invents the contents of the documents they supposedly investigated, such as the Anthropic Frontier Red Team writeup, from whole cloth. I don't think deeper engagement with it would promote good discussion.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN