71–80 of 184 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's 1) Not mythos class 2) restricted to "security partners"
They at least claim that it is greater than Mythos class[0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48642254
That doesn't mean it matches Mythos ability to write functional exploits.
Maybe it is, maybe it's not. They don't tell.
I don't know what the solution to this is, but I find it somewhat unfair that I pay money to Anthropic, and I pay money to OpenAI, and neither of them will let me use their best models for securing the software I work on. Admittedly Opus 4.8 xhigh does a good job, but are my customers not entitled to have more security from a Fable/Mythos or GPT-5.5-Cyber audit over the codebase? Or I guess the inverse question: why…
I read this news as white noise because there is no scenario in which I will be allowed access to this model. First, I happen to be a citizen of a country that is not the USA. What's more shocking is that I'm not even located in the US. Thus in the eyes of OpenAI I do not exist in regard to SOTA security models. Second, I will never ever do KYC with a company that provides text transformation services*. Third, even i…
I guess you would also not provide KYC to a bank that provides number additions/subtractions between database rows services
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you see how close the non-sheltered available models come? They come quite close. Most people aren't even using them for this purpose, but they could, and this is our reality. This is why your argument fails.
Disagree. @lionkor compared them to a hammer, and @ragequittah is saying they're not like a hammer. The narrow gap between downloadable and frontier models is tangential to this. If you want to expand on the "hammer" metaphor, the downloadable models are a small construction/demolitions firm, and the frontier models are a big construction/demolitions firm. In this analogy, there's no training school or certifications…
No one commenting on the fact that oAI is releasing a Claude Mythos-class model - with apparent 0 restrictions or concerns by the US government, while Anthropic's (their competitor) model has been pulled weeks prior by the administration for 'security' reasons. It certainly has nothing to do with openAI's co-founders donating to the current administrations election fund, are actively supporting the DoW war efforts of…
This quote from Pratchett pretty well summarizes Anthropic marketing approach. OAI are quite more restrained in advertising their model's doomsday abilities which greatly diminishes the pretexts that USG can use.
Two things can both be true - that Trump's administration is petty and vindicative and that Anthropic are reckless and not doing their best in winning hearts and minds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you see how close the non-sheltered available models come? They come quite close. Most people aren't even using them for this purpose, but they could, and this is our reality. This is why your argument fails.
So the solution is... giving up? Let the technogods do whatever they please? Because we are not talking about storms and earthquakes, but about humans in power.
No one commenting on the fact that oAI is releasing a Claude Mythos-class model - with apparent 0 restrictions or concerns by the US government, while Anthropic's (their competitor) model has been pulled weeks prior by the administration for 'security' reasons. It certainly has nothing to do with openAI's co-founders donating to the current administrations election fund, are actively supporting the DoW war efforts of…
No one commenting on the fact that oAI is releasing a Claude Mythos-class model - with apparent 0 restrictions or concerns by the US government, while Anthropic's (their competitor) model has been pulled weeks prior by the administration for 'security' reasons. It certainly has nothing to do with openAI's co-founders donating to the current administrations election fund, are actively supporting the DoW war efforts of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe if Anthropic haven't called it too dangerous for public things could be different?
We should be basing public policy on facts not marketing language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe if Anthropic haven't called it too dangerous for public things could be different?
We should be basing public policy on facts not marketing language.