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

81–90 of 189 posts

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

#81

Post by jorisw »

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.

So you say. I actually read the piece and didn't get AI vibes from it all, except for the graphics

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

#82

Post by gofreddygo »

jorisw wrote: post #81
saithound wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So you say. I actually read the piece and didn't get AI vibes from it all, except for the graphics

there are 31 emdashes in that piece. the domain ends with _ai_

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

#83

Post by ACCount37 »

hsuduebc2 wrote: post #66
einszwei wrote: post #38

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.

Mythos is the next point on the scaling curve.

It has considerably more parameters than most frontier models of today. Which gives it a lot more oomph per token.

Is it a "breakthrough" as in "something novel and unexpected"? No. Is it a "breakthrough" as in "something we know works, but made to work on a greater scale"? Very much so.

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

#84

Post by thadk »

Article does not mention the other reason: in the interview with Dwarkesh, Amodei remarked about how other organizations are copying or training off Opus for their models.

By delaying allowing others to train off Mythos, they hold their SWE-Bench Pro head start longer so among other things, the USG can't but notice Anthropic's lead when they're deliberating on whether to further substantiate the "supply chain risk".

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

#86

Post by kilroy123 »

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…

I couldn't agree more. I think the recent moves to partner with xAI and Amazon are proof that they desperately need more compute and are doing everything possible to get it.

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

#87

Post by FergusArgyll »

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…

> 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 ChatGPT Plus/Pro.

I'm skeptical of AI takes by someone who thinks there's a model called chatgpt plus. Spend more time working with the current systems!

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

#89

Post by jorisw »

gofreddygo wrote: post #82
jorisw wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you say. I actually read the piece and didn't get AI vibes from it all, except for the graphics

there are 31 emdashes in that piece. the domain ends with _ai_

I use emdashes all the time. They're correct punctuation as opposed to a minus sign. They're easy to type too: opt-shift-minus. If they were such a huge giveaway without ever being used by humans, models would be trained by now not to use them as much.

The blog is about AI. So yeah the TLD is .ai

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

#90

Post by netcan »

thadk wrote: post #84

Article does not mention the other reason: in the interview with Dwarkesh, Amodei remarked about how other organizations are copying or training off Opus for their models. By delaying allowing others to train off Mythos, they hold their SWE-Bench Pro head start longer so among other things, the USG can't but notice Anthropic's lead when they're deliberating on whether to further substantiate the "supply chain risk".

Good point.

Precise motives are hard to work out as a general rule. Ultimately, it often comes down to a decision that decision makers like or don't like for a confluence of reasons.

Post reply on HN