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

Expanding Project Glasswing

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 261 posts

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#81

Post by LiamPowell »

cobolcomesback wrote: post #45
mekpro wrote: post #40

It’s clear that Anthropic has run out of the compute capacity needed to serve Mythos publicly. They’re using security concerns to mask their inability to deliver the model at scale, while still trying to maintain their lead over OpenAI. As a result, they’ve chosen to release it privately under the banner of an “ethical” rollout.

So why is OpenAI also releasing 5.5-Cyber in a private manner? Are they also out of compute?

OpenAI has been pulling this marketing trick for years. Remember how GPT-3 was too dangerous to release? It's also probably bad PR if script kiddies have access to GPT model with no guardrails even if it doesn't enable any significant attacks.

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#82

Post by malfist »

NiloCK wrote: post #78
mekpro wrote: post #40

It’s clear that Anthropic has run out of the compute capacity needed to serve Mythos publicly. They’re using security concerns to mask their inability to deliver the model at scale, while still trying to maintain their lead over OpenAI. As a result, they’ve chosen to release it privately under the banner of an “ethical” rollout.

I find this line of reasoning highly dubious. Yes, Anthropic is compute constrained, even after the SpaceX Colossus deal. But supply constraints are the normal operating mode of any market. Anthropic could choose to serve whatever models it pleases at whatever price points it chooses and let the market decide where the value is. If Mythos at $X overwhelms their capacity, they could just charge $X+1 . If still overwhe…

And then the bubble would collapse. Corps are already putting limits on token usage across the board because of costs. Increasing costs would significantly contract the hype bubble.

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#83

Post by jb_briant »

sandeepkd wrote: post #72
skybrian wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s true that providing security services to so many organizations will likely put them in a position to earn lots of money. It makes them an essential service, sort of like what happened with Cloudflare and denial-of-service attacks. (There are competitors, but they’re the first company people think of.) But I think that downplays the importance of having a good product. If the product didn’t work, this would be a…

This is a circular economy that makes everyone look good. Almost all of these enterprise companies are sitting on top of so much of tech debt that in any realistic scenario they cant really patch vulnerabilities if they are even in double digits. A lot of these companies would not even let their valuable enough code to be ingested by LLM's. At this phase no company would risk their brand by calling the product as ine…

Yeah and apparently, Mythos is pretty effective at finding critical issues. So it seams to be a good product served with a genius offer. Anthropic founding engineers are already comfortable, they will end rich.

They did produce great value, claude code and opus 4.5 are a singularity in software engineering.

The job we practiced for decades simply doesn't exist anymore.

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#84

Post by jb_briant »

cyanydeez wrote: post #64
jb_briant wrote: post #27

Step 1: claim you created a tool so dangerous you can't release it Step2: offer to test it, but only for the biggest companies in the world Step 3: onboard those big players on your tooling and product Step 4: profit This is genius.

>can't release it can't release it the plebs

Unsure about that, opus was already insanely good and we got it for a fractional cost via subscriptions.

They want the plebs, they want the mass.

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#85

Post by pesus »

DANmode wrote: post #69
applfanboysbgon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the exact problem. You have identification tied to your device. Your device is lost or stolen. Now you can't access your bank account. Human support can help you out by finding flexible ways to ascertain your identity. This is the angle social engineers exploit, tricking employees trying to be helpful to abuse that area of flexibility. You can take away human judgment and all flexibility in the system, and th…

No. You don’t tie it to “your device”. You tie it to your security key. Which is treated like a credit card. and your extended family, friends, or volunteers can act as social proof to allow you back into your accounts, if your key burns up, it breaks and you were too cool to provision a backup, etc.

Credit cards are lost and stolen all the time, and it isn't really a big deal when it happens, since charges can usually be easily reversed. This does not sound like the same scenario. It also doesn't account for people who lack friends/family nearby or at all.

> it breaks and you were too cool to provision a backup

If we're relying on the average person to back things up properly, this idea is doomed from the start.

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#86

Post by cute_boi »

mekpro wrote: post #40

It’s clear that Anthropic has run out of the compute capacity needed to serve Mythos publicly. They’re using security concerns to mask their inability to deliver the model at scale, while still trying to maintain their lead over OpenAI. As a result, they’ve chosen to release it privately under the banner of an “ethical” rollout.

Also, they just want to jack up the price by creating sensation.

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#87

Post by rxhampton »

ianm218 wrote: post #33

In case the topic of memory safety is interesting to anyone I've been experimenting with using AI agents to port common web infra projects to safe/ performant Rust. Somewhat inspired by the Bun port - was thinking that at some point memory safety might be such a big deal that people just need drop in replacements. - Valkey/ Redis port here https://github.com/ianm199/valdr (passes ~99% of single node test suite, real…

If someone is porting such disparate projects as Valkey and Lua it is just for show and will be pre-alpha forever.

No one wants Bun in Rust, no one wants the rsync vibe code additions. This is just the only pro-AI comment, so the AI people voted it to the top.

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#88

Post by jb_briant »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #75
jb_briant wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not "clear", as your comment suggests, it's hidden. Which is semantically the opposite of clear. Regarding your theory, might be true, might be false. But it's highly speculative.

All of us, including you, know that he is not saying "they are being transparent." When someone says "it's clear that..." in this way they're saying "It's clear to us what is really happening here .

It's not clear, there is no tangible proof that Mythos is not released because they don't have compute power to serve it. Saying that would imply that the "too dangerous" is a lie. Nobody has proof. It can feel "clear" for you, but it's not. Hence, I correct it.

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#89

Post by Forgeties79 »

jb_briant wrote: post #88
Forgeties79 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of us, including you, know that he is not saying "they are being transparent." When someone says "it's clear that..." in this way they're saying "It's clear to us what is really happening here .

It's not clear, there is no tangible proof that Mythos is not released because they don't have compute power to serve it. Saying that would imply that the "too dangerous" is a lie. Nobody has proof. It can feel "clear" for you, but it's not. Hence, I correct it.

Agreed, but I'm talking about how they are, very clearly, using the phrase.

Re: Expanding Project Glasswing

#90

Post by jb_briant »

WhitneyLand wrote: post #80
Forgeties79 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of us, including you, know that he is not saying "they are being transparent." When someone says "it's clear that..." in this way they're saying "It's clear to us what is really happening here .

The not clear comment is valid by either interpretation. To a lot of us it’s not clear that’s what’s happening. It’s speculation and one possibility. It may also be a secondary consideration and not the primary gating factor. Anthropic has had their missteps but it’s still plausible to take what they say at face value.

I agree, saying "it's clear" when at best, "it's plausible" doesn't let the conversation happen. And pretending to know what is going on behind the scene, anon on HN is not credible
Post reply on HN