“Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive? • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by shimman » Fri, May 15, 2026, 2:14 PM UTC

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.

Don't bother with the slop lovers, these people are anti-human in their souls and willing to follow the most evil people on Earth to the depths of hell; for what? I have zero idea but it's sad to see.

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

#92

Post by FergusArgyll » Fri, May 15, 2026, 2:17 PM UTC

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.

You just disingenuously compared it to fast mode which is expensive not due to model strength or size but because you lose all kind of optimizations

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

#93

Post by fwipsy » Fri, May 15, 2026, 2:18 PM UTC

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'm fairly certain Amodei believes the "too dangerous to release" hype himself. Even if it's just an incremental improvement, better than getting frog-boiled by repeated 20% improvements until someone builds bioweapons in their backyard.

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

#94

Post by Zambyte » Fri, May 15, 2026, 2:18 PM UTC

jorisw wrote: post #75

srdjanr wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it, and it is AI

I don't think it is. Just the (somewhat lame) graphics are.

The text is very obviously heavily authored using AI. The more interesting question is: did a person even prompt an LLM to write on this subject? It seems likely that someone set up an agent using OpenClaw or something to just automatically write articles on popular topics in AI, and this is something that it came up with

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

#95

Post by saithound » Fri, May 15, 2026, 2:20 PM UTC

FergusArgyll wrote: post #87

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!

It seems like everybody (including you) knew precisely what I meant: the models available for ChatGPT Plus or Pro subscribers, i.e. GPT-5.5 Thinking Extended and the latest Pro. I've edited the offending sentence for clarity just in case.

If I got you to be skeptical of AI takes, though, mission accomplished. Exercise your skepticism especially when the takes come from somebody who is trying to sell something.

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

#96

Post by sherr » Fri, May 15, 2026, 2:23 PM UTC

Whatever the reason for "hiding" Mythos, it seems clear that these systems are getting very good at finding software security exploits. Mythos has made more people, even the US government, sit up and pay more attention. Regarding who should control the release of powerful systems like this, as Bruce Schneier and David Lie write in "Mythos and Cybersecurity" :

"Until that changes, each Mythos-class release will put the world at the edge of another precipice, without any visibility into whether there is a landing out of view just below, or whether this time the drop will be fatal. That is not a choice a for-profit corporation should be allowed to make in a democratic society. Nor should such a company be able to restrict the ability of society to make choices about its own security."

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2026/04/mythos-and-cy...

It is reasonable to be concerned.

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

#97

Post by promptunit » Fri, May 15, 2026, 2:23 PM UTC

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…

[flagged]

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

#98

Post by jorisw » Fri, May 15, 2026, 2:27 PM UTC

shimman wrote: post #91

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.

Don't bother with the slop lovers, these people are anti-human in their souls and willing to follow the most evil people on Earth to the depths of hell; for what? I have zero idea but it's sad to see.

I hate slop as much as you do. Your comment makes no sense.

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

#99

Post by irthomasthomas » Fri, May 15, 2026, 2:29 PM UTC

I don't believe anything out of these startups anymore unless its backed by evidence.

Too expensive? Why would anthropic train a model too expensive to run? I doubt they would. Let's look at the evidence: Opus 4.5 came in at double the speed and half the price of old opus. Its speed matched older sonnet models. Higher Speed + Lower price = smaller model. So they rebranded sonnet sized models to opus. Where is the og opus sized model?

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

#100

Post by wood_spirit » Fri, May 15, 2026, 2:30 PM UTC

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_

It’s a tangent but two points:

First, the reason LLMs learned to like em dashes is that they are common in the training corpus - they are a thing before LLMs that LLMs have learned, not invented?

Second, work browser has nice blue swiggles under everything I write into a textbox. I dutifully click through them and accept the rephrasing suggestions. I get a lot of em dashes. My blog posts and whitepapers and stuff are full of them and other “AI tells” - but I think they read better because of it.