undefined

points

[-]

Go read the safeguards section in the report and you will realize why that is.

These models are heavily as safeguarded and that was the initial reason why they said they couldn't and haven't released Mythos because that model is the one without the safeguards.

OpenAI is did the same thing when they announced a model without safeguards broken into HuggingFace servers.

by HyperL0gi4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Yes, this makes a lot of sense, but it’s just very amusing to see. 2 months ago, the world was about to end, now not so much.

by K0nserv57 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

7+ years ago GPT2 couldn’t be released because it was deemed too dangerous[0]. It was, of course, eventually released.

0: https://openai.com/index/better-language-models/

by jgilias7 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

It’s seven years already. Crazy.

by dzonga2 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I realized it a why back these labs are selling hype.

since then I have never cared about models except those that affect money in my pocket e.g AWS Nova Sonic

by reducesuffering47 minutes ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> now not so much

OpenAI Huggingface breach begs to differ

by baq3 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Have you been patching your systems for the past two months? It was crazy even if you completely forget the supply chain literal FUBARs and you must’ve been living under a rock to not see OpenAI (accidentally) pwning hugging face

by neuronexmachina4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Do you have an example of the "doomsday marketing" you're referring to?

by HyperL0gi3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

- https://www.anthropic.com/research/glasswing-initial-update

- https://www.axios.com/2026/04/08/anthropic-mythos-model-ai-c...

- https://www.axios.com/2026/04/07/anthropic-mythos-preview-cy...

- https://www.businessinsider.com/anthropic-mythos-latest-ai-m...

- https://www.reuters.com/world/anthropic-ceo-dario-amodei-arr...

by johnfn2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I see a pretty big gap between finding software vulnerabilities and “the world is about to end”. It is literally true that AI models are finding software vulnerabilities. It is also to my mind a reasonable thing that you’d want to be cautious about rolling out a model that can find more vulnerabilities. So what is the objection you have to these sources?

by NichoPaolucci3 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Absolute masterpiece of a rebuttal. No notes.

by knuppar3 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

feels almost like anthropic is desperate for ipo huh

i think we'll see one of the fastest deflations in history post anthropic/oai ipo

by efficax2 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I feel like i've seen less hype about "the next model will be agi". GPT-6 is supposed to be coming this summer, and nobody is expecting AGI now. Not sure how they're going to keep the hype cycle going

by skohan1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Yes 18 months ago it seemed like AGI was being promised every other week, and now I don't see any of those headlines.

by bottlepalm2 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

So unless doomsday actually happens then you're unhappy with the warning - is that right? You see false promises of apocalypse as marketing?

by HyperL0gi2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

My point is why the sudden change in tone? I’m not dismissing the models’ capabilities.

by MostlyStable2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

As they explicitly say, Opus 5 is ~ equally capable as Mythos/Fable at finding vulnerabilities, but it is much less capable at exploiting those vulnerabilities on it's own. That is an extremely meaningful difference and to me completely explains the difference in tone, release style etc.

by emp173442 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

It’s either advertising, or they’re idiots, because the apocalypse keeps not happening. Either way, it’s not worth listening to them.

by 4 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

deleted

by websap4 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Fable established the frontier, this is just catching up.