I was relieved this podcast correctly views Mythos as unverifiable marketing.
-
I was relieved this podcast correctly views Mythos as unverifiable marketing. (Also some interesting stuff about Artemis II and how actually going back to the moon is bottlenecked on Elon Musk…)
https://observer.co.uk/listen/the-news-meeting/should-we-be-scared-of-mythos-anthropics-new-ai
-
I was relieved this podcast correctly views Mythos as unverifiable marketing. (Also some interesting stuff about Artemis II and how actually going back to the moon is bottlenecked on Elon Musk…)
https://observer.co.uk/listen/the-news-meeting/should-we-be-scared-of-mythos-anthropics-new-ai
@neilmadden I‘m likely misunderstanding what you‘re saying (so keep that in mind
). My question is: even if it‘s not verifiable directly. Isn‘t the trajectory pretty clear? I think there are a lot of samples out there of publicly released LLM finding and exploiting vulnerabilities. And the development is moving at a fast pace.
(But I too am happy when journalists actually question things)
-
@neilmadden I‘m likely misunderstanding what you‘re saying (so keep that in mind
). My question is: even if it‘s not verifiable directly. Isn‘t the trajectory pretty clear? I think there are a lot of samples out there of publicly released LLM finding and exploiting vulnerabilities. And the development is moving at a fast pace.
(But I too am happy when journalists actually question things)
@ulldma sure, but lots of other tools find vulnerabilities. There are lots to find. Is Mythos better than those? Who knows. Probably better at finding some, worse at others. Given the high costs involved, I can see it being added onto a yearly pentest engagement, but I doubt it’s going to really change much. It’s another tool in the arsenal, not a game-changer IMO. Finding an obscure crash-DoS in a niche OS TCP stack is not earth-shattering. Nice to find, sure, but the sky is not falling. It’s an evolutionary advance, not revolutionary.
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
-
@ulldma sure, but lots of other tools find vulnerabilities. There are lots to find. Is Mythos better than those? Who knows. Probably better at finding some, worse at others. Given the high costs involved, I can see it being added onto a yearly pentest engagement, but I doubt it’s going to really change much. It’s another tool in the arsenal, not a game-changer IMO. Finding an obscure crash-DoS in a niche OS TCP stack is not earth-shattering. Nice to find, sure, but the sky is not falling. It’s an evolutionary advance, not revolutionary.
@neilmadden I hear what you‘re saying.
Just one more thing
I think the reason why they call it „dangerous“ is that is has gotten much better at developing working exploits than previous models.Sorry same source
https://red.anthropic.com/2026/mythos-preview/
