I believe this has the same issue as the last article that had these claims.

We can assume that Mythos was given a much less pointed prompt/was able to come up with these vulnerabilities without specificity, while smaller models like Opus/GPT 5.4 had to be given a specific area or hints about where the vulnerability lives.

Please correct me if I'm wrong/misunderstanding.

▲

degamad 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> We can assume that Mythos was given a much less pointed prompt

On what grounds can we assume that? That's what the marketing department wants us to assume, but what makes us even suspect that that's what they did?

▲

ramimac 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Carlini's unprompted talk is one source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=204&v=1sd26pWhfmg

▲

gruez 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>On what grounds can we assume that?

because the bugs they discovered were yet undiscovered?

	▲	gamerDude 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Or did they hire a team of cybersecurity specialists with the vast amount of funding at their disposal? I don't think its reasonable to assume they used none of their other resources to search for something that could be a very profitable marketing campaign.

▲

NitpickLawyer 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They say the focused prompts come from a previous step where the same model "planned" how to discover bugs in said repo. So it might be something like "here's a repo, plan how to find bugs, split work into manageable chunks" -> spawn_agent("prompt" + chunk).