Anthropic has not in fact released it, and it does in fact appear to be that dangerous, judging by the flood of vulnerability reports seen by e.g. Daniel Stenberg.

Certainly it’s a strategy OpenAI has used before, and when they did so it was a lie. Altman’s dishonesty does not mean it can never be true, however.

▲

mccr8 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The flood of reports that open source projects like curl, Linux and Chromium are getting are presumably due to public models like Open 4.6 that released earlier this year, and not models with limited availability.

▲

amarcheschi 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How many months till they release a better model than mythos to general audience?

Gpt 2 wasn't released fully because OpenAI deemed it too dangerous, rings a bell? https://openai.com/index/better-language-models/#sample1

	▲	Hizonner an hour ago \| parent [-]
		A few months of restricting access to people they think will actually fix problems is a big deal. Obviously only an idiot would think it could or should be kept under wraps forever.

▲

an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

kordlessagain an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Those vulnerabilities were found by open models as well.

	▲	abustamam an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Partly true. I think the consensus was it wasn't comparable because Mythos swept the entire codebase and found the vulnerabilities, whereas the open models were told where to look for said vulnerabilities. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47732337
	▲	mccr8 an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Not really. The models were pointed specifically at the location of the vulnerability and given some extra guidance. That's an easier problem than simply being pointed at the entire code base.

▲

embedding-shape 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> judging by the flood of vulnerability reports seen by e.g. Daniel Stenberg

Maybe I've missed anything, but what Stenberg been complaining about so far been the wave of sloppy reports, seemingly reported by/mainly by AIs. Has that ratio somehow changed recently to mainly be good reports with real vulnerabilities?

	▲	rhdunn an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Some relevant links: [1] https://www.npr.org/2026/04/11/nx-s1-5778508/anthropic-proje... > Improvement in AI models' capabilities became noticeable early 2026, said Daniel Stenberg. > He estimates that about 1 in 10 of the reports are security vulnerabilities, the rest are mostly real bugs. Just three months into 2026, the cURL team Stenberg leads has found and fixed more vulnerabilities than each of the previous two years. [2] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/danielstenberg_curl-activity-... > The new #curl, AI, security reality shown with some graphs. Part of my work-in-progress presentation at foss-north on April 28.
	▲	StrauXX 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		He has changed his opinion completely. Yes, the ratio has turned.
	▲	depr 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes: > The challenge with AI in open source security has transitioned from an AI slop tsunami into more of a ... plain security report tsunami. Less slop but lots of reports. Many of them really good. > I'm spending hours per day on this now. It's intense. https://mastodon.social/@bagder/116336957584445742