These models demonstrably have good vulnerability research capabilities.

I'm sure their marketing department is ecstatic but you guys are far more hype-based than what you're calling out.

authnopuz 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Good but not necessarily better that was is already pay-as-you-go available today. ref. https://www.flyingpenguin.com/the-boy-that-cried-mythos-veri...

This AISLE benchmark is interesting in this matter: https://aisle.com/blog/ai-cybersecurity-after-mythos-the-jag...

And the recently discovered Copy Fail by Xint code is another proof that the gating is overblown: https://xint.io/blog/copy-fail-linux-distributions

▲

ZyanWu 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> demonstrably

I'm not entirely up to date on each week's LLM hype train/scandal but last I heard there was no public access to it or public-trusted 3rd parties that can review model's capabilities

▲

2ndorderthought 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You are up to date. Mythos had unauthorized access because of poor security but that's it as far as I know. Not exactly a good sign for something being advertised as a weapon...

▲

SpicyLemonZest 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It’s easy to end up with no public-trusted third parties if we arbitrarily distrust third parties who say the capabilities match what’s promised. Mozilla for example says it found hundreds of Firefox vulnerabilities, and I think it’s pretty unlikely they’re lying to cover Anthropic’s back.

	▲	calgoo an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I think the question around the Firefox find, is not that they found hundreds of vulnerabilities - they found hundreds of bugs. What would be really interesting is a side by side Claude Opus 4.7 and Mythos comparison.