>> Anthropic using marketing to convince people their models are more advanced, better built, or that AI is a threat that needs to be regulated because only they have the answer? I’m shocked.

I remember when OpenAI was saying GPT-2 was too dangerous to release.

Given how much money is on the line, it would be gross negligence if anything came publicly out of the CEO's mouth or is otherwise published by the company that's not marketing.

To me, it is a very good data point.

Curl uses all sorts of tools, including AI tools to find bugs. These tools, according to the article found hundreds of bugs including a dozen CVE.

Mythos found one vulnerability. It means the Mythos is just another tool, not the revolution it claims to be.

It is common that when a new tool is introduced that a bunch of bugs are found, with diminishing returns. Mythos finding one vulnerability is consistent to what I would expect for a major update to an existing tool, which Mythos is over existing LLM-based solutions.

that makes it a good data point, because it is better able to illustrate the incremental capabilities of Mythos compared to previous tooling

that helps us to understand how much of Mythos is hype and how much is real

We see this exact hypetrain every time a new model is released. Mythos simply hasn't lived up to the "we're all gunna die from the flood of vulnerabilities" hype even slightly. Its slightly better than previous models by all accounts, cool stuff

I've seen literally near word-for-word this exact chain of events multiple times previously

These things are layered. They are great scientists, smart people, etc.

Things change when you’re running a business like Anthropic, especially as the CEO. You have a responsibility to shareholders, and you just need to play the game.

Anthropic chose a great angle: focus on professionals / enterprise, safety, etc. Those can both be done by a genuine desire to make great technology, and for business purposes require you to position yourself in a bit “better” way than reality.

Just look at what their strategy is with Mythos, it’s almost perfection: the “it’s not ready to be released to the public” angle hits all the marks: they care about responsibility / safety, they have “the best” model, and “LLMs are dangerous, but we, as the guardians, can be trusted”. This also helps the industry as a whole with regulation: if they’re being constrained, China will develop even more dangerous models.

This is a result of how smart people treat business, it’s PR perfection, especially given how much the whole industry is talking about it.

(Yes, they fail in other PR areas, but that’s a different discussion)

I'm not sure if that distinction is important, since what you've described less charitably synonymous with the phrase "Dario is delusional, and has surrounded himself with yes-men, so outlandish marketing gets published as a side effect".

Whether the person doing the marketing was sincere about it or not is immaterial, since marketing is experienced almost entirely by the people consuming it, and not the people communicating it. What matters is if the audience is sincerely concerned by the message, and it's transparently the case that they were sincerely concerned by it.

> Marketing is not intentional.

That's an odd definition of "intentional". Evolution has filtered for people with certain views and the marketing has just emerged from their actions. ... So?

A deadly virus (naturally occurring one let's say) wasn't created intentionally. Evolution selected for it. It's still bad and kills people. Doesn't make it nice because of lack of intention.

Better Call Dario

A thankfully American reference

That's a pretty good encapsulation of the parallels between the political and the technological: One necessarily thrives upon the other and are inextricable. This moment is a culmination of all the disenfranchisement the bodypolitik have suffered, looking for any possible means of escape or elevation. AI and Trumpism, for their own respective cohorts, are salvation, on offer by different frontmen but ultimately in service of the same system.

They need the hype to pay off way more than we do. So many of us who still write code directly stand to lose nothing of our capabilities if the marketing claims cannot hold water.

I seem to be totally outside the hype bubble, but I have to suspect there is a lot of imagineering and wild extrapolations in the elss technical hype bubbles. I am curious but no enough to go looking.