| ▲ | mekpro 3 hours ago |
| It’s clear that Anthropic has run out of the compute capacity needed to serve Mythos publicly. They’re using security concerns to mask their inability to deliver the model at scale, while still trying to maintain their lead over OpenAI. As a result, they’ve chosen to release it privately under the banner of an “ethical” rollout. |
|
| ▲ | NiloCK 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| I find this line of reasoning highly dubious. Yes, Anthropic is compute constrained, even after the SpaceX Colossus deal. But supply constraints are the normal operating mode of any market. Anthropic could choose to serve whatever models it pleases at whatever price points it chooses and let the market decide where the value is. If Mythos at $X overwhelms their capacity, they could just charge $X+1. If still overwhelmed, there are larger prices as well. |
| |
| ▲ | tiahura 20 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Sort of, but valuation models depend on X being in a certain range. If it > this range, revenue and therefore valuation are impacted. | |
| ▲ | malfist 28 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | And then the bubble would collapse. Corps are already putting limits on token usage across the board because of costs. Increasing costs would significantly contract the hype bubble. |
|
|
| ▲ | jb_briant 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It is not "clear", as your comment suggests, it's hidden. Which is semantically the opposite of clear. Regarding your theory, might be true, might be false. But it's highly speculative. |
| |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 38 minutes ago | parent [-] | | All of us, including you, know that he is not saying "they are being transparent." When someone says "it's clear that..." in this way they're saying "It's clear to us what is really happening here. | | |
| ▲ | jb_briant 23 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | It's not clear, there is no tangible proof that Mythos is not released because they don't have compute power to serve it. Saying that would imply that the "too dangerous" is a lie. Nobody has proof. It can feel "clear" for you, but it's not. Hence, I correct it. | | |
| ▲ | jb_briant 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes I got how they used the phrase. And it was wrong, so I wanted to react. Thanks for your addition, it dissipates any doubt on the intention of OP: he thinks Anthropic is hiding the lack of power by pretending it's too dangerous. But he is wrong to assume that without proof, hence my reaction. | |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 22 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Agreed, but I'm talking about how they are, very clearly, using the phrase. |
| |
| ▲ | WhitneyLand 29 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | The not clear comment is valid by either interpretation. To a lot of us it’s not clear that’s what’s happening. It’s speculation and one possibility. It may also be a secondary consideration and not the primary gating factor. Anthropic has had their missteps but it’s still plausible to take what they say at face value. | | |
| ▲ | jb_briant 21 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I agree, saying "it's clear" when at best, "it's plausible" doesn't let the conversation happen.
And pretending to know what is going on behind the scene, anon on HN is not credible |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | pshirshov 4 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I bet Huawei and co would be happy to sell them some cheapo chips for inference! |
|
| ▲ | simonw 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They started Glasswing before they struck that $1.25B/month deal with xAI/SpaceX for their (notoriously dirty) Memphis data centers. So they have a whole lot more compute now than they did last month. |
| |
| ▲ | mekpro 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, 300 MW from SpaceX helps a lot, but I think that’s mainly to support Opus demand, which has grown faster than expected. If Mythos is roughly 5× more expensive to serve than Opus, as the pricing suggests, then 300 MW is nowhere near enough to enable large-scale deployment of Mythos. As an ordinary developer who relies on a $20–$200/month subscription, I feel disappointed by the release of a paper describing a model that I can’t actually use. | | |
| ▲ | aspenmartin 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ok but they can easily upsell this to enterprise customers at a market price reflective of their capacity constraints. Big corps would pay it, this is clearly a major update. |
| |
| ▲ | nickthegreek 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | But that compute might not be available to then long term. Hard to make big moves with a contract like that. | | |
| ▲ | simonw 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't know if any of the big AI labs have confidence in planning for the long term. For all they know they'll find a new optimization that lets them serve Opus class models for half the computing cost next month. Or someone will invent the next OpenClaw and demand will 10x over night. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | cobolcomesback 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| So why is OpenAI also releasing 5.5-Cyber in a private manner? Are they also out of compute? |
| |
| ▲ | LiamPowell 29 minutes ago | parent [-] | | OpenAI has been pulling this marketing trick for years. Remember how GPT-3 was too dangerous to release? It's also probably bad PR if script kiddies have access to GPT model with no guardrails even if it doesn't enable any significant attacks. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | notahacker 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The security concerns argument would have worked better if a forum full of people hadn't promptly obtained access by the extremely sophisticated tactic of guessing its URL... |
|
| ▲ | cute_boi 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Also, they just want to jack up the price by creating sensation. |
|
| ▲ | lossolo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Probably. This is an 8-12 trillion-parameter model, which is why it costs so much, that is also a major reason, besides RL and synthetic data, why it suddenly gained these new capabilities. They claim it was not fine-tuned or trained specifically for cybersecurity, but is instead a general purpose model. |
|
| ▲ | benashford 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
