[HN Gopher] The Closing of the Frontier
___________________________________________________________________
The Closing of the Frontier
Author : MindGods
Score : 159 points
Date : 2026-04-12 18:30 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (tanyaverma.sh)
(TXT) w3m dump (tanyaverma.sh)
| cyanydeez wrote:
| if it is an actual leap, expect more 90% is good enough open
| weights to hit the next 6 months. Theres no reason competitors
| will hold underperforming models if they have to retool. might as
| well do more marketing.
| randallsquared wrote:
| > _But it is another thing entirely to share access only with
| enterprise partners such as Crowdstrike, Cisco, and Microsoft,
| which are known to have massive security incidents regularly._
|
| The stated purpose of Glasswing is to give infra and security
| orgs the chance to close holes and improve their security. In
| that context, it seems odd to call for not providing them access
| with the justification being that they have security breaches
| sometimes.
|
| Mythos may or may not itself be opened to the public at some
| point, but I would charitably expect that Anthropic plans that a
| future model at least as good as Mythos Preview will be, and the
| limited release for Mythos is intended to make that eventuality
| safer by having most of the existing holes patched.
| keybored wrote:
| > The Anthropic Mythos announcement is the first time in my life
| I've felt truly poor. Maybe because I grew up on the internet and
| it was the one permissionless place where you could have leverage
| and a shot at uncapped exploration and ambition. That is now
| changing with the gap between models that are publicly available
| vs those reserved for the already wealthy and pre-established.
|
| The Internet was developed by the US state sector and handed off
| to the private sector in the 90's. Then it worked as an open
| space until it didn't any more. Predictably driven by corporate
| interests.
|
| > In 1893, Frederick Jackson Turner argued that much that is
| distinctive about America was shaped by the existence of free
| land to the West where anyone could start over, and that this
| condition infused America with its characteristic liberty,
| egalitarianism, rejection of feudalistic hierarchy, self-
| sufficiency, and ambition.
|
| A more asinine comparison could not have been picked.
| pizzly wrote:
| Maybe not. You stated "Every country will pursue it as far as it
| can, and given the multipolar world we are back in, and our
| recent record with treaties and commitments, I do not believe
| there will be global alignment on risk reduction" and that is
| true. While Anthropic may hold of releasing Mythos I don't think
| they will for long. As long as there is someone somewhere in the
| world that releases a competing model then Anthropic will be
| forced to release Mythos. This also assumes that its not a
| marketing tactic from Anthropic in the first place, build
| suspense before releasing it.
|
| I would like to see more countries capable of producing frontier
| models. At the moment we have two in the world but many countries
| are building their own national models and AI infrastructure and
| may join the race.
|
| Having a multipolar world may actually result in more freedom in
| gaining access to frontier models.
| cortesoft wrote:
| This feels really premature. The announcement was a week ago. The
| "this model is too powerful for the general public" sounds like
| marketing to me.
|
| Give it a few months and it will be just another model they are
| selling, but the NEWER model is just too powerful for the public.
| jabedude wrote:
| This happened before with GPT-2 being touted as "too dangerous
| to release"[0] at the time by OpenAI. I don't think that means
| every model will be safe to release in the future, but nothing
| I've read about Mythos seems like it's going to be different
| this time.
|
| [0]: https://openai.com/index/better-language-models/
| operatingthetan wrote:
| It's going to be a slightly better Opus. Every model released
| by any provider since 4o has been a modest improvement but
| over-hyped. Opus 4.6 included.
|
| I believe they are starting to split hairs and the primary
| lever left is adding compute.
| enejej wrote:
| Yeah the only thing that will be left is to scale up
| compute and pray it creates escape velocity. Which frankly
| has been Sam's whole thesis in raising money.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I feel like "this model is too powerful for the general public"
| was really just the equivalent of responsible disclosure, with
| the "too powerful" bit just a positive marketing spin like you
| say.
|
| That is, Mythos will make it much easier to find lurking zero
| days, so just like responsible disclosure requires a security
| researcher to notify the software author first and give them
| some time to patch, giving critical infrastructure folks at
| least some time to analyze and patch systems seems reasonable
| to me.
| margalabargala wrote:
| That's how I'm reading this too. They've made a (much) better
| metasploit/shodan all in one.
|
| If you make a better vulnerability scanner and find a bunch
| of vulnerabilites, you should try to get them fixed before
| making all the results public.
| fwipsy wrote:
| Security researchers always having a model one generation newer
| than the general public would still achieve the stated goals.
| cmxch wrote:
| Which helps none, since that gates behind established actors.
| taurath wrote:
| For one I fully agree with your statement.
|
| For me, the seeming majority optimism and acceptance of
| "mythos'" as yet untold capabilities is betrayed as not real by
| the fact that one can't react to it with the same reverence
| while framing it as a downside without being told "it's not
| even out yet".
|
| "It's not even out yet" should apply to both situations or
| neither.
| atleastoptimal wrote:
| Their main motivation of the model being too dangerous is
| predicated on their discoveries in its ability to find exploits
| in commonly used software. The idea is that if this were served
| on a public API, it would massively increase the scale and
| scope of what malicious actors could do.
|
| I think it's a reasonable choice to make given that Mythos
| actually does have cyber capabilities on that level. We already
| have evidence that large-scale scams are being perpetuated
| using AI models (such as AI video being passed as real, people
| deepfaking themselves in job interviews).
|
| If you've noticed your new model can be trivially pointed at
| some open-source codebase with a prompt and harness that
| amounts to "find as many exploits as possible" and your results
| are non-trivially substantial and beyond what existing models
| can do given the same initial parameters, then a gated rollout
| seems the most reasonable option.
| mike_hearn wrote:
| Probably not. "This model is too powerful for the public" can
| also be interpreted another way, which they've also strongly
| hinted at - the cost/benefit ratio of the upgrade is negative
| for the vast majority of all users. Finding vulnerabilities is
| one of the few cases where it makes sense to use it.
|
| Their writing about the model so far does say this is an issue
| where, for instance, you can't really use Mythos for
| interactive coding because it's so slow. You have to give it
| some work, go home, sleep, come in the next day and then maybe
| it'll have something for you.
|
| All the AI labs and startups are still losing money hand over
| fist. Launching Mythos would require it to be priced well above
| current models, for a much slower product. Would the majority
| of customers notice the difference in intelligence given the
| tasks they're setting? If the answer is no, it's not economic
| to launch.
|
| Really, I'm surprised they've done Mythos. Maybe they just
| wanted to exploit access to larger contiguous training
| datacenters than OpenAI, but what these labs need isn't smarter
| models, it's smaller and cheaper models that users will accept
| as good enough substitutes (or more advanced model routing,
| dynamic thinking, etc).
| layer8 wrote:
| If the model isn't worth the cost for those who might want to
| make use of it, then it can't be that impactful either.
|
| One thing to compare to would be what's been paid for bug
| bounties in the past.
| ajross wrote:
| Bug bounties don't reflect the market impact of the
| vulnerability though, just the amount needed to incentivize
| white hats to do research they wouldn't otherwise (or that
| they would target to other platforms that pay higher
| bounties). You need to look at market prices for zero days
| on the black market to get closer.
| layer8 wrote:
| Bug bounties reflect what companies are willing to pay to
| find bugs. Mythos would have to be more expensive than
| that (probably considerably so) to not be worth its cost.
| If you are saying that finding bugs has significantly
| more value than reflected by bug bounties, then that
| strengthens my point.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| We've had such models before. GPT Pro, Gemini DeepThink.
| Mostly targeting science advancements as opposed to
| security research, but still, in a way Mythos is just more
| of the same.
| piker wrote:
| Also offers an explanation for their recent move down the
| stack including silliness like writing Word add-ins.
| oofbey wrote:
| Anthropic marketing is working very well. They are strongly
| incentivized to say their model is too powerful to release even
| if it's not. It's almost standard practice these days.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| >The "this model is too powerful for the general public" sounds
| like marketing to me.
|
| Is no one else suspicious that they literally called it mythos?
| amarant wrote:
| Yup, this whole thing is quite typical for my generations
| attempts at activism: they always end up as marketing pawns for
| the very thing they set out to stop.
|
| This whole "this model is too dangerous" ploy originated from
| (in my opinion severely misguided) activists who wanted to stop
| or slow AI development down as much as possible, spreading
| outlandish Doomsday scenarios wherever they could.
|
| These online-first activists have always been a key driver of
| the success of the very thing they fight. They share the
| offending thing among themselves, making it go viral in
| process, and soon baiting these groups is the best marketing
| imaginable.
|
| There were some rather interesting studies made on the subject
| around 2011, I particularly remember one made by Swedish jeans
| brand cheap Monday, but i can't find it now.
| pixl97 wrote:
| > online-first activists have always been a key driver of the
| success
|
| Eh, pressing X to doubt that. Maybe way back in the early GPT
| days, but once we got to GPT-4 these people could have
| completely disappeared and wouldn't have changed the
| trajectory we're on.
| docheinestages wrote:
| > The "this model is too powerful for the general public"
| sounds like marketing to me
|
| I tend to agree here. Anthropic has built a reputation and now
| they are in a position where they can claim to have a model way
| more powerful than it might actually be, and by limiting its
| access, there won't be an independent way to test it. I'm not
| denying that it's not smarter than Opus, but probably it's
| somewhat exaggerated.
| wonnage wrote:
| They've been shilling the same statement since GPT-2
| bombcar wrote:
| There's a drain clog clearer sold in a jug like all the rest.
| But they wrap the jug in a thick clear bag. The implication is
| clear - this stuff is so powerful it's extra dangerous.
|
| It's the same stuff inside as all the others.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| No. That stuff is sulfuric acid and it needs secondary
| containment during shipping, which the ordinary drain
| cleaners (usually diluted sodium hydroxide) generally do not.
| oooyay wrote:
| > This feels really premature. The announcement was a week ago.
| The "this model is too powerful for the general public" sounds
| like marketing to me.
|
| Anthropic was born out of the idea that they feel paternity
| over humanity. They believe by limiting access they are
| performing a necessary pillar of security in multiple facets.
|
| I think it's up to the public, and articles like this are part
| of the public's voice, whether this belief is serious or not
| and secondarily whether it's okay to even posture this kind of
| belief since it inherently results in marginalizing the many
| and rewards an already very successful few.
| OldGreenYodaGPT wrote:
| The problem is Anthropic doesn't have the compute to deploy this
| model to scale to everyone yet. Dario didn't believe that they
| needed as much compute, OpenAI is going to have much more compute
| unlocked this year and especially next year.
| avaer wrote:
| This is the real reason it's not out.
|
| Great to see they were able to spin their lack of resources and
| money losing business model into an abundance of benevolence
| and concern for the proletariat.
| DrProtic wrote:
| Let's say the model is indeed groundbreaking but needs much
| more compute that they have, I wonder would merging Anthropic
| and OpenAI be on the table.
| contraposit wrote:
| On the efficiency side, why do we need 10 companies doing the
| same thing. "Don't Repeat Yourself" principle would agree
| with your proposal.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Hello. We have detected your account has breached our terms
| of service. Your account has been banned. There is no
| recourse for this actions.
|
| As we all well know this message is great when there one or
| two private providers that can kick you from an entire
| market with no way of challenging them.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| It depends. If Mythos is AGI then OpenAI's charter says they
| _have_ to merge with the winner.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| And I have a bridge to sell you...
|
| There is obviously tons of leeway it who gets to say what
| is "AGI", and so far it seems like OpenAI's charter isn't
| worth the paper it's printed on. I still find it funny that
| Altman and Amodei couldn't even bring themselves to hold
| hands at that AI summit, https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/
| comments/1r8ua2j/sam_altma... , so I'm getting a chuckle at
| the thought that Altman would be like "Whelp, close er up,
| boys, Amodei won, so time to merge..."
| enejej wrote:
| So? They could basically open up an auction for bidding on
| compute with mythos.. that's what you do with a scarce
| resource. I'm sure many large enterprises would be willing to
| pay a lot to have first dibs.
|
| There's a whole lot of traffic they are servicing that comes at
| a cost with no revenue in return. Why would you choose to forgo
| potential revenue for this?
| wyc wrote:
| > A 16-year-old with no credentials and no capital could just do
| things. The world of bits offered the freedom to build without
| being drowned in arbitrary constraints, in a way that didn't
| require assembling vast capital or prestige or connections, where
| your creativity and work could speak for itself, and you had
| agency.
|
| This is now truer than it ever was.
| Ancalagon wrote:
| The point is it won't be if these new models stay locked to the
| public.
| bredren wrote:
| We saw yesterday that expert orchestration around small,
| publicly available models can produce results on the level of
| the unreleased model.
|
| I take a contra view and instead see this as fuel on the fire
| for tinkering to squeeze advanced functionality out of more
| available things.
|
| It has always been like this, the amateur improvising tooling
| and equipment to outdo companies with comparably infinite
| resources.
| enraged_camel wrote:
| >> We saw yesterday that expert orchestration around small,
| publicly available models can produce results on the level
| of the unreleased model.
|
| This is false. Yesterday's article did not actually show
| this, and there are many comments in the discussion from
| actual security people (like tptacek) pointing that out.
| bredren wrote:
| From what I can tell, this was not clearly settled.
|
| Your example author, actually corrected themselves saying
| LLMs "possibly" could perform successfully:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47732696
| andyfilms1 wrote:
| It has always baffled me how quickly, and how voraciously,
| people started to rely on privately owned AI systems.
|
| AI is not something discovered by scientists and plucked out
| of the ether. It's engineered and controlled, for profit, by
| corporations which have demographics and KPIs. These
| companies don't owe you anything, and they make no promises.
|
| If you're running a business that deeply relies on AI, you
| might as well add Sam Altman to your board of directors--
| because he has just as much control over your company as you
| do. If they have a bad quarter and need to increase rates by
| 1000%, your choices are to pay up or shut down.
|
| This Mythos situation is just the beginning. Not only do they
| have everyone hooked, but they've actively stalled the
| personal skill growth of millions of people who fell into
| vibe-coding rather than genuinely learning. And now they have
| that choice: Pay up, or shut down.
| p1esk wrote:
| _your choices are to pay up or shut down._
|
| Another choice is to switch to a different model, perhaps
| open source this time.
| kay_o wrote:
| Another choice is to write code and learn. Especially if
| you are 16 and have all day.
| p1esk wrote:
| We are talking about running a business. In business
| world no one ever cared where code is coming from, the
| only concern is how much the code costs.
| andyfilms1 wrote:
| Package manager incidents (like leftpad) have shown that
| just because it's open source doesn't mean it can't do
| damage to your project.
| cgh wrote:
| The same corporations that insist upon private Maven
| repositories to control all code dependencies are
| nevertheless fine with establishing a massive dependency on
| a privately-held corporation in order to write software
| that hardly anyone in the organization understands. When I
| really think about this and how it plays out in the long
| run, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
| contraposit wrote:
| I can't run my business without electricity. Yet we don't
| fear of its access being revoked. Sam makes the comparison
| of intelligence to electricity a lot. So we are on the path
| to these systems becoming utilities.
| anematode wrote:
| Electricity is heavily regulated. Is there any evidence
| that LLMs will be the same?
| andyfilms1 wrote:
| I would bet any amount that when the time comes to turn
| AI into a utility, they will fight it tooth and nail.
| avaer wrote:
| Whatever is in Mythos will be open source in 6mos-1yr tops.
| You might not have the GPUs but you won't be locked out of
| the capability.
|
| We're still not at the point where one person with a coding
| agent can max out their salary in effectively using credits,
| so the capability is still well within reach of the vast base
| of the industry.
|
| Meaning that for now, most people who want to pay for the
| product (which IMO is pretty reasonably priced for what it
| does) will be able to get the product.
|
| The economics will make sure of that. The market is ripe for
| someone basically copying the likes of Mythos and pricing it
| competitively.
| avazhi wrote:
| You can't use your own brain?
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| I'm all about AI and not-AI... but the question is, can you
| use your own brain 24 hours a day?
|
| I don't agree with vibe coding, I see the appeal of an AI
| ticking through my code at night to see if tests could be
| better or I missed something, etc.
| Ancalagon wrote:
| The point is you won't be able to compete with just your
| brain
| layer8 wrote:
| You can do things without AI. That hasn't really changed.
| Ancalagon wrote:
| The point is you won't be able to compete with just your
| brain
| layer8 wrote:
| I think that remains to be proven. The context was
| 16-year olds being able to freely build things. They
| still can do that as before. Not everything is a
| competition.
| alwa wrote:
| That assumes "more model" is the part that differentiates
| successful ideas from unsuccessful ones.
|
| Governments and corporations controlled enormous mainframes
| far beyond the compute available to the hacker kid we were
| waxing nostalgic about, didn't they? Not to mention the PhDs,
| the mountains of capital, and so on?
|
| My money's on team human.
| simianwords wrote:
| This is so untrue - prestige and connections matter even more,
| now that work is being commoditised. no?
| avaer wrote:
| It seems to follow that when the world is full of slop
| artists real artists don't get taken seriously/can't get a
| job.
|
| The Elons/FANGS are generally doing fine though.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| The irony is that we've just shifted the complexity. Anyone can
| make something now, but since everyone is making things, now
| you need to compete on reach/distribution more aggressively.
| The new "capital" is social media juice and pre-AI rep. Same
| problem, different skin.
| tsunamifury wrote:
| It's the same as it always says.
|
| You could always take the time to do something or pay someone
| else to do it.
|
| You pay others to focus on things you can't.
|
| Unless myths fully does that (which I say in full confidence
| that it doesn't) it's just making it cheaper to provide
| focus.
| walterbell wrote:
| _> your creativity and work could speak for itself_
|
| Including speaking to humans/bots with more resources to
| monetize said work.
|
| _> you had agency_
|
| Distribution is also helpful for revenue generation.
| Forgeties79 wrote:
| I didn't realize tokens were free!
|
| Jokes aside, this is just a different flavor of the same
| promise we see with each new technology, and 9/10 times it just
| ends in worse professional environments.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| Re-read the last paragraph of TFA.
| derektank wrote:
| Most important point in the piece (though I'm not sure if the
| historical analogy to the grid holds, given local electricity
| production has been unavailable for the majority of the history
| of the grid)
|
| > You can generate your own electricity with a solar panel (think
| local models), but most people would rather pay a utility bill.
| And the power company doesn't decide, on the basis of pedigree,
| who is worthy of electricity. Intelligence should work similarly,
| where the capabilities you can access scale may scale with
| vetting and due process, but the presumption should be access.
| Add safety guardrails to restrict dangerous use; start by making
| them overly trigger-happy if you must, and calibrate over time.
| But the default should be to allow entry.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I admit I didn't read the entire post (I honestly think authors
| _really_ need to come to terms with the fact that we now live in
| a world of information excess, and pithiness is more important
| than ever), but I wouldn 't feel too bad yet given there was a
| recent front page HN post about how free, open models could
| actually catch all the issues Mythos did, it just required a
| little more orchestration. E.g. see https://aisle.com/blog/ai-
| cybersecurity-after-mythos-the-jag... for a detailed analysis.
| airza wrote:
| if an 1800 word post is just too long I think you are cooked.
| This is the nicest thing I can say on the subject.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| It's not that 1800 words is too long, it's that I've seen
| probably 40-50 (at least) posts, analyses, and bloviations
| about Mythos since it came out. If the author doesn't very
| quickly get to why I should read _their_ particular 1800
| words over the other similar and competing tens of thousands
| of words on the subject, _they_ are "cooked".
| operatingthetan wrote:
| Open gemini chrome sidebar, type "sum." Watch the magic
| happen.
| notpachet wrote:
| They could just be writing for themselves, or their
| friends, or for people with the patience to read. You are
| making assumptions about how badly they want to reach your
| particular eyeballs. They might not care about trying to
| win over people with a minimal attention span as much as
| you think they do.
|
| What makes you think _your_ comment was worth reading?
| aerhardt wrote:
| I've read it, it's taken me about ten minutes, and it's been
| refreshing to read something that is not sloppy. The page
| design and type are soothing, too.
|
| I don't agree with everything that the article says but it
| soulfully blends concepts in history, politics, economics,
| cryptography and AI.
|
| I don't think the author could've compressed it without
| precisely sacrificing the essay's soul.
|
| Is this what everything is coming down to?
| vector_spaces wrote:
| > pithiness is more important than ever
|
| I apologize for getting stuck on your parenthetical but while
| pithiness is a fine aspiration in a North American business
| setting, pithy reads generally can't exist without more
| detailed and nuanced long-form analyses, and the latter face a
| more dire existential threat. You are right that pithy
| [writing] is an important skill, as are slow and deliberative
| reading and writing of longer form work
|
| I'm not claiming the original post is detailed or nuanced, to
| be clear
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| To give a clearer example of what I was talking about, look
| at the linked article from my comment above. It is _much_
| longer than the original article from this post, but it (a)
| starts with a TL;DR, so it gives me a summary that lets me
| know if I want to read it in the first place, (b) combines
| detailed original research with analysis and opinion, and,
| IMO (c) continually adds new information /insights so it
| builds on itself.
|
| Obviously not apples-to-apples comparison to this article as
| they have different purposes (original research vs. pure
| opinion), I just point this out because a bunch of comments
| seem to be stuck on the idea that I was saying "don't write
| anything that doesn't fit in a tweet", and that wasn't my
| point at all.
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| In other, underreported news, companies like AirBnB are using
| open source models. Anthropic and OpenAI have a six months to
| year advantage over Qwen and other models. We reached the point a
| while ago where Anthropic models where good enough, and so now,
| inevitably, we've reached the point where open models are good
| enough. The boasting of models so good they can't be shared was
| propaganda to frame the conversation. But for anyone paying
| attention, what matters is that open models are now good enough.
| slopinthebag wrote:
| Underrated comment. I think the future is actually quite
| bright, if we can continue to use open models, even if they are
| behind closed SOTA models they are still capable and will
| continue to improve.
| simianwords wrote:
| While I don't think Mythos is so powerful that it justifies
| containment permanently - I wonder how it might work when there
| is such an AI that can justify containment.
|
| What if this new model can start proving Millenial problems and
| provide insights in other fields that was not possible before?
|
| My intuition says that a model that is as good will also be
| equally well aligned -- but it is still highly risky to give it
| to the general public because all you need is one jailbreak from
| bad actors.
|
| At that point I think society would change so dramatically that
| "access to general public" would be a non issue. Rather, time
| would be spent on making abundance happen - you might think of
| the political struggles, economics and new ventures.
|
| Its a bit sad that democratised access is not provided because of
| negative sum possibilities like cybersecurity.
| zkmon wrote:
| You never needed a godzilla or a megatron to get on with your
| life. But the sellers of those monsters would make every attempt,
| in connivance with the authorities, to make it a basic necessity
| to use their services. That's a survival strategy for the
| monsters. The owners can't keep the monsters in cages for too
| long, even if the owner is a state actor.
| fwipsy wrote:
| The opportunity from the early days of the American frontier is
| not typical. Instead, it's the brief burst of unrestrained growth
| as a better-adapted organization (the US, software companies)
| expands into, and expands, a niche--cannibalizing the previous
| occupant (Native Americans, older stagnant companies.) At times
| growth is so rapid that individuals are able to advance the
| frontier, but if the field stagnates, individuals will be
| outcompeted by corporations.
|
| So, opportunity for individuals comes from disruption. Creative
| destruction is good up to a point, but it results from advancing
| capabilities. Technological advances compound and accelerate
| exponentially. Eventually we reach the point where any malcontent
| can destroy the world by snapping their fingers. At some point we
| need to place restrictions on the capabilities accessible to
| individuals. We have reached that point with nuclear weapons, and
| I think it is sensible to believe that AI is reaching that point
| as well.
| brunoborges wrote:
| > Yes, but today a 16-year-old building a unicorn is about as
| likely as winning the lottery.
|
| In today's world, a new digital service is more likely to be
| successful when attached to celebrities than from pure PLG /
| Marketing.
| fwipsy wrote:
| Sorry, I removed that line from the comment because I
| realized it wasn't really in line with the rest of the point
| I was making.
| taurath wrote:
| Frontier mythology also hides quite a lot of tragedy and deaths
| too because of how many native Americans needed to die for it
| to be a frontier. It was not by any means unsettled land.
| shevy-java wrote:
| > Even though the American dream is nearly dead
|
| That dream was always a lie. But in the past, people could
| purchase more in parity. You only need to look at income versus
| housing cost in, say, Canada.
|
| Realistically there should not exist any superrich, but this
| seems hard to change. That means there needs to be a different
| society be given as promise. Other countries manage that. In the
| USA they have the orange oligarch who said a while ago how there
| is no money for health care because he has to invade countries
| and wage war. So much for the "no more wars" promise.
| suzzer99 wrote:
| The American dream was not a lie if you come from a country
| with no economic opportunity, or where the govt can just steal
| your successful business at any time. It's still not dead in
| that regard, although it's seen better days.
| oa335 wrote:
| I don't understand this sentiment at all - the older models are
| still available and still highly capable.
| hgoel wrote:
| I interpreted their "too dangerous to release" comment as a
| statement about the current situation. If the model is truly as
| capable as they say, and the security issues so numerous, it
| makes sense to hold out until the biggest targets have been
| patched.
|
| It'd only take one company deciding to not worry about safety, to
| change the calculus back to "we have to release this to stay
| competitive".
| rdedev wrote:
| > already happening with recursive self improvement
|
| Are any AI labs claiming this?
| operatingthetan wrote:
| I doubt that Mythos is just so wonderful and not able to be
| replicated that we are actually being 'closed off' from frontier
| models.
|
| For example, the people who Anthropic "trusts" with this
| "dangerous" model are a handful of fortune 500 companies?
| Seriously? Those are the people we trust?
|
| We are going to have access to this within 6 months, and if we
| don't, someone else will offer an equivalent. Anthropic hasn't
| walked to the edge of the abyss only to be like "let the CEO's
| handle this!"
|
| It is simply not the edge of the abyss.
| atleastoptimal wrote:
| I think we are going to look at the era between 2019-2025 as a
| very rare blip in the history of public AI access. Regardless of
| whether fears about Mythos end up being justified, the clear
| trend is
|
| 1. AI models are becoming better and better at causing massively
| disruptive effects, leaving up larger and larger liabilities,
| especially as laws and regulations are being passed/proposed
| which would put the responsibility of some mass
| disruption/hacking event on the company which serves the model
| that made it possible
|
| 2. The relative advantage of serving an AI model for inference in
| exchange for money is waning compared to the advantage of using
| that model internally for purposes which accrue
| money/power/leverage for that AI company. Why serve a model at 30
| dollars/million tokens when you've discovered you can use that
| model to run a simulated Quant firm with a net profit of 300
| dollars/million tokens? Why offer the model to companies so they
| can find zero-day exploits, when you can find them yourself and
| sell the discovery to companies which would may millions to avoid
| this exploit being taken advantage of?
|
| 3. Why serve models so another wrapper company like Cursor can
| make billions off your tokens, and then try to train their own
| models as fast as possible, trained on your outputs so they
| aren't dependent on you? The entire AI startup industry and like
| 90% of YC batches depend on being able to serve frontier models
| at a profit, mediated through some wrapper, why can't
| OpenAI/ANthropic, once their models are good enough to handle the
| ideation/organizational problem, become their own incubator for
| thousands of AI run startups, running on models way better than
| the public has access to?
|
| As a consequence, there is less and less incentive over time to
| offer models as an API to the public.
| operatingthetan wrote:
| > AI models are becoming better and better at causing massively
| disruptive effects
|
| Anthropic chose to use their model to find a bunch of
| vulnerabilities. People have used much smaller models since to
| find the same issues. We are being set up to have certain pre-
| concieved notions about this model.
|
| Ripping away AI access from the public at this point would be
| catastrophic for the world economy. It's just not happening.
| willworktill4pm wrote:
| I'm old enough to remember claims that gpt-2 is too powerful to
| release.
| djmips wrote:
| Good point but that was only 2019... :)
| skybrian wrote:
| It's long been conventional wisdom that you shouldn't write your
| own crypto libraries - leave that to experts. But excellent open
| source libraries are available, which do get reviewed by experts.
| And if you're willing to study, maybe you can learn enough about
| cryptography to become one of the experts?
|
| I'm wondering what other security-sensitive software that might
| become true of in the era of Mythos-or-better AI's?
|
| There will still be open source projects that anyone could learn
| enough to contribute to, but maybe starting from scratch and
| writing your own becomes less feasible if you aren't attracting
| enough attention to get attention from people with access to the
| best AI's?
|
| For example, Linux patches are going to get expert reviews, but
| maybe your homegrown OS won't?
| tim-projects wrote:
| Anthropic should provide a specific service where they attack a
| businesses infrastructure using this frontier model and then
| issue a report of all vulnerabilities found. I could imagine it
| would be quite lucrative.
|
| Much better than hiding it away where it can't help anyone.
| avaer wrote:
| Hypothetically... I'm joey joe bob who happens to be maintainer
| of a top 10 npm package. My wife got cancer so I need money
| FAST. Unrelated: can you mythos my lib?
|
| 1 month later: whoopsie my lib got hacked and the hackers stole
| a bunch of stuff. Sorry guys.
|
| It just wouldn't be good PR. And this is the best case
| scenario.
| laurentiurad wrote:
| My bet that this is just a model with a slimmer safety alignment
| which yields results in 100 agent running in parallel
| configuration.
| gxs wrote:
| I had a similar thought, though not as extreme, the second they
| started nerfing and filtering models
|
| Their intensions were good, they always are, but the minute you
| decide to nerf something powerful for someone, it means someone
| out there has access to the full blown, unnerfed version
|
| Which means there are powerful people out there using AI in ways
| or for activities in which you will never be allowed to anyway
|
| So yeah, this is just more of the same
| psychoslave wrote:
| It's not clear to me if the author talk about European invasion
| as the colonization pattern behind pretended American frontier,
| as it was lands that never any human had reached before.
| camillomiller wrote:
| The richer are just getting scammed faster this time around
| furyofantares wrote:
| As a teenager, visual studio cost 650 dollars or so. More money
| than I had ever held by a wide margin.
| AIorNot wrote:
| For pete's sake stop with the thinkpeices already.. its only been
| an week and the model isnt even out yet!!!!!
|
| OMG this generation - we can't separete the outrage from reality
| anymore.
|
| Meanwhile 3000 people have died arbitrarily in Iran War -while we
| navel gaze.
| contraposit wrote:
| Human race is indeed fascinating. We kill millions of cows for
| food while doing the following in the same breath.
|
| A bronze sculpture unveiled in March 2026 in Almaty, Kazakhstan
| (near the Europe/Asia border region), honors strangers who
| formed a human chain to save a dog from the Sayran Reservoir in
| 2016. The statue, located along the canal embankment,
| symbolizes unity and collective action after the 2016 viral
| rescue.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-04-12 23:01 UTC)