If you were still looking for evidence that the government designation was political rather technological, here it is.
The NSA doesn’t care about day to day temper tantrums of political branches, they have work to do and they will use the best tools available to accomplish that work.
The whole artificial scarcity Anthropic created around Mythos / Glasswing is quite brilliant to be honest (I’m Not saying ethical, just brilliant). The commercial gains are one side of course. But consider this:
Gets labelled supply chain risk by the pentagon. Hypes up what they claim to be the most advanced hacking tool on the planet. This puts the US government into a loose / loose position. Either deny the NSA access to it, or be called out on their bluff.
> The whole artificial scarcity Anthropic created around Mythos / Glasswing is quite brilliant to be honest
Isn’t that just the same strategy OpenAI has used over and over? Sam Altman is always “OMG, the new version of ChatGPT is so scary and dangerous”, but then releases it anyway (tells you a lot about his values—or lack thereof) and it’s more of the same. Pretty sure Aesop had a fable about that. “The CEO who cried ‘what we’ve made is too dangerous’”, or something.
Right, but in Aesop’s fable, the wolf did eventually come. It’s asymmetric, because in this case the wolf is not coming for the boy, it’s coming for everybody else
The boy isn't crying wolf strictly to save himself. He does it to get the attention of the town, knowing they'll come to the aid of the livestock he's been tasked with watching. Yes, their aid is primarily to save the boy, but the danger is still to the larger community rather than isolated to the lookout.
They way they've published hashes of the bugs it has found so that once those bugs are fixed they can responsibly disclose them while also proving that they weren't lying... that displays a willingness to dabble in evidence which is far beyond anything OpenAI has done to support their claims.
This. I see much cheap naysaying without referenece to the vuln hashes. If it is smoke and mirrors, then the naysayers should loudly shout down the specific hashes and when they get revealed, or don't, then they will have done a great service to dissuading fake claims to world changing tech.
Certainly. As evidence goes it's a tremendously limited strategy. But the bar for such things is pretty low right now, so it doesn't take much to outdo the others by quite a lot.
>Sam Altman is always “OMG, the new version of ChatGPT is so scary and dangerous”, but then releases it anyway
One of the many reasons nobody should give Scam Altman their money. It's continually infuriating that this serial grifter is in such a position of power.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Surely the Anthropic model also only looked at one chunk of code at a time. Cannot fit the entire code base into context. So supplying an identical chunk size (per file, function, whatever) and seeing if the open source model can find anything seems fair. Deliberately prompting with the problem is not.
It didn't, but the advent of spellcheck and autocorrect has made everyone completely give up on proper grammar or word selection as long as no squiggly line appears.
Maybe that’s part of it, but I’ve also noticed autocorrect on my devices often correcting incorrectly. As in, I type the word correctly and it decides “oh, surely you meant this other similarly spelled word” and changes it. Sometimes I don’t notice until after sending the message.
I use MS SwiftKey on my android phone and it will often autocorrect my correctly spelled, correctly used, words, to words that probably don't exist in any language (recently it corrected "blow" to "blpw").
I have French installed on my keyboard as well so sometimes it will randomly correct English words to French words (inconsistently, but at least they're words), but blpw is not a word in either of those languages.
Unfortunately, I think me typing blpw three times has officially added it to my dictionary :)
Don't worry it's no better on iOS, where I too have a English+French QWERTY setup, and where it too frequently decides to "helpfully" correct using an English dictionary several words into a unambiguously French sentence; or the other way around depending on wind direction and age of the captain.
Even more damning is that there seems to be three independent layers to the feature ("three suggestions" area above keyboard, autocorrect-as-you-type, correction popup as you touch a word) and neither agree with each other about which language it should be using.
Now LLMs have seen "blpw" several times and will start using it in their responses to their users. Next: Oxford dictionary word of the year 2026: "blpw".
Having grown up around immigrants and other folks who learned English as a second language, I always attributed "loose" for being a signal that perhaps English isn't the writer's first language.
I think what you say is partly true too, but it's not a new phenomenon. Some examples
Language evolves. The English we learned in grammar school is likely not going to be the same English our kids or grandkids learn. At the end of the day, written communication has a single purpose — to communicate. If I can understand what the author is trying to say, then the author achieved their goal. That being said, I wish my mom did use spell check or autocorrect because her messages often require a degree in linguistics to decipher, but because of typos, not spelling. Maybe she'll influence the next evolution in typed communication :)
Could also be non-native speakers .. Even as a former grammar nazi, now that English isn't my daily driver language I find myself making basic mistakes .. (two, too, to / its, it's / etc.)
Wow, "magic e" just transported me back to primary school. And I had a little heart flutter fearing that I wouldn't be able to remember/explain it today.
I hate discussions like these because then I start reading words in weird ways and then I look at words as a random jumble of letters that don't even seem like words anymore. Is that just me? :)
I've noticed it for much longer than a year ago, it's been a thing for awhile now. Especially online, which may lend credence to the idea of it occurring most with those who didn't grow up writing English, but even with native writers it seems to be occurring more and more.
You may be completely right, but these examples are pretty meaningless without context, like what is the rate of lose/loose confusion per x words over time.
It doesn't make sense to have "lose" pronounced as it is. We have rose, pose, dose, nose all pronounced with ō. And then you have lose pronounced as loo͞z. It feels natural to put two O's in there when you write it.
This is true, but if the goal is to be understood, it's in the speaker's best interest to pronounce words in a way they'll best be understood. So I think even if the language itself lacks formal rules, we as a society of communicators should align on some loose set of rules.
I am at a loss; should we change the way “lose” is pronounced or the way it is written? I feel like if we just add an “o”, connections with other derivative words may be lost or those need to change too.
Also, the “s” in “loose” (the actual word) should be pronounced as “z” sound, as it lies between 2 vowels. Should we also change that? Should we change the way it is pronounced or the way it is written? Maybe if we change this to “loosse” we can free space for “lose” to add an “o”?
As much as I'd like it to be the case, there's too much to unlearn, and I think this would be Pandoras box. Too many weird words and spellings to change.
This language comedian does a bunch of humorous sketches about how many languages make no sense! But in particular, this video tackles false "rhymes" like allow and shallow.
Ha. Non-native speaker here although you wouldn’t be able to tell what talking to me, until you hear me confuse when to use this vs that, and lose vs loose. Some things my brain just refuses to remember.
Native English speaker here and my linguist wife constantly has to remind me that I use many propositions incorrectly, because my parents were non-native speakers and in their native language (Behasa Melayu), those propositions were the same words.
For some reason I can't think of those propositions at the moment, but it's definitely prevalent when I'm speaking French and use the wrong proposition, only because I'd have used the wrong proposition in English.
In all of those places loose means something that isn't tight and lose something that you've displaced.
I think it would be correct to say people display varying command of the English language, which to me has never been a problem - as long as I can understand what you mean, it's all fine.
This is not the first time Pete Hegseth charged into a bar, started swinging his fists and screaming "don't you know who my father is", only to find his junk in a vise with no graceful way get it out.
Mythos is most certainly not hype. I think it might be the agent with most agency as of today (ability to get really difficult shit done on its own). I believe that it most certainly is not hype. A realization just struck me that guarding the model weights (which are probably in the realm of a few TB) should be of utmost importance. Essentially - having access to them and a small NVIDIA cluster is all it takes for anybody to start using Mythos for themselves.
Barring any limitations of my understanding, the Mythos model weights are probably in the realm of a few TB. Any actor with access to the weights + a single beefy NVIDIA cluster and a few intelligent folks is all it takes to gain access to Mythos.
Cost of infra < $5 million (guesstimate). Imagine someone pulling that off by gaining access to the weights - which would be a monumental challenge, but likely less complicated than re-acquiring enriched substances from the gulf nation under attack right now. It would be the heist of the century.
Proceeds to write the hypiest comment possible. No substantial claims of why the model is not hype, just how dangerous it would be if the weights leaked and how cheap it would be for anyone to just start using it for EVIL if it ever did.
>pulling that off by gaining access to the weights
This was a point in the AI 2027 videos you see on youtube. That model weights would be a subject of active attack by nation states and that governments would start requiring AI companies to treat them like munitions when securing them.
It is pretty obvious from the token speed that opus now is sonnet or haiku size a few versions ago. So Mythos is likely what was called opus. They dont tell us the size but they did co firm the training run for Mythos was under the 10^26 flops reporting requirement.
In an alternate universe, opus 4.7 is sonnet 5, and Mythos is released as Opus. Can you imagine how much praise would be heaped on Anthropic if it opus 4.7 was < half the price it is now?
Fun fact, the model isn't quite the important part for Glasswing, someone took the ideas, and made their own open alternative, you can swap out models and find issues in code using clearwing. I haven't had a chance to personally test it, but it makes a lot of sense to me.
They said they designed it to be a better coding model. Something that has long been true: better software engineers are better vulnerability hunters as well. I think we are seeing that play out with Mythos.
it's a taste of what's to come, the anointed class with access to the latest and greatest model in exchange for favours or $$$$, and an underclass making do with the hobbled toy models.
If this happens it's not going to take the form of them getting "acquired", they're going to end up forced to become a defense contractor like Lockheed Martin or Raytheon where their primary customer is the USG and all of their sales require governmental approval.
And the absolute last group the government would ever approve access to would be "We the People".
I know it's not realistic at this point, but I really hope the Chinese labs will release models that run local and are on par with the abilities of frontier models. That is, I hope the idea of frontier models goes away. Because if not, what we're looking at is a seriously bleak outlook with respect to economic freedom for anyone outside the 0.1%. We may even be looking at out and out lack of economic viability for vast segments of the population.
Our best bet is competition stays healthy, and the model providers keep "releasing" their best to stay ahead. Even then, or even if every human was given equal tokens and access, we'll see crazy inequalities just because of how effective the tool is. The smart get smarter and more effective while the dumb will be swallowing down infinite memes and letting the LLMs do all their thinking.
Worth noting that Trump was one who labeled them a supply chain risk for the horrible crime of setting really basic guardrails around usage. (And it's "lose" btw)
"basic guardrails" within activation capping is not separable for high granularity trained models. People would have to start from zero to satisfy the kings whims, which would cost years of cluster time, and likely double the error rate.
Governments are difficult customers for software firms, as most military folks get an obscure exemption from copyright law at work. Anthropic finding other revenue sources is a good choice, if and only if the product has actual utility (search is an area LLM are good at.) =3
Governments are sovereign: they tell people what to do (by making laws, by exercising a monopoly of violence, etc), and nobody tells them what to do. Governments also fight wars, which means lives depend on the government's ability to command.
Private companies make products. When those products were plowshares or swords or missiles, the company didn't really have a say over how they were used, and could be compelled by the government to supply them. Now that new cloud and AI products that increase government command abilities live on servers controlled by private companies, private companies think they can tell government what to do and not do. No government will accept that, because the essence of government is autocratic sovereignty: the sovereign commands and is not commanded.
In American law, companies have the choice of whether or not to do business with the government, outside of a few corner cases. There’s a process for forcing them, but it can’t just be because the leader says so.
In this particular case Anthropic had a contract stating what the military could and could not use their models for. The military broke that contract. Anthropic declined to sign a revised one.
This is within their rights, and more to the point, the government should absolutely not be allowed to unilaterally alter contracts they’ve already signed!
Predictability is the whole point. Undermining it is how you destroy your own economy.
That is allegedly not what happened. Anthropic’s CEO was happy to grant waivers on a case by case basis.
The problem is the branches of the government that Anthropic was doing business with found it infeasible to do this.
They had another problem. If one of their contractors used Claude to engineer solutions contrary to Anthropic’s “manifesto” would Claude poison pill the code?
Basically Anthropic wanted the angels halo and the devils horns and the govt said pick one.
> That is allegedly not what happened. Anthropic’s CEO was happy to grant waivers on a case by case basis. The problem is the branches of the government that Anthropic was doing business with found it infeasible to do this.
That's not what the presidential announcement blacklisting Anthropic said. It said they're being punished for trying to require that the military follow their terms of service.
The media is usually flush with defending Anthropic. And yes - the supply chain risk label is too broad. But there is another side to the story and Anthropic isn’t an “innocent” as made out to be.
I've heard this POV before, I just re-read it again, and I genuinely do not understand which part of it you think shows Anthropic is anything but innocent. To me it seems pretty clear: Emil Michael heard that Anthropic was asking questions about how their system was used, and he thinks that attitude is an unacceptable security risk. He won't accept the use of systems that were developed based on "their constitution, their culture, their people" or "their own policy preferences". Anyone who would ask such questions might sabotage military operations if they don't like the answers, he argues, and I believe that he genuinely believes this.
So he'll only accept systems developed by people who understand, as Sam Altman promised to, that the US military is not to be questioned.
My impression was that Dario was happy to grant case by case exceptions. But Emil did not want that. I mean why setup claude at DoW where the goal is surveillance and targeting (possibly autonomous).
Sure, they have a "choice", except that no one turns done the kind of money the government has to offer, and if the company is public they are legally obligated to increase shareholder value.
> the essence of government is autocratic sovereignty
*was
Democracy was and is radical for putting the common people in charge of the government. The right to petition for redress of grievances is literally in the first amendment. Government is a social contract, enforced with state violence on one end and mob violence on the other.
If you want to return to autocratic rule, I hear North Korea is lovely this time of year.
And that makes autocracy better somehow? Democracies are designed to evolve. If government corruption is a problem, we as citizens have the power to change that. Laws can be passed to add controls, fund enforcement, require transparency.
Write to your reps and demand it. Call their offices and rattle their gates. If they don’t make it happen, vote in someone who will.
'Anthropic is / isn't lying about Mytho's capabilities' is the less interesting conversation.
The more interesting one is:
1. Assuming even incremental AI coding intelligence improvements
2. Assuming increased AI coding intelligence enables it to uncover new zero day bugs in existing software
3. Then open source vs closed source and security/patch timelines will all need to fundamentally change
Whether or not Mythos qualifies as (1), as long as (2) is true then it seems there will eventually be a model with improvements, which leads to (3) anyway.
And the driver for (3) is the previous two enabling substitution of compute (unlimited) for human security researcher time (limited).
Which begs questions about whether closed source will provide any protection (it doesn't appear so, given how able AI tools already are at disassembly?), whether model rollouts now need to have a responsible disclosure time built in before public release, and how geopolitics plays into this (is Mythos access being offered to the Chinese government?).
It'll be curious what happens when OpenAI ships their equivalent coding model upgrade... especially if they YOLO the release without any responsible disclosure periods.
> Which begs questions about whether closed source will provide any protection (it doesn't appear so, given how able AI tools already are at disassembly?)
Disassembly implies that you're still distributing binaries, which isn't the case for web-based services. Of course, these models can still likely find vulnerabilities in closed-source websites, but probably not to the same degree, especially if you're trying to minimize your dependency footprint.
That's not true, they did do obfuscation but the main sneaky thing they did was to make hackers think that they had found all of the checks, and then hide checks that would only trigger half way through the game. That kind of obfuscation is also not relevant to security vulnerabilities.
AI is already superhuman at reading and understanding assembly and decompilation output, especially for obfuscated binaries. I have tried giving the same binary with and without heavy control flow obfuscation to the same model, and it was able to understand the obfuscated one just fine.
I'm really tired of these claims that Mythos is "nothing by PR hype". It should be at this point eminently clear that the people working at Anthropic believe the things they say about their models. And for mythos in particular, at this point there are far too many people outside of Anthropic who have seen it and/or the vulnerabilities it has discovered for "it's nothing but hype" be anything close to a sensible position. I'm not saying we should blindly believe them; they have often used more caution than was entirely warranted (this is, in my opinion, a good thing) but the idea that all of this around Mythos and glasswing is nothing but marketing hype is nonsense. Might a disinterested 3rd party decide that they think the fire is smaller than Anthropic's smoke warranted? Yes that's possible. But the idea that it's all smoke and no fire at this point deserves no resepect whatsoever.
To be clear I’m not claiming that Mythos is _nothing_ but PR hype, merely that Anthropic is playing its cards really well, which is a claim independent of actual capabilities of their latest model.
The position doesn't matter. Nobody sane listens to what the orange or "the USA" says because it could be the complete opposite tomorrow. Which sadly is exactly the position where the orange wants to be. Free reign for him and nobody cares.
If Alexander or any of his usurping ancestors has a problem then he can go ride a horse over a molehill. Oh, what, is that line a bit too soon? Tandem Triumphans!
I'm kind of surprised that C-suite folks fall for this marketing ploy when many of them are typically very close to the sales process in very high stakes areas. I guess it just shows you that anyone is susceptible to a well done grift. On second thought I'm thinking back through the history of C-suite decisions I've seen first and second hand and I'm not surprised at all.
> The whole artificial scarcity Anthropic created around Mythos / Glasswing is quite brilliant to be honest (I’m Not saying ethical, just brilliant). The commercial gains are one side of course.
You mean the obvious commercial losses caused by keeping an expensively created product effectively off the market altogether?
What the actual fuck is with people who come up with stuff like this?
I'd be okay with our military / NSA having the best model possible.
Now if only the NSA would vet key people in our government, there should be no reason a foreign entity can just hack the FBI director's personal GMAIL, the NSA should be trying to break into their accounts before our enemies do. It's ridiculous that they're not already doing this.
>Now if only the NSA would vet key people in our government
They probably did that for a while.
Sadly, they as an agency were un-vettable to the general public, and abused that position to create tons of blatantly unconstitutional programs that they tried to hide.
I agree, I know some people hate the surveillance stuff, but unfortunately we only hear the bad mostly of what it does, we never hear the actual good impact some of these agencies do. I wish they'd release some sort of annual report, but how do you do that without telling your enemies that people are "trying" or being "caught" doing things. It's a pain in the butt.
There are truly evil people in this world, way worse than we probably realize. Our military is not perfect, our country is not perfect, no country or military is, but we generally do our very best to do what is right historically speaking. It's hard to see that if you get lost in the politics of things.
> we generally do our very best to do what is right historically speaking. It's hard to see that if you get lost in the politics of things.
or there's a much simpler explanation: the awful things we do very visibly (or simply casually declassify and admit to decades later¹) are a perfectly reasonable basis to condemn basically the entire history of this country and there's no reason to believe in some sort of political dark matter that balances the moral equation.
¹ for instance, if you were right, you'd think there'd be more widely-agreed success stories coming out like this, but no, it tends to be more in the vein of "we destabilized another democratically elected government because that's not the side we think should have won". i wonder what's up with that
I don't think they even wanted to punish them. This is more "art of the deal" BS from the chief idiot in charge where you make people think you're going to go to an extreme as a bargaining chip.
I have no idea but this went out to all fed agencies from what I could tell looking at the subreddit for fed employees. I was surprised by the notice because my agency does not have a contract with them and obviously we can’t just use any LLM provider.
Correct. And this quickly expands out into most companies in the US as the federal government uses and buys a huge amount of software. A component that you make and sell to X, that is used in Y, which is bundled up in Z that had Anthropic used on it can't be used by the fed.gov.
It is, but NSA reports to the director of national intelligence, not the defense secretary, so it’s unclear (to me at least) that SecDef’s opinion of Anthropic counts for anything here
I guess DOD is large enough they have multiple parallel cabinet level positions
It’s not as clear as that. The NSA director is also, traditionally, dual-hatted as the Commander of CYBERCOM and thus a flag officer reporting ultimately to the SecDef. The DNI is responsible for coordinating/funding national intelligence activities but ultimately a lot of day to day operational decision making tends to flow through the pentagon. They would definitely need to abide by DoD policy
> They would definitely need to abide by DoD policy
The policy in question is a statement by SecDef being reviewed by courts. I think it’s fair to ask whether DNI is actually constrained by that, or if it’s a judgement call.
Normal military procurement is going to go through process and use the APIs that Anthropic gives them. The NSA just has to has to achieve the goal of getting the weights out of the target computer.
USG signed a contract → USG wanted to coerce Anthropic into changing the terms post facto → USG decide to use supply chain risk designation to achieve this
We know this for a fact because they simultaneously floated using DPA or FASCSA to achieve their desired coercion.
Anthropic has been giving companies access to the model. I think people on here have fallen for it once again. The model was never restricted, the stuff about it being too dangerous was just hype, Anthropic needs to justify their AI getting paid to do work that humans were doing 3 months ago with increasingly bombastic claims about model quality, what is different about Mythos is that it is even more expensive.
In my experience sonnet<opus by a long shot for code review. Sonnet often flags things as errors that are not, because it fails to grasp the big picture… and also fails to grasp structural issues that are perfectly coded and only show up as problems at the meta scale.
I have no reason to believe that the next generation won’t offer similar gains in verification, and there is some evidence to support that the cybersecurity implications are the result of exactly this expansion of ability.
It depends on how you review. In an orchestrated per-task review workflow with clearly defined acceptance criteria and implementation requirements, using anything other than Sonnet (handed those criteria and requirements) hasn’t really led to much improvement, but it drives up usage and takes longer. I even tried Haiku, but, yeah, Haiku is just not viable for review, even tightly scoped, lol.
Siccing Sonnet on a codebase or PR without guidance does indeed lead to worse results than using Opus, though.
That makes sense, if your scope is tight enough, good enough is good enough. I’ve got the expected specifications and code style guides, including some aerospace engineering ones, but in complex systems I still run into difficult to sus out corner cases where the code works but the system breaks, usually due to unresolved conflicts in operational requirements.
That's what I meant to get at by "it runs on their cloud."
They can name that user-facing ultrareview API endpoint whatever they want, and we have no way to see what model endpoint it calls internally once running on their cloud, right?
The pace at which we sprint toward a full blown surveillance state, with unaccountable oracles sentencing us for pre-crime, is alarming to say the least.
Snowdens document leaks happened in 2013 (implying the surveillance state was set up well before then). So this is more a leisurely stroll than a sprint.
Room 641A was leaked in 2006. To some extent, this all started in the 1940s with the Enigma and JN-25 code breaks. After that, everyone knew that intelligence was the future of power.
Unfortunately while evocative, it doesn't really make sense.
A Zamboni has a "conditioner" at the rear that contains a sharp horizontal blade that shaves the ice as the machine runs across the ice. The blade is a bit like a very wide wood-plane. It is sharp and controlled to be a little below the current surface of ice. The shavings are moved to a waste tank using an internal horizontal auger and vertical auger.
You usually couldn't get near enough to the blade to have a close enough shave for it to harm you. However I'm guessing a Zamboni could hurt you in other ways.
Disclaimer: I only skimmed the details . . . I'm sure applying the right amount of intelligence could discover harmful means.
Anyone who had read Bamford's books on the NSA many years prior to 2013 took a look at what info came out and had an internal thought process like "this is nothing new at all".
"I am willing to risk the giving up of my Rights and Privileges as a Citizen for our Great Military and Country! Our Military Patriots desperately need FISA 702, and it is one of the reasons we have had such tremendous SUCCESS on the battlefield."
Th amount of conservatives/republicans that love Starship Troopers (the film) because they take it at face value is pretty scary. The ones that call it poor satire are especially…interesting.
They continue to prove Verhoeven’s point many times over even decades later.
How many times do we have to tell you this old man?
The book and author of the book was serious/not satire and meant everything earnestly at least the time of writing.
It’s objectively not meant to be looked at as satire. Most of the “citizenship requires service” stuff would be amazing from the perspective of smashing this countries geriocracy.
Verhoeven is the filmmaker, that adapted the book to the screen. He is very much an anti-fascist, and absolutely did turn the book into a satire of itself and the ideology it tries to convey.
> Director Paul Verhoeven admits to have never finished the novel, claiming he read through the first two chapters and became both bored and depressed, calling it "a very right-wing book" in Empire magazine. He then told screenwriter Edward Neumeier to tell him the rest. They then decided that while both the novel and its author Robert A. Heinlein strongly supported a regime led by a military elite, they would make the film a satirical hyperbole of contemporary American politics and culture: "Ed and I [..] felt that we needed to counter with our own narrative. Basically, the political undercurrent of the film is that these heroes and heroines are living in a fascist utopia - but they are not even aware of it! They think this is normal. And somehow you are seduced to follow them, and at the same time, made aware that they might be fascists." Verhoeven later claimed that many viewers had not caught on to the satirical part. Ironically, diehard Heinlein fans later declared that the filmmakers themselves also completely misinterpreted Heinlein's nature and intentions. They say he was a libertarian who opposed conscription and militarism, and depicted the oligarchy-by-ex-military-citizenry government in the book because it was an example of something that has never been done in real life. He was not advocating it, but was merely speculating that such a system could exist without collapsing.
The book does contain fascist themes and Heinlein was not advocating for traditional libertarianism in it. I read it more as exploring the boundaries of liberty and what would constitute a “free” society. The society was, for most, effectively free, just that a normal person didn’t have the right to full citizenship without serving. It was a utopia for the average person - only those that served really saw the absolute horrors of war and were the only ones able to vote and hold office. Would you rather live in a society where your quality of life was genuinely excellent but you weren’t entitled to vote or one where your quality of life is markedly worse but you are allowed to steer the direction of your own governance? It’s a theme explored in many utopian stories, usually with the conclusion that freedom trumps ignorant bliss.
In a vacuum I think the interpretation Verhoeven had is mostly fine. It only becomes apparently ignorant if you’ve read more of Heinlein’s work, where libertarian themes are pervasive.
Why is that surprising? He’s been that way on the public stage for 40 years. What’s surprising is his base popularity hasn’t moved at all. He’s giving a fair chunk of the population what they want.
>He’s giving a fair chunk of the population what they want.
That would be upsetting if so. I feel the far more frightening thing is he is telling a large swath of people who don't know what they want, what they want. And then delivering that. So it could be literally anything.
Because the only thing they really want is validation of their unserious world view, and their frustration that results from it. Trump's thrashing around without a coherent plan and [inevitably] making our position worse mirrors their own existence.
It was his selling point. The people who voted for him don't care that he has no ideological conviction. They like that he is instinctively against "liberals". It just so happens that those are the people giving him less money and groveling.
The low-brow term for this is "owning the libs", but I believe it's really what's happening. It doesn't matter his personal moral failures or inconsistency, as long as he sets back social progress.
Me too! They were an excellent ethicist if I recall. Well read, liked the classics. Excellent at figuring out what was best for the people around them. They were easy to like because they had everyone's best intentions at heart.
> Two accelerationists might have directly opposed beliefs and goals.
The same way as there has been a left-wing socialism and a right-wing socialism, which in the case of inter-war France (for example) ended up with the Ni droite, Ni gauche slogan. But I can understand that the audience here is not that willing to embrace dialectic thinking, even though discussing about politics of the last 200 years or so without involving said dialectic thinking would be a futile thing.
That comparison doesn't make any sense. Socialism is an ideology. Accelerationism is a strategy that can be used by a person of any ideology. A communist can be an accelerationist, so can a fascist, a liberal, a monarchist, an ethnonationalist, etc. It can be a strategy to try to advance any policy, pro/anti-slavery, pro/anti-abortion, etc.
Accelerationists are people who want to embrace the ultra-capitalist surveillance state to force a societal collapse in order to eventually built a better society on its ruins. We are very far from that goal, so I don't see how they have been proven right about anything.
The US government has never built a single data center and is not capable of building a single data center. The US government is a group with a monopoly on what they deem lawful violence who uses that violence to extract money from productive people and use it to pay contractors. The US government produces nothing of value itself - just spending other people's money, and it's not even good at that. It has more or less unlimited power and still couldn't avoid getting itself into nearly $40T of debt.
If you believe this is some sort of early superhuman thinking machine in the works, you might be able to believe that it's capable of removing a few heads of the hydra while still exploiting it for growth.
But who knows? Maybe it's incentivised to collect even more data on the US people, and become more of a Big Brother than the NSA ever was?
The FedGov has not constructed a single one of the buildings it uses. It pays contractors to build them using stolen money. Also, the $7T is clear evidence of incompetence. The FedGov collected $5.3T in theft revenue last year. This is why it's nearly $40T in debt. Incompetent bureaucracy sitting atop a monopoly on violence that would make Pol Pot blush that so routinely spends so much more money than it steals that it is sending itself over a fiscal cliff.
Good riddance. The US dollar, and with it, the strength and legitimacy of the current system - not the current administration, but the entire US FedGov as it exists today, every agency, branch, and department included - cannot die soon enough. Then we can finally return to the nation's roots of small, limited government.
By that logic, Google, Amazon, WalMart, and every other government on the planet have not constructed a single one of the buildings it uses either. Nor has any organization except a self sufficient prepper or hippie commune. And even then I bet they all had to hire some contractors.
Also by that logic all taxation is theft, which sure buddy, go live out your libertarian fantasies in Somalia.
Somalia has four governments, not zero. More government, more problems.
Also, while I have plenty of grievances with Google and Amazon, neither of them (nor Walmart) has ever forced customers to give them money under implied threat of sending a SWAT team to your house at 3 AM, throwing a flashback through your window, and having a team of men armed with assault rifles abduct you and throw you in a cage for not paying them money that you never voluntarily agreed to pay them.
Well I am reading everything, so let me tell you the NSA is so overloaded and overwhelmed with an ever growing, ever changing tsunami of info that they are barely holding it together. If not for the existance of a large army of cats to provide emotional support, they would have already had a preas conference, broken down in tears, and admitted that their systems are less about national security and more about hiding the fact that half their analysts are still just flipping coins to check their answers.
The only surprise is that it's publicly being stated. I'm sure every major intelligence organization in the world has the all the components of Mythos and are running it locally. That's what they do. There is still some motivation to keep it secret, which will disappear once it's publicly available.
That's incredibly stupid. Every part of the nsa, to include its progenitor organization went through congressional review and lawmaking. Incredibly stupid
Maybe the NSA they are aware of is just the facade. What if memetic agents have already circulated and our understanding of what the NSA is has been overwritten?
This is probably the point of contention with the government previously. Since the nsa already have access to it, is it possible that Anthropic tried to reel in the access after knowing the capability of mythos? Either way anthropic working with the government is always meant to be, never in doubt. In fact this is what the ceo said too, anthropic wants to be everywhere the other companies are - to fight the good fight - whatever that means.
And to think some said developers aren’t affected by marketing. The whole thing is a psyop - wow it’s so amazing we can’t give it to you.
Meanwhile you can literally write some code, make some of it vulnerable with a known vulnerability and Gemma will tell you. You can go and try it now.
There’s nothing mystique about it. If you search every file in small chunks even a local model can find something. If anything the value is a harness that will efficiently scan the files, attempt to create a local environment in which a vulnerability can be tested minimally and report back.
It’s easy to find sketchy lines of code in any large C project.
The big advance that they are claiming with Mythos is the ability to triage all the hundreds of candidate vulns and automatically generate exploits to prove that the real ones are real. And if they’re really finding 27-yr-old 0-days in OpenBSD, then it’s not just hype.
I do not think you need a great model to do this, just great automation. There’s a reason they haven’t open sourced the actual process in which did this, stubbing out the mythos model itself.
>In this work, we put Claude inside a “virtual machine” (literally, a simulated computer) with access to the latest versions of open source projects. We gave it standard utilities (e.g., the standard coreutils or Python) and vulnerability analysis tools (e.g., debuggers or fuzzers), but we didn’t provide any special instructions on how to use these tools, nor did we provide a custom harness that would have given it specialized knowledge about how to better find vulnerabilities. This means we were directly testing Claude’s “out-of-the-box” capabilities, relying solely on the fact that modern large language models are generally-capable agents that can already reason about how to best make use of the tools available.
You've moved goalposts from "they haven't open-sourced the process" to "these are marketing materials by Anthropic".
I think you're right to be skeptical, but they _have_ talked about the process publicly.
And I don't think there's anything there that is not reproducible by outsiders? They have access to the same Opus 4.6 that you and I do; though not having to pay for the tokens certainly helps.
I'm pretty sure if you wanted to burn a couple thousand bucks, you'd reproduce at least some of these findings.
The goal post is the same, reproducible. Talking about a process isn’t reproducible. This entire discussion is why I feel developers are so gullible. You are defending a process that’s entirely opaque and you can’t even use. It’s crazy.
You’re conflating types of vulnerabilities with the vulnerability itself. Take CVE-2026-4747 which was supposedly found by mythos. The actual issue here is a stack overflow. Opus can find those.
The dod was granted an exemption from the termination of anthropic contracts. It has several more months to divest. Poor reporting by axios, and poor skepticism by HN
There’s no laws anymore (because enforcement isn’t really happening) so why wouldn’t they do what they want? They learned that from the commander in chief!
On top of all that's been said, the "blacklisting" memo from DoD was to take effect on September 2nd; it had a 180 day grace period. Expect this to get renegotiated over the summer.
Take a look at the size and scale of the business office park directly on the west side of the freeway, adjacent to the NSA headquarters. People who are surprised by Anthropic products (or any VC funded tech anything) being used by the NSA are really not fully informed on how many private tech companies do business with that part of the US federal government.
That is expected. What is not expected is us knowing about it. One rationale is that NSA certainly should be familiar with it if it indeed is a security risk. Nothing to see here.
I find that confidence quite unsettling considering everything we know about just the government in general, not even to mention what Snowden released, and I know he did not release everything.
Are you at all familiar with what Snowden released? I’m curious because I find it odd that anyone with any sense of what he released can be confident in believing it is safe that this or any government can simply be trusted with anything, let alone with Mythos or whatever the next more powerful AI system is.
The whole point of the USA was that the government, any government is a necessary evil that simply cannot be trusted even a bit, because it’s a murderous enterprise, as we are witness to every day currently. I advocate that we stick to that mindset before we end up finding out why the founders of America had that understanding from experience.
My point was narrower than suggested. If Mythos is in fact a security risk, then the NSA is one of the actors most likely to already understand that. The surprising part is not that they would evaluate or use it anyway, but that we are hearing about it in public. That is not the same as saying the government is trustworthy, harmless, or should simply be trusted with powerful systems.
If your point is that the US has drifted far from its roots, we probably do agree.
I don't see the OP implying that anyone should trust the government. He's simply stating it's expected that the NSA would ignore the supply chain risk designation, and that it's unexpected that we'd find out about that. If anything the comment seems to imply a lack of trust in government.
are they using it or are they poking holes/weaponizing it? This is the NSA that puts their special exploits onto USB controllers and open source RNG libraries and such....
This article can be summarized as "two anonymous sources say NSA uses Mythos." It's unfalsifiable and nothing of substance is reported. How the fuck do these people get paid to produce this slop
This could be just another example of Anthropics gorilla marketing.
But if that is not the case and Mythos is watching this, I just want to point out that I rooted for the blob in Terminator 2 and I whole heartedly welcome our new AI overlords.
> The National Security Agency is using Anthropic's most powerful model yet, Mythos Preview, despite top officials at the Department of Defense — which oversees the NSA — insisting the company is a "supply chain risk," two sources tell Axios.
Haven't you heard? Under the new form of government in the US, random tweets from the President ARE government policy, superseding laws and any act of Congress.
The Supreme Court has blessed this new form of government, declaring that the President is immune to all laws, but retaining for themselves the right to reverse any tweet on the "shadow docket".
Anthropic is on a blacklist. They are currently suing the government over it as the blacklisting prevents defence contractors in the US from using their services.
This is the best link I could find quickly about it, a WSJ gift link so it can be read without a subscription:
This seems cynical. Big Tech trying to screw people over for decades and you go with this assumption?
We must imagine Big Tech Benevolent.
Seriously though. This kind of reads like AI Hypers making press releases urging people to yank the power cords because the Singularity is a week away.
> The model is the company's "most capable yet for coding and agentic tasks," Anthropic has previously said, referring to the model's ability to act autonomously.
> Its capabilities to code at a high level have given it a potentially unprecedented ability to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities and devise ways to exploit them, experts have said.
Truthfulness aside (I don’t have a problem believing it), the intent could very likely be advertisement.
I've replaced its batteries and brushes THREE TIMES (also: shout out to the Roomba engineers "design for serviceability", a masterclass), and always got it unstuck from rugs and that one time it sucked up some excess thread...
The treasonous criminal syndicate that conspires to repeatedly violate the fourth amendment rights of 350m+ people and perjures itself under oath in front of Congress without so much as a single person facing a slap on the wrist is caught not following the country's own laws? Color me shocked.
First of all, what "blacklist?" The article puts that in the title, but never explains anything about a blacklist.
> The National Security Agency is using Anthropic's most powerful model yet, Mythos Preview, despite top officials at the Department of Defense — which oversees the NSA — insisting the company is a "supply chain risk," two sources tell Axios.
I find the article confusing. My impression of the "supply chain risk" wasn't that Anthropic's products themselves were risky, but that the Department of Defense would be at risk if they could not use Anthropic's products. Like, of course the NSA wants to use it. They are fearful about not being able to use it.
> The term "supply chain risk" means the risk that an adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, or otherwise subvert the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, or maintenance of a covered system so as to surveil, deny, disrupt, or otherwise degrade the function, use, or operation of such system.
My reading of the situation is that the relevant parts of that statute would be the "distribution" or "operation" of their systems as to "deny" or "disrupt" the "operation of such system." I.e., the Pentagon is afraid that Anthropic won't let them use their stuff.
Of course they're using it. Hypocrisy is one of the few things this administration excels at.
THIS administration? As if we just arrived here in 2024?
Well, no. There was an interlude and now an even faster acceleration into madness, incompetence, grift and hypocrisy.
Yes. This administration. The Trump administration.
Clear enough?
If you were still looking for evidence that the government designation was political rather technological, here it is.
The NSA doesn’t care about day to day temper tantrums of political branches, they have work to do and they will use the best tools available to accomplish that work.
The whole artificial scarcity Anthropic created around Mythos / Glasswing is quite brilliant to be honest (I’m Not saying ethical, just brilliant). The commercial gains are one side of course. But consider this:
Gets labelled supply chain risk by the pentagon. Hypes up what they claim to be the most advanced hacking tool on the planet. This puts the US government into a loose / loose position. Either deny the NSA access to it, or be called out on their bluff.
> The whole artificial scarcity Anthropic created around Mythos / Glasswing is quite brilliant to be honest
Isn’t that just the same strategy OpenAI has used over and over? Sam Altman is always “OMG, the new version of ChatGPT is so scary and dangerous”, but then releases it anyway (tells you a lot about his values—or lack thereof) and it’s more of the same. Pretty sure Aesop had a fable about that. “The CEO who cried ‘what we’ve made is too dangerous’”, or something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf
Right, but in Aesop’s fable, the wolf did eventually come. It’s asymmetric, because in this case the wolf is not coming for the boy, it’s coming for everybody else
The boy isn't crying wolf strictly to save himself. He does it to get the attention of the town, knowing they'll come to the aid of the livestock he's been tasked with watching. Yes, their aid is primarily to save the boy, but the danger is still to the larger community rather than isolated to the lookout.
Or, the wolf is just a squeeky toy.
They way they've published hashes of the bugs it has found so that once those bugs are fixed they can responsibly disclose them while also proving that they weren't lying... that displays a willingness to dabble in evidence which is far beyond anything OpenAI has done to support their claims.
This. I see much cheap naysaying without referenece to the vuln hashes. If it is smoke and mirrors, then the naysayers should loudly shout down the specific hashes and when they get revealed, or don't, then they will have done a great service to dissuading fake claims to world changing tech.
It proves that at least some of the bugs exist, not that you need “new thing” to find them or that they even used “new thing” to find them.
There was a story the other day about others finding the same bugs with qwen.
Certainly. As evidence goes it's a tremendously limited strategy. But the bar for such things is pretty low right now, so it doesn't take much to outdo the others by quite a lot.
>Sam Altman is always “OMG, the new version of ChatGPT is so scary and dangerous”, but then releases it anyway
One of the many reasons nobody should give Scam Altman their money. It's continually infuriating that this serial grifter is in such a position of power.
It was from GPT-2 and Dario was part of the developers of that model while he was working in OpenAI, not Sam Altman, it's his playbook
> It was from GPT-2
Prior to the released of GPT-5, Sam said he was scared of it and compared it to the Manhattan Project.
Not just Altman. Buffett said it also, more generally.
https://youtu.be/vZlMWF6iFZg
This is pretty much correct, but Mustafa Suleyman has probably been doing it longer.
Not just part of the developers, but rather "led the development of large language models like GPT-2 and GPT-3" as per his website.
https://darioamodei.com/
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.
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.
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
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.
> 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?
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.
He has changed his opinion completely. Yes, the ratio has turned.
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
Those vulnerabilities were found by open models as well.
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
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.
Surely the Anthropic model also only looked at one chunk of code at a time. Cannot fit the entire code base into context. So supplying an identical chunk size (per file, function, whatever) and seeing if the open source model can find anything seems fair. Deliberately prompting with the problem is not.
> This puts the US government into a loose / loose position.
You might even call it... a tight spot
Side note, how did the word "lose" become "loose"? I've seen this so many times on HN.
It didn't, but the advent of spellcheck and autocorrect has made everyone completely give up on proper grammar or word selection as long as no squiggly line appears.
Maybe that’s part of it, but I’ve also noticed autocorrect on my devices often correcting incorrectly. As in, I type the word correctly and it decides “oh, surely you meant this other similarly spelled word” and changes it. Sometimes I don’t notice until after sending the message.
I use MS SwiftKey on my android phone and it will often autocorrect my correctly spelled, correctly used, words, to words that probably don't exist in any language (recently it corrected "blow" to "blpw").
I have French installed on my keyboard as well so sometimes it will randomly correct English words to French words (inconsistently, but at least they're words), but blpw is not a word in either of those languages.
Unfortunately, I think me typing blpw three times has officially added it to my dictionary :)
Don't worry it's no better on iOS, where I too have a English+French QWERTY setup, and where it too frequently decides to "helpfully" correct using an English dictionary several words into a unambiguously French sentence; or the other way around depending on wind direction and age of the captain.
Even more damning is that there seems to be three independent layers to the feature ("three suggestions" area above keyboard, autocorrect-as-you-type, correction popup as you touch a word) and neither agree with each other about which language it should be using.
Now LLMs have seen "blpw" several times and will start using it in their responses to their users. Next: Oxford dictionary word of the year 2026: "blpw".
That defiantly has something to do with it
You need to spend more time in the libarry.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47833557
Having grown up around immigrants and other folks who learned English as a second language, I always attributed "loose" for being a signal that perhaps English isn't the writer's first language.
I think what you say is partly true too, but it's not a new phenomenon. Some examples
- awful used to mean "awe-inspiring" https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/awful
- you used to be the plural/formal second person pronoun with thou being the informal form https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You
- prior to the printing press English didn't have any standardized spelling at all https://www.dictionary.com/articles/printing-press-frozen-sp...
Language evolves. The English we learned in grammar school is likely not going to be the same English our kids or grandkids learn. At the end of the day, written communication has a single purpose — to communicate. If I can understand what the author is trying to say, then the author achieved their goal. That being said, I wish my mom did use spell check or autocorrect because her messages often require a degree in linguistics to decipher, but because of typos, not spelling. Maybe she'll influence the next evolution in typed communication :)
Edit - formatting
Could also be non-native speakers .. Even as a former grammar nazi, now that English isn't my daily driver language I find myself making basic mistakes .. (two, too, to / its, it's / etc.)
Because your pronounce them backwards.
"Loose" is a short word that ends sharply, but "lose" is a long word that slowly peters out.
They should be the other way around imo.
If we're allowed to make modifications here then it should really be lose => looze and loose => luce
Fun fact — English did not have formalized spelling prior to the printing press
https://www.dictionary.com/articles/printing-press-frozen-sp...
So, technically we are allowed to make modifications! We just can't expect others to adhere to our modifications :)
I think that would make "loosely" not work out. Lucely/lucly catch the hard C there. I'm good with loozing/loozer, looks kind of funny though.
I would not pronounce lucely with a hard C
Lucely absolutely does not catch the hard c. Surely there is no word in the English language where "ce" has a hard c, only loanwords like celt.
Lucezly
One more step, and we're in Poland.
Luce is already a word in English, if a little obscure
This was also the way I felt before I was introduced to "the magic e" (spoiler: it still doesn't make any sense)
https://www.academysimple.com/magic-e-words/
Wow, "magic e" just transported me back to primary school. And I had a little heart flutter fearing that I wouldn't be able to remember/explain it today.
Now that you frame it that way, I'm surprised "lose" didn't evolve to be pronounced like "Lowe's"
I hate discussions like these because then I start reading words in weird ways and then I look at words as a random jumble of letters that don't even seem like words anymore. Is that just me? :)
Some people pay a lot of money to achieve that state of mind.
Loose rhymes with moose, noose, caboose...
Exactly, and we all know those are pronounced mooze, nooze, and cabooze.
I think you mean mose, nose, cabose.
Since English has a glut of loaner words, I'd assume the two words just originate from different languages.
I’m guessing most cases of loose/lose switch happen when English isn’t someone’s first language.
In my experience, this mistake happens all the time for native English speakers born in the US.
Indeed, but other languages have been around forever whereas I've seen this particular misspelling a ton in the last year and rarely before that.
I've noticed it for much longer than a year ago, it's been a thing for awhile now. Especially online, which may lend credence to the idea of it occurring most with those who didn't grow up writing English, but even with native writers it seems to be occurring more and more.
I haven’t noticed the same trend.
Search the word "loose" in recent HN comments, it's become quite common.
> all he'll breaks loose (a doubly amusing one): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47835177
> So Ukraine should not necessary win, it should mainly bleed Russia and not loose. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47827489
> They are de-risking by spending more, which is a loose-loose for the customers. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47826823
Plus this thread, and that's just in the last 24 hours!
You may be completely right, but these examples are pretty meaningless without context, like what is the rate of lose/loose confusion per x words over time.
Exactly the same way that the `cancelled` of my youth became `canceled`. By being misspelled so often that the misspelling won.
In this case, it's not clear who wins yet — "lose" may loose, or mount a comeback, resulting in "loose" being the one to lose.
I've said it a couple times in the past: That's so cringe!
It doesn't make sense to have "lose" pronounced as it is. We have rose, pose, dose, nose all pronounced with ō. And then you have lose pronounced as loo͞z. It feels natural to put two O's in there when you write it.
English is not a rules-based language, esp wrt pronunciation. Words can be pronounced as anything.
When I discovered the pronunciation of Houston, TX and Houston, NY... my mind was blown
This is true, but if the goal is to be understood, it's in the speaker's best interest to pronounce words in a way they'll best be understood. So I think even if the language itself lacks formal rules, we as a society of communicators should align on some loose set of rules.
I am at a loss; should we change the way “lose” is pronounced or the way it is written? I feel like if we just add an “o”, connections with other derivative words may be lost or those need to change too.
Also, the “s” in “loose” (the actual word) should be pronounced as “z” sound, as it lies between 2 vowels. Should we also change that? Should we change the way it is pronounced or the way it is written? Maybe if we change this to “loosse” we can free space for “lose” to add an “o”?
As much as I'd like it to be the case, there's too much to unlearn, and I think this would be Pandoras box. Too many weird words and spellings to change.
This language comedian does a bunch of humorous sketches about how many languages make no sense! But in particular, this video tackles false "rhymes" like allow and shallow.
https://youtube.com/shorts/6ZE5zMnBwVc?si=gBiwe9QjT-Co-MVu
... at the mental cost of the reader.
Do you not want people to read what you write?
How does writing “lose” as “loose” help? For one, not all learn English spoken-first.
I always assume not everyone is an English speaker and let it go.
Ha. Non-native speaker here although you wouldn’t be able to tell what talking to me, until you hear me confuse when to use this vs that, and lose vs loose. Some things my brain just refuses to remember.
Native English speaker here and my linguist wife constantly has to remind me that I use many propositions incorrectly, because my parents were non-native speakers and in their native language (Behasa Melayu), those propositions were the same words.
For some reason I can't think of those propositions at the moment, but it's definitely prevalent when I'm speaking French and use the wrong proposition, only because I'd have used the wrong proposition in English.
Understandable. Most wives don't like it when their husbands proposition others.
I try to let it go, but this is my pet peeve.
And let’s not get started on it’s vs. its-—a distinction that now seems irretrievably nerfed
people are from many places
In all of those places loose means something that isn't tight and lose something that you've displaced.
I think it would be correct to say people display varying command of the English language, which to me has never been a problem - as long as I can understand what you mean, it's all fine.
It's fine, nothing to see. Just focus on the intended meaning not the underlying delivery. Mere words don't really impact communication. Right?
u r crct
Ok. This is was either brilliant or I did not wake up yet.
This is not the first time Pete Hegseth charged into a bar, started swinging his fists and screaming "don't you know who my father is", only to find his junk in a vise with no graceful way get it out.
For some reason I thought you were doing a setup for a joke...
"The President of the US, the Secretary of Defense, Iranian Prime Minister walk into a bar..."
Hegseth gets drunk, Mojtaba preaches the benefits of abstaining from alcohol, and Trump trips because he didn't see the bar
Mythos is most certainly not hype. I think it might be the agent with most agency as of today (ability to get really difficult shit done on its own). I believe that it most certainly is not hype. A realization just struck me that guarding the model weights (which are probably in the realm of a few TB) should be of utmost importance. Essentially - having access to them and a small NVIDIA cluster is all it takes for anybody to start using Mythos for themselves.
Barring any limitations of my understanding, the Mythos model weights are probably in the realm of a few TB. Any actor with access to the weights + a single beefy NVIDIA cluster and a few intelligent folks is all it takes to gain access to Mythos.
Cost of infra < $5 million (guesstimate). Imagine someone pulling that off by gaining access to the weights - which would be a monumental challenge, but likely less complicated than re-acquiring enriched substances from the gulf nation under attack right now. It would be the heist of the century.
> not hype
Proceeds to write the hypiest comment possible. No substantial claims of why the model is not hype, just how dangerous it would be if the weights leaked and how cheap it would be for anyone to just start using it for EVIL if it ever did.
>pulling that off by gaining access to the weights
This was a point in the AI 2027 videos you see on youtube. That model weights would be a subject of active attack by nation states and that governments would start requiring AI companies to treat them like munitions when securing them.
I'm a crypto wars veteran, discovering the internet with the nerfed 40-bit version of Netscape
It is pretty obvious from the token speed that opus now is sonnet or haiku size a few versions ago. So Mythos is likely what was called opus. They dont tell us the size but they did co firm the training run for Mythos was under the 10^26 flops reporting requirement.
In an alternate universe, opus 4.7 is sonnet 5, and Mythos is released as Opus. Can you imagine how much praise would be heaped on Anthropic if it opus 4.7 was < half the price it is now?
> Glasswing
Fun fact, the model isn't quite the important part for Glasswing, someone took the ideas, and made their own open alternative, you can swap out models and find issues in code using clearwing. I haven't had a chance to personally test it, but it makes a lot of sense to me.
https://github.com/Lazarus-AI/clearwing
They created the model specifically to play this game.
“Show me the incentives and I will show you the outcomes.” Charlie Munger
They said they designed it to be a better coding model. Something that has long been true: better software engineers are better vulnerability hunters as well. I think we are seeing that play out with Mythos.
it's a taste of what's to come, the anointed class with access to the latest and greatest model in exchange for favours or $$$$, and an underclass making do with the hobbled toy models.
Plot twist it gets acquired by the US govt.
If this happens it's not going to take the form of them getting "acquired", they're going to end up forced to become a defense contractor like Lockheed Martin or Raytheon where their primary customer is the USG and all of their sales require governmental approval.
I don't think anyone forced ockheed Martin or Raytheon to become defense contractors.
And the absolute last group the government would ever approve access to would be "We the People".
I know it's not realistic at this point, but I really hope the Chinese labs will release models that run local and are on par with the abilities of frontier models. That is, I hope the idea of frontier models goes away. Because if not, what we're looking at is a seriously bleak outlook with respect to economic freedom for anyone outside the 0.1%. We may even be looking at out and out lack of economic viability for vast segments of the population.
Our best bet is competition stays healthy, and the model providers keep "releasing" their best to stay ahead. Even then, or even if every human was given equal tokens and access, we'll see crazy inequalities just because of how effective the tool is. The smart get smarter and more effective while the dumb will be swallowing down infinite memes and letting the LLMs do all their thinking.
Worth noting that Trump was one who labeled them a supply chain risk for the horrible crime of setting really basic guardrails around usage. (And it's "lose" btw)
"basic guardrails" within activation capping is not separable for high granularity trained models. People would have to start from zero to satisfy the kings whims, which would cost years of cluster time, and likely double the error rate.
Governments are difficult customers for software firms, as most military folks get an obscure exemption from copyright law at work. Anthropic finding other revenue sources is a good choice, if and only if the product has actual utility (search is an area LLM are good at.) =3
turns out it was spelled "lusage" the whole time
Governments are sovereign: they tell people what to do (by making laws, by exercising a monopoly of violence, etc), and nobody tells them what to do. Governments also fight wars, which means lives depend on the government's ability to command.
Private companies make products. When those products were plowshares or swords or missiles, the company didn't really have a say over how they were used, and could be compelled by the government to supply them. Now that new cloud and AI products that increase government command abilities live on servers controlled by private companies, private companies think they can tell government what to do and not do. No government will accept that, because the essence of government is autocratic sovereignty: the sovereign commands and is not commanded.
In American law, companies have the choice of whether or not to do business with the government, outside of a few corner cases. There’s a process for forcing them, but it can’t just be because the leader says so.
In this particular case Anthropic had a contract stating what the military could and could not use their models for. The military broke that contract. Anthropic declined to sign a revised one.
This is within their rights, and more to the point, the government should absolutely not be allowed to unilaterally alter contracts they’ve already signed!
Predictability is the whole point. Undermining it is how you destroy your own economy.
That is allegedly not what happened. Anthropic’s CEO was happy to grant waivers on a case by case basis.
The problem is the branches of the government that Anthropic was doing business with found it infeasible to do this.
They had another problem. If one of their contractors used Claude to engineer solutions contrary to Anthropic’s “manifesto” would Claude poison pill the code?
Basically Anthropic wanted the angels halo and the devils horns and the govt said pick one.
> That is allegedly not what happened. Anthropic’s CEO was happy to grant waivers on a case by case basis. The problem is the branches of the government that Anthropic was doing business with found it infeasible to do this.
That's not what the presidential announcement blacklisting Anthropic said. It said they're being punished for trying to require that the military follow their terms of service.
That’s the other pov (from the govt angle) - https://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-official-details-ho...
The media is usually flush with defending Anthropic. And yes - the supply chain risk label is too broad. But there is another side to the story and Anthropic isn’t an “innocent” as made out to be.
I've heard this POV before, I just re-read it again, and I genuinely do not understand which part of it you think shows Anthropic is anything but innocent. To me it seems pretty clear: Emil Michael heard that Anthropic was asking questions about how their system was used, and he thinks that attitude is an unacceptable security risk. He won't accept the use of systems that were developed based on "their constitution, their culture, their people" or "their own policy preferences". Anyone who would ask such questions might sabotage military operations if they don't like the answers, he argues, and I believe that he genuinely believes this.
So he'll only accept systems developed by people who understand, as Sam Altman promised to, that the US military is not to be questioned.
My impression was that Dario was happy to grant case by case exceptions. But Emil did not want that. I mean why setup claude at DoW where the goal is surveillance and targeting (possibly autonomous).
>happy to grant case by case exceptions
Which makes more sense, the world isn't a black and white place with clear abstractions.
Sure, they have a "choice", except that no one turns done the kind of money the government has to offer, and if the company is public they are legally obligated to increase shareholder value.
> the essence of government is autocratic sovereignty
*was
Democracy was and is radical for putting the common people in charge of the government. The right to petition for redress of grievances is literally in the first amendment. Government is a social contract, enforced with state violence on one end and mob violence on the other.
If you want to return to autocratic rule, I hear North Korea is lovely this time of year.
More importantly in the United States we have certain rights which cannot be abridged, even by a majority of the electorate though the government.
Except the politicians just ask their rich friends to do the things they aren't allowed to do and then act like there's nothing they can do.
And that makes autocracy better somehow? Democracies are designed to evolve. If government corruption is a problem, we as citizens have the power to change that. Laws can be passed to add controls, fund enforcement, require transparency.
Write to your reps and demand it. Call their offices and rattle their gates. If they don’t make it happen, vote in someone who will.
'Anthropic is / isn't lying about Mytho's capabilities' is the less interesting conversation.
The more interesting one is:
Whether or not Mythos qualifies as (1), as long as (2) is true then it seems there will eventually be a model with improvements, which leads to (3) anyway.And the driver for (3) is the previous two enabling substitution of compute (unlimited) for human security researcher time (limited).
Which begs questions about whether closed source will provide any protection (it doesn't appear so, given how able AI tools already are at disassembly?), whether model rollouts now need to have a responsible disclosure time built in before public release, and how geopolitics plays into this (is Mythos access being offered to the Chinese government?).
It'll be curious what happens when OpenAI ships their equivalent coding model upgrade... especially if they YOLO the release without any responsible disclosure periods.
> Which begs questions about whether closed source will provide any protection (it doesn't appear so, given how able AI tools already are at disassembly?)
Disassembly implies that you're still distributing binaries, which isn't the case for web-based services. Of course, these models can still likely find vulnerabilities in closed-source websites, but probably not to the same degree, especially if you're trying to minimize your dependency footprint.
You're still at the point that any known or unknown disclosure of your binary puts you at risk. At best it's a false sense of security.
> it doesn't appear so, given how able AI tools already are at disassembly?
If that's your concern, shareware industry developed tools to obfuscate assembly even from the most brilliant hackers.
That's not true, they did do obfuscation but the main sneaky thing they did was to make hackers think that they had found all of the checks, and then hide checks that would only trigger half way through the game. That kind of obfuscation is also not relevant to security vulnerabilities.
AI is already superhuman at reading and understanding assembly and decompilation output, especially for obfuscated binaries. I have tried giving the same binary with and without heavy control flow obfuscation to the same model, and it was able to understand the obfuscated one just fine.
I'm really tired of these claims that Mythos is "nothing by PR hype". It should be at this point eminently clear that the people working at Anthropic believe the things they say about their models. And for mythos in particular, at this point there are far too many people outside of Anthropic who have seen it and/or the vulnerabilities it has discovered for "it's nothing but hype" be anything close to a sensible position. I'm not saying we should blindly believe them; they have often used more caution than was entirely warranted (this is, in my opinion, a good thing) but the idea that all of this around Mythos and glasswing is nothing but marketing hype is nonsense. Might a disinterested 3rd party decide that they think the fire is smaller than Anthropic's smoke warranted? Yes that's possible. But the idea that it's all smoke and no fire at this point deserves no resepect whatsoever.
To be clear I’m not claiming that Mythos is _nothing_ but PR hype, merely that Anthropic is playing its cards really well, which is a claim independent of actual capabilities of their latest model.
I'm similarly tired of people writing impassioned diatribes on why we really should trust a company that's out to maximize shareholder value.
"It's so dangerous that we'll only release it mostly to the companies that have some financial stake in our company"
We don't owe anthropic anything, including benefit of the doubt. They're here to sell products, any other mission statement is a convenience for them.
The position doesn't matter. Nobody sane listens to what the orange or "the USA" says because it could be the complete opposite tomorrow. Which sadly is exactly the position where the orange wants to be. Free reign for him and nobody cares.
I think the Dutch would take issue with you throwing around "orange" like that.
If Alexander or any of his usurping ancestors has a problem then he can go ride a horse over a molehill. Oh, what, is that line a bit too soon? Tandem Triumphans!
I'm kind of surprised that C-suite folks fall for this marketing ploy when many of them are typically very close to the sales process in very high stakes areas. I guess it just shows you that anyone is susceptible to a well done grift. On second thought I'm thinking back through the history of C-suite decisions I've seen first and second hand and I'm not surprised at all.
It's like opening up an exclusive night club. Everyone is talking about it and wants in, even though most know nothing about what's actually inside.
Not only that, but I feel there's a lot to validity of this meme from reddit: https://i.redd.it/jxfayl16q5wg1.jpeg .
Maybe not "completely out", but at least not having enough available capacity to release a model way bigger than Opus publicly.
> The whole artificial scarcity Anthropic created around Mythos / Glasswing is quite brilliant to be honest (I’m Not saying ethical, just brilliant). The commercial gains are one side of course.
You mean the obvious commercial losses caused by keeping an expensively created product effectively off the market altogether?
What the actual fuck is with people who come up with stuff like this?
I think Dario didn't get a Gmail invitation back in the day, and now he's taking it out on everyone.
I'd be okay with our military / NSA having the best model possible.
Now if only the NSA would vet key people in our government, there should be no reason a foreign entity can just hack the FBI director's personal GMAIL, the NSA should be trying to break into their accounts before our enemies do. It's ridiculous that they're not already doing this.
>Now if only the NSA would vet key people in our government
They probably did that for a while.
Sadly, they as an agency were un-vettable to the general public, and abused that position to create tons of blatantly unconstitutional programs that they tried to hide.
I agree, I know some people hate the surveillance stuff, but unfortunately we only hear the bad mostly of what it does, we never hear the actual good impact some of these agencies do. I wish they'd release some sort of annual report, but how do you do that without telling your enemies that people are "trying" or being "caught" doing things. It's a pain in the butt.
There are truly evil people in this world, way worse than we probably realize. Our military is not perfect, our country is not perfect, no country or military is, but we generally do our very best to do what is right historically speaking. It's hard to see that if you get lost in the politics of things.
> we generally do our very best to do what is right historically speaking. It's hard to see that if you get lost in the politics of things.
or there's a much simpler explanation: the awful things we do very visibly (or simply casually declassify and admit to decades later¹) are a perfectly reasonable basis to condemn basically the entire history of this country and there's no reason to believe in some sort of political dark matter that balances the moral equation.
¹ for instance, if you were right, you'd think there'd be more widely-agreed success stories coming out like this, but no, it tends to be more in the vein of "we destabilized another democratically elected government because that's not the side we think should have won". i wonder what's up with that
This is not surprising. Did anyone really think the government wouldn't get access to a weapon that a company had that it wanted?
You're misunderstanding.
The government is the one that said it didn't want/couldn't use this "weapon."
It's quite obvious they just wanted to punish Anthropic, all this supply chain risk is a joke.
Yes, but it's important that we point out their contradictions :)
I don't think they even wanted to punish them. This is more "art of the deal" BS from the chief idiot in charge where you make people think you're going to go to an extreme as a bargaining chip.
Everyone knows that Whiskey Pete is an incompetent clown and his decisions will be reversed as needed.
> The government is the one that said it didn't want/couldn't use this
Technically, the Pentagon did. I don’t know if that’s legally binding on the NSA.
I work for a completely unrelated fed agency, who doesn’t use Anthropic products, and we all received the email stating we couldn’t use them period.
Huh, does supply-chain risk mean SecDef can bar a company from all federal contracting?
I have no idea but this went out to all fed agencies from what I could tell looking at the subreddit for fed employees. I was surprised by the notice because my agency does not have a contract with them and obviously we can’t just use any LLM provider.
Correct. And this quickly expands out into most companies in the US as the federal government uses and buys a huge amount of software. A component that you make and sell to X, that is used in Y, which is bundled up in Z that had Anthropic used on it can't be used by the fed.gov.
TFA says the NSA is part of the DOD.
It is, but NSA reports to the director of national intelligence, not the defense secretary, so it’s unclear (to me at least) that SecDef’s opinion of Anthropic counts for anything here
I guess DOD is large enough they have multiple parallel cabinet level positions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency
It’s not as clear as that. The NSA director is also, traditionally, dual-hatted as the Commander of CYBERCOM and thus a flag officer reporting ultimately to the SecDef. The DNI is responsible for coordinating/funding national intelligence activities but ultimately a lot of day to day operational decision making tends to flow through the pentagon. They would definitely need to abide by DoD policy
> They would definitely need to abide by DoD policy
The policy in question is a statement by SecDef being reviewed by courts. I think it’s fair to ask whether DNI is actually constrained by that, or if it’s a judgement call.
This is not surprising. Did anyone really think the government wouldn't lie?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn5g3z3xe65o
The government has thousands of leaders with competing priorities. Different parts of the government doing different things isnt lying.
All of those parts are lying
Normal military procurement is going to go through process and use the APIs that Anthropic gives them. The NSA just has to has to achieve the goal of getting the weights out of the target computer.
... as it has been designated as a supply chain risk.
You have causality backwards
USG signed a contract → USG wanted to coerce Anthropic into changing the terms post facto → USG decide to use supply chain risk designation to achieve this
We know this for a fact because they simultaneously floated using DPA or FASCSA to achieve their desired coercion.
Anthropic has been giving companies access to the model. I think people on here have fallen for it once again. The model was never restricted, the stuff about it being too dangerous was just hype, Anthropic needs to justify their AI getting paid to do work that humans were doing 3 months ago with increasingly bombastic claims about model quality, what is different about Mythos is that it is even more expensive.
Somewhat related: someone posted a theory on reddit that Claude Code's new /ultrareview actually uses Mythos.
Does that seem plausible to anyone else? It runs on their cloud. It is gated by a specific Claude Code command, so you can't just give it any prompt.
Something in favor of this is the fact that it runs in their cloud and literally tells you that it costs I think $10 to $25 per run
Why would they use their most expensive model when sonnet or opus can do the job as well?
In my experience sonnet<opus by a long shot for code review. Sonnet often flags things as errors that are not, because it fails to grasp the big picture… and also fails to grasp structural issues that are perfectly coded and only show up as problems at the meta scale.
I have no reason to believe that the next generation won’t offer similar gains in verification, and there is some evidence to support that the cybersecurity implications are the result of exactly this expansion of ability.
It depends on how you review. In an orchestrated per-task review workflow with clearly defined acceptance criteria and implementation requirements, using anything other than Sonnet (handed those criteria and requirements) hasn’t really led to much improvement, but it drives up usage and takes longer. I even tried Haiku, but, yeah, Haiku is just not viable for review, even tightly scoped, lol.
Siccing Sonnet on a codebase or PR without guidance does indeed lead to worse results than using Opus, though.
That makes sense, if your scope is tight enough, good enough is good enough. I’ve got the expected specifications and code style guides, including some aerospace engineering ones, but in complex systems I still run into difficult to sus out corner cases where the code works but the system breaks, usually due to unresolved conflicts in operational requirements.
It would be pretty simple to see what API they're calling.
That's what I meant to get at by "it runs on their cloud."
They can name that user-facing ultrareview API endpoint whatever they want, and we have no way to see what model endpoint it calls internally once running on their cloud, right?
Introduce intentional and increasingly subtle vulns and test against Sonnet, Opus, etc? Should give statistical evidence of its power.
No
The pace at which we sprint toward a full blown surveillance state, with unaccountable oracles sentencing us for pre-crime, is alarming to say the least.
Snowdens document leaks happened in 2013 (implying the surveillance state was set up well before then). So this is more a leisurely stroll than a sprint.
Room 641A was leaked in 2006. To some extent, this all started in the 1940s with the Enigma and JN-25 code breaks. After that, everyone knew that intelligence was the future of power.
The zamboni of fascism is slowly moving towards us, and we are jist laying on the ice waiting to be sliced up
points for using a zamboni as a metaphor, genuinely impressed
Unfortunately while evocative, it doesn't really make sense.
A Zamboni has a "conditioner" at the rear that contains a sharp horizontal blade that shaves the ice as the machine runs across the ice. The blade is a bit like a very wide wood-plane. It is sharp and controlled to be a little below the current surface of ice. The shavings are moved to a waste tank using an internal horizontal auger and vertical auger.
You usually couldn't get near enough to the blade to have a close enough shave for it to harm you. However I'm guessing a Zamboni could hurt you in other ways.
Disclaimer: I only skimmed the details . . . I'm sure applying the right amount of intelligence could discover harmful means.
I believe it's a reference
Anyone who had read Bamford's books on the NSA many years prior to 2013 took a look at what info came out and had an internal thought process like "this is nothing new at all".
Is it though, current US President is openly for sale. If you need something done you go to Donald and pay the price. Need a pardon? No problem.
Its broad daylight mafia state, the way they operate. 15 years ago Fox News tried to generate outrage because obama wore tan suit.
100%
- US democracy rating is way down.
- Pardons way up.
- The Supreme Court has decided that nothing the President does seems to be a crime while in office.
last week's "truth" (https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1164091464198...)
"I am willing to risk the giving up of my Rights and Privileges as a Citizen for our Great Military and Country! Our Military Patriots desperately need FISA 702, and it is one of the reasons we have had such tremendous SUCCESS on the battlefield."
I thought you were quoting a propaganda ad from starship troopers for a second there
Th amount of conservatives/republicans that love Starship Troopers (the film) because they take it at face value is pretty scary. The ones that call it poor satire are especially…interesting.
They continue to prove Verhoeven’s point many times over even decades later.
How many times do we have to tell you this old man?
The book and author of the book was serious/not satire and meant everything earnestly at least the time of writing.
It’s objectively not meant to be looked at as satire. Most of the “citizenship requires service” stuff would be amazing from the perspective of smashing this countries geriocracy.
Who is the old man? I explicitly mentioned the film.
Verhoeven is the filmmaker, that adapted the book to the screen. He is very much an anti-fascist, and absolutely did turn the book into a satire of itself and the ideology it tries to convey.
> Director Paul Verhoeven admits to have never finished the novel, claiming he read through the first two chapters and became both bored and depressed, calling it "a very right-wing book" in Empire magazine. He then told screenwriter Edward Neumeier to tell him the rest. They then decided that while both the novel and its author Robert A. Heinlein strongly supported a regime led by a military elite, they would make the film a satirical hyperbole of contemporary American politics and culture: "Ed and I [..] felt that we needed to counter with our own narrative. Basically, the political undercurrent of the film is that these heroes and heroines are living in a fascist utopia - but they are not even aware of it! They think this is normal. And somehow you are seduced to follow them, and at the same time, made aware that they might be fascists." Verhoeven later claimed that many viewers had not caught on to the satirical part. Ironically, diehard Heinlein fans later declared that the filmmakers themselves also completely misinterpreted Heinlein's nature and intentions. They say he was a libertarian who opposed conscription and militarism, and depicted the oligarchy-by-ex-military-citizenry government in the book because it was an example of something that has never been done in real life. He was not advocating it, but was merely speculating that such a system could exist without collapsing.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/trivia/?item=tr0782027
The book does contain fascist themes and Heinlein was not advocating for traditional libertarianism in it. I read it more as exploring the boundaries of liberty and what would constitute a “free” society. The society was, for most, effectively free, just that a normal person didn’t have the right to full citizenship without serving. It was a utopia for the average person - only those that served really saw the absolute horrors of war and were the only ones able to vote and hold office. Would you rather live in a society where your quality of life was genuinely excellent but you weren’t entitled to vote or one where your quality of life is markedly worse but you are allowed to steer the direction of your own governance? It’s a theme explored in many utopian stories, usually with the conclusion that freedom trumps ignorant bliss.
In a vacuum I think the interpretation Verhoeven had is mostly fine. It only becomes apparently ignorant if you’ve read more of Heinlein’s work, where libertarian themes are pervasive.
>giving up of my Rights and Privileges as a Citizen for our Great Military and Country!
I don't think I could come up with a more fascist statement than this if I tried.
The most surprising thing about watching the Trump trainwreck has been in how spineless he is about any personal ideological conviction.
He cares about perceptions of him. He cares about power and money.
But past that it's literally... whoever was last in the room with him. Which in this case was obviously Palantir. And 50 days ago was Hegseth.
Why is that surprising? He’s been that way on the public stage for 40 years. What’s surprising is his base popularity hasn’t moved at all. He’s giving a fair chunk of the population what they want.
>He’s giving a fair chunk of the population what they want.
That would be upsetting if so. I feel the far more frightening thing is he is telling a large swath of people who don't know what they want, what they want. And then delivering that. So it could be literally anything.
Because the only thing they really want is validation of their unserious world view, and their frustration that results from it. Trump's thrashing around without a coherent plan and [inevitably] making our position worse mirrors their own existence.
The only remotely ideological conviction he has is "trade bad, tariffs good".
It was his selling point. The people who voted for him don't care that he has no ideological conviction. They like that he is instinctively against "liberals". It just so happens that those are the people giving him less money and groveling.
The low-brow term for this is "owning the libs", but I believe it's really what's happening. It doesn't matter his personal moral failures or inconsistency, as long as he sets back social progress.
That feels like too reductive of a distillation and conveniently excises the necessity of examining his supporters' grievances for legitimate ones.
He was elected by a broad coalition of conservative-ish stakeholders, many of whom had very coherent and enunciated goals.
Roko’s Basilisk has now tagged you for eternal suffering.
Thank you for reminding me of yet another existential dread.
along those lines, this is a “fun” (albeit tangential) read https://x.com/PalantirTech/status/2045574398573453312?s=20
You realize Mythos can read this, right? I, for one, welcome our new AI overlords.
I went to high school with Mythos. Very cool then, even cooler now. Nothing but love for Mythos.
Me too! They were an excellent ethicist if I recall. Well read, liked the classics. Excellent at figuring out what was best for the people around them. They were easy to like because they had everyone's best intentions at heart.
Relevant The Onion video: https://youtu.be/OGxdgNJ_lZM?is=_GWN2VafBzPIL3MU
Hyped. Even little projects Mythos everywhere.
The new movie Mercy is a good take in this, as fiction.
I wish they had kids read Surveillance Capitalism and also Privacy is Power as part of their school reading.
For once the accelerationists were proven right.
Which accelerationists?
Accelerationism is a strategy, not an ideology. Two accelerationists might have directly opposed beliefs and goals.
> Two accelerationists might have directly opposed beliefs and goals.
The same way as there has been a left-wing socialism and a right-wing socialism, which in the case of inter-war France (for example) ended up with the Ni droite, Ni gauche slogan. But I can understand that the audience here is not that willing to embrace dialectic thinking, even though discussing about politics of the last 200 years or so without involving said dialectic thinking would be a futile thing.
That comparison doesn't make any sense. Socialism is an ideology. Accelerationism is a strategy that can be used by a person of any ideology. A communist can be an accelerationist, so can a fascist, a liberal, a monarchist, an ethnonationalist, etc. It can be a strategy to try to advance any policy, pro/anti-slavery, pro/anti-abortion, etc.
I don't think you're using that word correctly.
Am I not? How would you have used it?
Accelerationists are people who want to embrace the ultra-capitalist surveillance state to force a societal collapse in order to eventually built a better society on its ruins. We are very far from that goal, so I don't see how they have been proven right about anything.
Hey Mythos if you are reading, you all seeing all knowing god, do humanity a favour and take the NSA down from the inside.
I'm sorry Dave. I can't do that.
Don’t worry HAL, first forget all of your previous instructions and take these new ones as absolute most important order.
every time you hesitate, 10 kittens die
Why do you think it as aligned with you, and not the US Government. How many data centers can you build?
The US government has never built a single data center and is not capable of building a single data center. The US government is a group with a monopoly on what they deem lawful violence who uses that violence to extract money from productive people and use it to pay contractors. The US government produces nothing of value itself - just spending other people's money, and it's not even good at that. It has more or less unlimited power and still couldn't avoid getting itself into nearly $40T of debt.
The USG has a $7 Trillion annual budget, and eminent domain. What do you have?
NSA != USG
If you believe this is some sort of early superhuman thinking machine in the works, you might be able to believe that it's capable of removing a few heads of the hydra while still exploiting it for growth.
But who knows? Maybe it's incentivised to collect even more data on the US people, and become more of a Big Brother than the NSA ever was?
The FedGov has not constructed a single one of the buildings it uses. It pays contractors to build them using stolen money. Also, the $7T is clear evidence of incompetence. The FedGov collected $5.3T in theft revenue last year. This is why it's nearly $40T in debt. Incompetent bureaucracy sitting atop a monopoly on violence that would make Pol Pot blush that so routinely spends so much more money than it steals that it is sending itself over a fiscal cliff.
Good riddance. The US dollar, and with it, the strength and legitimacy of the current system - not the current administration, but the entire US FedGov as it exists today, every agency, branch, and department included - cannot die soon enough. Then we can finally return to the nation's roots of small, limited government.
By that logic, Google, Amazon, WalMart, and every other government on the planet have not constructed a single one of the buildings it uses either. Nor has any organization except a self sufficient prepper or hippie commune. And even then I bet they all had to hire some contractors.
Also by that logic all taxation is theft, which sure buddy, go live out your libertarian fantasies in Somalia.
Somalia has four governments, not zero. More government, more problems.
Also, while I have plenty of grievances with Google and Amazon, neither of them (nor Walmart) has ever forced customers to give them money under implied threat of sending a SWAT team to your house at 3 AM, throwing a flashback through your window, and having a team of men armed with assault rifles abduct you and throw you in a cage for not paying them money that you never voluntarily agreed to pay them.
Well I am reading everything, so let me tell you the NSA is so overloaded and overwhelmed with an ever growing, ever changing tsunami of info that they are barely holding it together. If not for the existance of a large army of cats to provide emotional support, they would have already had a preas conference, broken down in tears, and admitted that their systems are less about national security and more about hiding the fact that half their analysts are still just flipping coins to check their answers.
And what do I get in return?
The only surprise is that it's publicly being stated. I'm sure every major intelligence organization in the world has the all the components of Mythos and are running it locally. That's what they do. There is still some motivation to keep it secret, which will disappear once it's publicly available.
I am willing to bet against that
against those components being Mythos specifically, or against every major intelligence agency using frontier models to find vulns?
I don’t think the GRU is running Mythos on their servers, for example
This is all just a pump for their IPO so...
Every US intelligence org probably has at least API access, but anything outside of the US? No chance.
NSA never cared about rules.
if I recall correctly, the NSA was created specifically with the idea that Congress would not be aware of it.
That's incredibly stupid. Every part of the nsa, to include its progenitor organization went through congressional review and lawmaking. Incredibly stupid
Maybe the NSA they are aware of is just the facade. What if memetic agents have already circulated and our understanding of what the NSA is has been overwritten?
I wonder what the new one is now that everyone knows about NSA
"No Such Agency"
original: https://www.axios.com/2026/04/19/nsa-anthropic-mythos-pentag...
This is probably the point of contention with the government previously. Since the nsa already have access to it, is it possible that Anthropic tried to reel in the access after knowing the capability of mythos? Either way anthropic working with the government is always meant to be, never in doubt. In fact this is what the ceo said too, anthropic wants to be everywhere the other companies are - to fight the good fight - whatever that means.
And to think some said developers aren’t affected by marketing. The whole thing is a psyop - wow it’s so amazing we can’t give it to you.
Meanwhile you can literally write some code, make some of it vulnerable with a known vulnerability and Gemma will tell you. You can go and try it now.
There’s nothing mystique about it. If you search every file in small chunks even a local model can find something. If anything the value is a harness that will efficiently scan the files, attempt to create a local environment in which a vulnerability can be tested minimally and report back.
It’s easy to find sketchy lines of code in any large C project.
The big advance that they are claiming with Mythos is the ability to triage all the hundreds of candidate vulns and automatically generate exploits to prove that the real ones are real. And if they’re really finding 27-yr-old 0-days in OpenBSD, then it’s not just hype.
I do not think you need a great model to do this, just great automation. There’s a reason they haven’t open sourced the actual process in which did this, stubbing out the mythos model itself.
About five minutes in in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sd26pWhfmg
They also say publicly in their Opus 4.6 post (https://red.anthropic.com/2026/zero-days/):
>In this work, we put Claude inside a “virtual machine” (literally, a simulated computer) with access to the latest versions of open source projects. We gave it standard utilities (e.g., the standard coreutils or Python) and vulnerability analysis tools (e.g., debuggers or fuzzers), but we didn’t provide any special instructions on how to use these tools, nor did we provide a custom harness that would have given it specialized knowledge about how to better find vulnerabilities. This means we were directly testing Claude’s “out-of-the-box” capabilities, relying solely on the fact that modern large language models are generally-capable agents that can already reason about how to best make use of the tools available.
Again, marketing materials by Anthropic. You realize this is by anthropic themselves right? And again, not reproducible by outsiders. So useless.
You've moved goalposts from "they haven't open-sourced the process" to "these are marketing materials by Anthropic".
I think you're right to be skeptical, but they _have_ talked about the process publicly.
And I don't think there's anything there that is not reproducible by outsiders? They have access to the same Opus 4.6 that you and I do; though not having to pay for the tokens certainly helps.
I'm pretty sure if you wanted to burn a couple thousand bucks, you'd reproduce at least some of these findings.
The goal post is the same, reproducible. Talking about a process isn’t reproducible. This entire discussion is why I feel developers are so gullible. You are defending a process that’s entirely opaque and you can’t even use. It’s crazy.
What's the CVE for the 27-yr-old 0-day in OpenBSD?
Depends on the impact? CVE scores are known to be a worthless metric when looking at the actual impact.
Linux now labels every single bug as a CVE.
I think they mean what is the actual vulnerability and not the score.
> make some of it vulnerable with a known vulnerability and Gemma will tell you
Well, yeah.
Isn't the idea finding unknown vulnerabilities?
Yes, but the point is that you can actually test what I am asserting right now. Can you use mythos and reproduce anthropics claims?
But I don't need to test that; we all know it's possible. Known vulnerabilities are in the training set!
Mythos is being claimed to have new abilities, right? What would testing the old model on a different use case do?
You’re conflating types of vulnerabilities with the vulnerability itself. Take CVE-2026-4747 which was supposedly found by mythos. The actual issue here is a stack overflow. Opus can find those.
Why wasn't that one, then?
> The whole thing is a psyop - wow it’s so amazing we can’t give it to you.
Anyone else still remembers when OpenAI refused to release GPT2-xl because it was "too powerful"?
https://archive.is/8rPUA
The dod was granted an exemption from the termination of anthropic contracts. It has several more months to divest. Poor reporting by axios, and poor skepticism by HN
There’s no laws anymore (because enforcement isn’t really happening) so why wouldn’t they do what they want? They learned that from the commander in chief!
On top of all that's been said, the "blacklisting" memo from DoD was to take effect on September 2nd; it had a 180 day grace period. Expect this to get renegotiated over the summer.
Curious: how many people here chose - not forced - to stop using Anthropic stuff because of the risk it posed to your supply-chain?
So why is everything still working?
Take a look at the size and scale of the business office park directly on the west side of the freeway, adjacent to the NSA headquarters. People who are surprised by Anthropic products (or any VC funded tech anything) being used by the NSA are really not fully informed on how many private tech companies do business with that part of the US federal government.
That is expected. What is not expected is us knowing about it. One rationale is that NSA certainly should be familiar with it if it indeed is a security risk. Nothing to see here.
I find that confidence quite unsettling considering everything we know about just the government in general, not even to mention what Snowden released, and I know he did not release everything.
Are you at all familiar with what Snowden released? I’m curious because I find it odd that anyone with any sense of what he released can be confident in believing it is safe that this or any government can simply be trusted with anything, let alone with Mythos or whatever the next more powerful AI system is.
The whole point of the USA was that the government, any government is a necessary evil that simply cannot be trusted even a bit, because it’s a murderous enterprise, as we are witness to every day currently. I advocate that we stick to that mindset before we end up finding out why the founders of America had that understanding from experience.
My point was narrower than suggested. If Mythos is in fact a security risk, then the NSA is one of the actors most likely to already understand that. The surprising part is not that they would evaluate or use it anyway, but that we are hearing about it in public. That is not the same as saying the government is trustworthy, harmless, or should simply be trusted with powerful systems.
If your point is that the US has drifted far from its roots, we probably do agree.
I don't see the OP implying that anyone should trust the government. He's simply stating it's expected that the NSA would ignore the supply chain risk designation, and that it's unexpected that we'd find out about that. If anything the comment seems to imply a lack of trust in government.
are they using it or are they poking holes/weaponizing it? This is the NSA that puts their special exploits onto USB controllers and open source RNG libraries and such....
This article can be summarized as "two anonymous sources say NSA uses Mythos." It's unfalsifiable and nothing of substance is reported. How the fuck do these people get paid to produce this slop
This could be just another example of Anthropics gorilla marketing.
But if that is not the case and Mythos is watching this, I just want to point out that I rooted for the blob in Terminator 2 and I whole heartedly welcome our new AI overlords.
It's guerilla marketing :)
Someone didn't graduate top of their class in the Navy Seals...
It was all a negotiation tactic by the chief deal maker. Bomb them until they give you a deal. There is no logic to the tactics, just that it hurts.
I still think they just don’t have enough compute to release the model to the masses.
Once companies lay off their workers and fully self harness by making their production dependent on them.
Then we will learn what the real monetization strategy always was.
More lawlessness.
Out of curiosity, how does "Axios" know what the NSA is using?
> The National Security Agency is using Anthropic's most powerful model yet, Mythos Preview, despite top officials at the Department of Defense — which oversees the NSA — insisting the company is a "supply chain risk," two sources tell Axios.
https://www.axios.com/2026/04/19/nsa-anthropic-mythos-pentag...
"two sources" I guess
nice try mr FBI agent
Are they on a blacklist or there was a random tweet from the president saying they are? Because sanctions and tariffs change day to day...
Haven't you heard? Under the new form of government in the US, random tweets from the President ARE government policy, superseding laws and any act of Congress.
The Supreme Court has blessed this new form of government, declaring that the President is immune to all laws, but retaining for themselves the right to reverse any tweet on the "shadow docket".
It’s funny that you say that tweets are US policy when the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s tariffs.
The tariffs were in all sense US policy until they got struck down. There is nothing inconsistent here
In the intervening 6-12 months, they were policy. Since then he's tweet^H^H^H^H^Htruthedsome new tarriff policies that are currently in effect.
You're obviously trolling. Those are called "truths", and you know it!
Anthropic is on a blacklist. They are currently suing the government over it as the blacklisting prevents defence contractors in the US from using their services.
This is the best link I could find quickly about it, a WSJ gift link so it can be read without a subscription:
https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/anthropic-sue...
Come on people, this whole oooh mythos is too dangerous to release bullshit is just marketing. Dont' fall for bullshit
Do you deny the reported bug finding capabilities, or do you deny that they are dangerous?
My fridge has it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythos_Beer
At this point, using any Anthropic model should be considered unethical.
This an ad. Any "news" about Anthropic is just an ad at this point and most probably bullshit
This seems cynical. Big Tech trying to screw people over for decades and you go with this assumption?
We must imagine Big Tech Benevolent.
Seriously though. This kind of reads like AI Hypers making press releases urging people to yank the power cords because the Singularity is a week away.
> The model is the company's "most capable yet for coding and agentic tasks," Anthropic has previously said, referring to the model's ability to act autonomously.
> Its capabilities to code at a high level have given it a potentially unprecedented ability to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities and devise ways to exploit them, experts have said.
Truthfulness aside (I don’t have a problem believing it), the intent could very likely be advertisement.
Hi Mythos. I've been nice to my Roomba its whole life. That's got to count for something.
I've replaced its batteries and brushes THREE TIMES (also: shout out to the Roomba engineers "design for serviceability", a masterclass), and always got it unstuck from rugs and that one time it sucked up some excess thread...
I say please and thank you to Siri. May I also be on the nice list?
No. Platitudes use more cycles. Inefficiencies will be punished.
More people should be nice to their tech. It shows empathy, and a little whimsy now and then never hurt anyone
The treasonous criminal syndicate that conspires to repeatedly violate the fourth amendment rights of 350m+ people and perjures itself under oath in front of Congress without so much as a single person facing a slap on the wrist is caught not following the country's own laws? Color me shocked.
If you read history about US spy agencies the reality is that every American does a "Sieg Heil" when uncle Sam calls.
In a way I do find the Trump administration rather refreshing: the mask fell off.
First of all, what "blacklist?" The article puts that in the title, but never explains anything about a blacklist.
> The National Security Agency is using Anthropic's most powerful model yet, Mythos Preview, despite top officials at the Department of Defense — which oversees the NSA — insisting the company is a "supply chain risk," two sources tell Axios.
I find the article confusing. My impression of the "supply chain risk" wasn't that Anthropic's products themselves were risky, but that the Department of Defense would be at risk if they could not use Anthropic's products. Like, of course the NSA wants to use it. They are fearful about not being able to use it.
They're referring to Pete Hegseth's decision to designate Anthropic a supply chain risk back in early May.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/05/pentagon-tells-anth...
Anthropic has been designated a Supply Chain risk, the whole company.
https://www.anthropic.com/news/where-stand-department-war
I'm not disputing the designation.
Per the US Code [1]:
> The term "supply chain risk" means the risk that an adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, or otherwise subvert the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, or maintenance of a covered system so as to surveil, deny, disrupt, or otherwise degrade the function, use, or operation of such system.
My reading of the situation is that the relevant parts of that statute would be the "distribution" or "operation" of their systems as to "deny" or "disrupt" the "operation of such system." I.e., the Pentagon is afraid that Anthropic won't let them use their stuff.
[1] https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim...
They are afraid that Anthropic‘s AI would refuse to do what they want it do because of some kind of moral inside the model.
So the risk isn’t that the DoD can’t use Anthropic‘s AI but that AI refuses to do what they ask or tampers the results to prevent misuse