3 ms·
A lot of comments here are dismissing this post because the relevant code was isolated. But thats the exact same thing Anthropic did with Mythos! They describe
by StrauXX 6mo ago
A lot of comments here are dismissing this post because the relevant code was isolated. But thats the exact same thing Anthropic did with Mythos! They describe their (very lean) harness in the Anthropic Red Mythos blog post. The harness first assigns each file in the given codebase an importance value. Then points claude code at the cpdebase with a prompt stating that it should focus on that file. It spawns a claude code instances for each file in the codebase.
So no, the fact that the posters isolated the relevant code does not invalidate their findings.
[1] https://red.anthropic.com/2026/mythos-preview/ https://red.anthropic.com/2026/mythos-preview/
- make_it_sure 6mo agocheck other comments, they didn't
- felipeerias 6mo agoFrom the article: > Our tests gave models the vulnerable function directly, often with contextual hints (e.g., "consider wraparound behavior").
- grandinquistor 6mo agoI mean you can still scale that? Ask a lighter model to go through every function to find vulnerabilities, take output to bigger model like Opus and classify the critical ones.