4 ms·
It’s clear that Anthropic has run out of the compute capacity needed to serve Mythos publicly. They’re using security concerns to mask their inability to deliv
by mekpro 4mo ago
It’s clear that Anthropic has run out of the compute capacity needed to serve Mythos publicly.
They’re using security concerns to mask their inability to deliver the model at scale, while still trying to maintain their lead over OpenAI. As a result, they’ve chosen to release it privately under the banner of an “ethical” rollout.
- pshirshov 4mo agoI bet Huawei and co would be happy to sell them some cheapo chips for inference!
- simonw 4mo agoThey started Glasswing before they struck that $1.25B/month deal with xAI/SpaceX for their (notoriously dirty) Memphis data centers. So they have a whole lot more compute now than they did last month.
- nickthegreek 4mo agoBut that compute might not be available to then long term. Hard to make big moves with a contract like that.
- simonw 4mo agoI don't know if any of the big AI labs have confidence in planning for the long term. For all they know they'll find a new optimization that lets them serve Opus class models for half the computing cost next month. Or someone will invent the next OpenClaw and demand will 10x over night.
- mekpro 4mo agoYes, 300 MW from SpaceX helps a lot, but I think that’s mainly to support Opus demand, which has grown faster than expected. If Mythos is roughly 5× more expensive to serve than Opus, as the pricing suggests, then 300 MW is nowhere near enough to enable large-scale deployment of Mythos. As an ordinary developer who relies on a $20–$200/month subscription, I feel disappointed by the release of a paper describing a model that I can’t actually use.
- aspenmartin 4mo agoOk but they can easily upsell this to enterprise customers at a market price reflective of their capacity constraints. Big corps would pay it, this is clearly a major update.
- cobolcomesback 4mo agoSo why is OpenAI also releasing 5.5-Cyber in a private manner? Are they also out of compute?
- LiamPowell 4mo agoOpenAI has been pulling this marketing trick for years. Remember how GPT-3 was too dangerous to release? It's also probably bad PR if script kiddies have access to GPT model with no guardrails even if it doesn't enable any significant attacks.
- signatoremo 4mo agoI suppose you meant GPT-2, but for years? Did they say the same about subsequent models?
- LiamPowell 4mo agoThey did it for 2 and 3, however it looks like they didn't for 4 and 5. GPT-2: https://slate.com/technology/2019/02/openai-gpt2-text-generating-algorithm-ai-dangerous.html https://slate.com/technology/2019/02/openai-gpt2-text-genera... GPT-3: https://www.itpro.com/technology/artificial-intelligence-ai/361603/openai-tool-previously-thought-too-dangerous-for-the https://www.itpro.com/technology/artificial-intelligence-ai/...
- AgentME 4mo agoGPT-4 was announced in March 2023 and wasn't made available to all developers until July 2023.
- neuronexmachina 4mo agoFor GPT-2 and GPT-3 it seems like the concern was that they hadn't yet figured out how to properly write safeguards for it yet: > The company believes making its API generally available was made possible due to its progress with safeguards, and that opening up the API to all developers will help see applications developed faster. ... > A large emphasis has been placed on safe use of the tool, which in the past has been criticised for a range of shortcomings, including racism and prejudices against specific genders and religions.
- jb_briant 4mo agoIt is not "clear", as your comment suggests, it's hidden. Which is semantically the opposite of clear. Regarding your theory, might be true, might be false. But it's highly speculative.
- Forgeties79 4mo agoAll of us, including you, know that he is not saying "they are being transparent." When someone says "it's clear that..." in this way they're saying "It's clear to us what is really happening here.
- WhitneyLand 4mo agoThe not clear comment is valid by either interpretation. To a lot of us it’s not clear that’s what’s happening. It’s speculation and one possibility. It may also be a secondary consideration and not the primary gating factor. Anthropic has had their missteps but it’s still plausible to take what they say at face value.
- jb_briant 4mo agoI agree, saying "it's clear" when at best, "it's plausible" doesn't let the conversation happen. And pretending to know what is going on behind the scene, anon on HN is not credible
- jb_briant 4mo agoIt's not clear, there is no tangible proof that Mythos is not released because they don't have compute power to serve it. Saying that would imply that the "too dangerous" is a lie. Nobody has proof. It can feel "clear" for you, but it's not. Hence, I correct it.
- Forgeties79 4mo agoAgreed, but I'm talking about how they are, very clearly, using the phrase.
- 4mo ago
- benashford 4mo ago[dead]
- lossolo 4mo agoProbably. This is an 8-12 trillion-parameter model, which is why it costs so much, that is also a major reason, besides RL and synthetic data, why it suddenly gained these new capabilities. They claim it was not fine-tuned or trained specifically for cybersecurity, but is instead a general purpose model.
- notahacker 4mo agoThe security concerns argument would have worked better if a forum full of people hadn't promptly obtained access by the extremely sophisticated tactic of guessing its URL...
- NiloCK 4mo agoI find this line of reasoning highly dubious. Yes, Anthropic is compute constrained, even after the SpaceX Colossus deal. But supply constraints are the normal operating mode of any market. Anthropic could choose to serve whatever models it pleases at whatever price points it chooses and let the market decide where the value is. If Mythos at $X overwhelms their capacity, they could just charge $X+1. If still overwhelmed, there are larger prices as well.
- malfist 4mo agoAnd then the bubble would collapse. Corps are already putting limits on token usage across the board because of costs. Increasing costs would significantly contract the hype bubble.
- tiahura 4mo agoSort of, but valuation models depend on X being in a certain range. If it > this range, revenue and therefore valuation are impacted.
- deaton 4mo agoThe question is, will anyone pay enough for Mythos to offset the opportunity cost of offering that much Opus? You don't want to end up in a spot where you don't have enough compute and your service's reliability degrades to an unusable state like xAI.
- orrito 4mo agoI feel like there's always a demand for the very best models, even at insane prices. If the opportunity cost is x times opus, maybe few but there will always be companies willing to pay x+1 times opus.
- suttontom 4mo agoIsn't that kind of what they're doing with this rollout? Except they're just hand picking the companies.
- 4mo ago
- cute_boi 4mo agoAlso, they just want to jack up the price by creating sensation.
- baq 4mo agoI had to patch my Linux boxes daily at some point in the past couple months. I don’t want Mythos to be publicly released for as long as it is economically feasible for Anthropic. I hope they have a gentleman’s agreement with OpenAI and DeepMind about this, too. Chinese labs will force their hands, until then let’s hope maximum number of projects get patched at a reasonable pace.
- cmxch 4mo agoI hope that such agreement gets broken hard and given the MSRC cold shoulder. If that means abliterated Qwen et al embarrasses Mythos to deliver a wider rollout, I’ll take that. Trusting Anthropic to deliver is like asking Microsoft to pay out for bugs.
- atleastoptimal 4mo agoWhy do you think that? All these rumors about compute constraint just seem like speculation and not based on any data or information. All they would need to do is increase their prices to free up compute capacity.
- y0eswddl 4mo agoit's also a marketing ploy.
- mrbluecoat 4mo agoWhile I tend to be cynical with big tech, if this statement is indeed true we owe them some thanks for staving off a zero day tsunami. > 50 initial partners ... found more than 10,000 high- or critical-severity security flaws.
- mofeien 4mo agoJack Clark, co-founder of Anthropic said the following at an Oxford lecture last week ([0], at around 10 and 12 mins): "It's a technology that we do not fully understand because it's more grown than made. And it is a technology that you can concoct plausible scenarios where it could kill every single person on the planet. So to think building this technology is without risk would be an act of hubris or insanity. [...] The technology is in fact so powerful that I should clearly state that if it was possible to elegantly slow the development of this technology to give ourselves more time as a species to deal with it, that would likely be a good thing. ... But in the absence of a coordinated global slowdown, we are left with the current situation, which is a powerful technology being developed at breakneck speed by a variety of actors and a variety of countries locked in a competition with one another where commercial and geopolitical rivalries are often drowning out the larger existential-to-the-species aspects of the technology being built. This isn't an ideal situation, but it's the one we find ourselves in." They know they are in a race that no one will win. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zIcP5WlShw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zIcP5WlShw
- delusional 4mo ago"Oh what peril we are in where I must get rich by killing all of you" Is a statement that should make you disregard anyone saying it at any time. Either they are liars, or they are so morally bankrupt that they are willing to sacrifice the species for short term satisfaction. Either option makes them more fit for a mental hospital than a stage.
- WarmWash 4mo agoThank you Mr. Altman for firing the starting gun when no one else wanted to race. (The ambiguity of sarcasm is intentional here.)
- sumedh 4mo agoDidnt Google start the race with their paper?
- 4mo ago
- Almondioco 4mo agoOr they actually take the 'technology can kill' serious.