5 ms·
> Evaluations also show that it has a much lower ability to perform cybersecurity tasks than our current Opus models. Why would they brag about something like
by satvikpendem 4mo ago
> Evaluations also show that it has a much lower ability to perform cybersecurity tasks than our current Opus models.
Why would they brag about something like this? It's like they know people want to use models to perform cybersecurity tasks yet knowingly deny them the ability.
And Opus 4.8 is still cheaper for a higher pass rate (much less open weight models like GLM 5.2) so not sure why I'd use Sonnet except on the low effort level for I suppose trivial tasks where I want it to work only 50% of the time judging by the graph. The pricing doesn't really make any sense.
- jayd16 4mo agoMarket segmentation?
- Philpax 4mo agoTo avoid Lutnick getting on their case again.
- dgellow 4mo agoHe has the opportunity to do the funniest thing ever
- doctoboggan 4mo agoYou have to pay more for that, and/or go through some USG vetting process.
- zlurker 4mo agoThey spent months hyping up Mythos and ended up with it banned. I’d assume they want to both differentiate their products and appeal to regulators here
- worldsavior 4mo agoThey will release it eventually. Once they see the Chinese models are close to Mythos level they will release it before, so it will be "revolutionary".
- jaapz 4mo agoIt was already released. US government is the only reason it's not available to us mere mortals anymore
- satvikpendem 4mo agoDue to Dario hyping it up as a world ending model. If they kept their mouths shut we'd all have it now still.
- baq 4mo agoWhere is gpt 5.6?
- 081c28a92 4mo agoVictim of the same hype generated by Dario. Now everyone has to walk on eggshells, do limited releases to trusted partners, and nerf their cybersecurity capabilities lest they get deemed “too powerful to release”.
- M3L0NM4N 4mo agoYeah and our government is continuing to take pages from China's playbook for the last fucking decade... and not the plays that work.
- solenoid0937 4mo agoYeah Anthropic should have just lied about the capabilities of the model and/or hid them until launch. That is surely more ethical behavior.
- satvikpendem 4mo agoIf not for Dario hyping Mythos and Fable, GPT 5.6 would've released just fine on schedule as a point release without all the fear mongering. It was because Fable was banned that now the government is scrutinizing all models.
- sixothree 4mo agoI'm starting to think it discovered a 0-day held hidden by our government.
- noumenon1111 4mo agoOh, it done found like 50 of those
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- lanthissa 4mo agoso it doesn't get blocked. last time they said a model was great at cyber it didnt turn out well
- K0balt 4mo agoRestricting the models isn’t about restricting offensive capabilities. They were already very well aligned to reduce that risk. This recent government interference is about trying to preserve US offensive cyberwarfare and cyberespionage capabilities. It’s not about “bad actors”. It’s about defensive capabilities becoming pervasive and cheap, which would kneecap us cyberoffensive capability. It’s like making seatbelts illegal so that police chases can be more effective.
- MostlyStable 4mo agoWhy do you think they are bragging? Anthropic has long been the company to give us by far the most in-depth information about their models, both positive and negative. I read this as them just stating a fact about this model that users would want to know.
- organsnyder 4mo agoI'm absolutely certain that their marketing team has input on (if not owning) these announcements.
- gallerdude 4mo agoOf course. But is it really impossible that Dario’s directive to the marketing team is “try not to make us look bad, but also be honest about our models’ capabilities, so people can stay informed”?
- MostlyStable 4mo agoI find it interesting how two different directly opposed messages seem to have both been interpreted as being nothing but marketing speak.
- satvikpendem 4mo agoAnthropomorphic, most in-depth? That's laughable given how closed down they've been over the years. If you want in-depth, DeepSeek actually still publishes papers of their methods for anyone to implement leading to being by far the most cost efficient model provider for the performance.
- MostlyStable 4mo agoI was talking about reporting on testing and capabilities. Yes, open models provide a greater amount of information about the development of the model and how to run it yourself, but I am quite confident that literally no AI company, open or closed, conducts and reports so thoroughly on testing about the capabilities of their models.
- kristianc 4mo agoThere's two classes of models now - the cybersecurity ones that none of us are getting, and the 'safe' models released for general consumption. This is letting us know which side of the divide it sits on.
- Taek 4mo agoThere's also Chinese models, which aren't trying to self-limit capabilities.
- baq 4mo ago…as long as you don’t ask them about certain dates or squares. Also, I wouldn’t expect Mythos-class models to be allowed to be openly released by the CCP. Thinking otherwise is pure naivety.
- atemerev 4mo agoWell, the weights are open. De-CCP-ing them is a trivial task, about 40 minutes on modern hardware. So can be done for about $50.
- bjelkeman-again 4mo agoAny good reference for how?
- atemerev 4mo agohttps://github.com/AUGMXNT/deccp https://github.com/AUGMXNT/deccp - one example for Qwen models. For GLM 5.2, abliteration/realignment works somewhat differently, but with Claude's help, you can finish the job. I am planning to release the steering patch for the GLM 5.2 eliminating pro-CCP alignment in the next few days.
- ls612 4mo agohttps://github.com/p-e-w/heretic https://github.com/p-e-w/heretic
- secretslol 4mo ago"Lower ability to perform cybersecurity-related tasks" makes me super concerned it will leave my codebase like Swiss cheese for any American granny with access to Fable 5, when we non-American Brits, or rest-of-worlders, don't have access to it to clean our codebases.
- __alexs 4mo ago100% this. I read these caveats in new models and all I hear is "we made sure this model has no idea about computer security." Such a weird thing to brag about.
- cute_boi 4mo agoI think they don’t understand that cybersecurity skills are what prevent bad code from making it into production. It’s like telling a chef to cook without a knife because knives can kill people. Dario and his lackeys at Anthropic aren’t visionaries.
- baq 4mo agoI think you misunderstood what their vision is, or rather what their possible futures are. They are many steps ahead of almost everyone, both in wargaming possibilities and the actual realized path. What doesn’t make sense to you may be the only safe option for them.
- tancop 4mo ago> What doesn’t make sense to you may be the only safe option for them thats true because their point of view makes no sense for us. dario is all in on lesswrong machine god theory and really believes they need to create a super intelligence before anyone else. that means doing as much as possible to slow down others progress and accelerate your own. but the fact that they believe its the only option doesnt make it true for the rest of us.
- baq 4mo agoNever said otherwise, but it changes nothing. Their beliefs got them to this point on the timeline and that in itself cannot be ignored (or should I say, it should inform our priors...?) You can like or dislike them or what they do or don't do, but you must respect them regardless of that, purely because of their track record.
- WithinReason 4mo agoThat part is likely directly addressed to the US government.
- drcongo 4mo agoWhat makes that a brag?
- chvid 4mo agoDoes it mean it generates code with random security holes?
- re-thc 4mo ago> And Opus 4.8 is still cheaper for a higher pass rate Unless it spams as much as Opus, I doubt it. Opus 4.8 literally spams text like puke. On a longer run especially if you get cache misses here and there the bulk of the cost is all the extra context it adds.
- dgacmu 4mo agoOne of the best queries I've done with an LLM recently was: Create a plan for improving the robustness and resilience of this code, particularly to untrusted inputs. Gemini wouldn't do a security audit. But it came up with a great set of mitigations and identified an extant XSS flaw in the process of improving robustness. There's an awful lot of good that can come from proactive, defensive use of LLMs. I realize there's also a lot of pain when the difficulty of exploit finding drops suddenly, but in the long term we may all benefit from the defensive side of this.
- johnfn 4mo ago> Why would they brag about something like this? It's like they know people want to use models to perform cybersecurity tasks yet knowingly deny them the ability. What exactly do you want Anthropic to say here? "This model, the one we are about to give to the entire world for cheap, is really good at hacking"? Saying Sonnet is terrible at cybersecurity is the most reasonable thing they can say, out of a lot of bad options.
- bluepeter 4mo agoFlowers for Algernon. And, sadly, expect this from now on. You saw it with OpenAI releasing Sol/Terra/Luna with a chart showing how they weren't quite as good as Mythos. It's all messaging to the USG to try to avoid/minimize arbitrary review from multiple agencies. 'Hey, it's smart, but look how stupid it is at "cyber."'
- 2001zhaozhao 4mo agoThey are obviously trying to avoid getting Sonnet 5 blocked.
- nozzlegear 4mo agoIt seems obvious to me that they put that in there in an effort to avoid another reaming out by the long, orange dick of the US government.
- pseudosavant 4mo agoSo that the current US administration doesn't block broad usage of Sonnet 5 probably. They'd have to collect your ID and approve you if it was good at cybersecurity. Because such is the freedom in the U.S. right now.