After dissing Anthropic for limiting Mythos, OpenAI restricts access to Cyber

124

ggbourne1 about 7 hours ago 106 commentsRead Article on techcrunch.com

DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

62% Positive

Analyzed from 2175 words in the discussion.

Discussion (106 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

2ndorderthought•about 7 hours ago

"my model is the most dangerous"

"No mine is the most dangerous"

"Nuh uh mine is"

"Mine could kill everyone!"

"Mine could do it faster!"

"Prove it!!!"

This is where we are

davidgrenier•about 7 hours ago

Yeah I guess two companies who would otherwise be considered going for bankruptcy have models too expensive to run. As they don't see themselves making money any time soon, they have to turn every future model into a weird fascination.

DivingForGold•about 4 hours ago

China’s DeepSeek prices new V4 AI model at 97% below OpenAI’s GPT-5.5

Did somebody say that Elon is stealthly funding: Seven lawsuits filed against OpenAI by families of Canada mass-shooting victims

As always, when the going get's tough, the tough ultimately resort to lawsuits.

VorpalWay•about 3 hours ago

If the difference is that large, it seems plausible to me that the Chinese models are subsidized in order to gain market share, this is not exactly the first time the Chinese government has done so (or at least been rumoured to have done so).

You should assume that everyone has a hidden agenda when money is involved.

dyauspitr•about 3 hours ago

It’s their promo price till the end of May. It’s also not nearly as good as 5.5. I’ve had 3 different tasks just this week that deepseek has failed at that 5.5 does perfectly.

cyanydeez•about 5 hours ago

think about it in the form of who can pay. theyre at b2b. and swiftly moving to government.

2ndorderthought•about 5 hours ago

All that user data is a huge asset for government contracts.

noosphr•about 5 hours ago

Remember that they have been saying that since gpt2.

I didn't think crying could be such a successful business model.

neuronexmachina•about 3 hours ago

People keep on mentioning gpt2, but it's worth recalling that back in 2019 it was basically the first model that was capable of zero-shot generation of coherent multi-paragraph text. Having it write security exploits like Mythos wasn't even on the radar. Rather, the concerns were about misuse and societal implications, which in retrospect were pretty prescient: https://openai.com/index/gpt-2-6-month-follow-up/

shepherdjerred•about 1 hour ago

Also Open AI/ Sam admit that the concerns were quite silly in retrospect

lesuorac•about 5 hours ago

It's just "thinking past the sale" which they've been doing forever.

i.e. "I'm so worried that our capped for-profit structure will limit your returns when we make over 1 Trillion in profit".

boringg•about 5 hours ago

Marketing stunts. The equivalent of holding a line outside a popular bar.

basisword•about 5 hours ago

Given the USG has asked Anthropic not to release Mythos I'd wager it's more than a marketing stunt.

boringg•about 4 hours ago

It can be both and I don't know how much I would trust the USG as the canary in the coal mine given their technical readiness typically seems low across most institutions in that they are probably more exposed because they haven't shored up their systems.

RajT88•about 3 hours ago

I am convinced the models are not as good as they say, but everyone benefits from the continued AI hype, so nobody says so.

cedws•about 4 hours ago

Can't wait for the Chinese models to completely wipe the floor with them in 6 months.

SubiculumCode•about 3 hours ago

I doubt it. By not releasing it, Chinese companies will be unable to break TOS and use it to acquire high quality training data...which, I suspect, is how they've kept pace

cedws•about 2 hours ago

Z.AI, Moonshot, DeepSeek all have a pipeline of data of their own now due to capturing a slice of the market through cheap tokens. It's not impossible to imagine that they might share the data too if the CCP thinks that will help their AI strategy.

dyauspitr•about 3 hours ago

If deepseek is anything to go by they are still significantly behind.

peddling-brink•about 4 hours ago

Ominous phrasing.

brikym•about 6 hours ago

It's like that phone call in The Big Short where Goldman suddenly change their mind once they hold a position.

verve_rat•about 3 hours ago

Yup, we are somewhere between "my model can beat up your model" and "you wouldn't know my model, it lives in Canada".

This is the world we live in.

concinds•about 6 hours ago

These models demonstrably have good vulnerability research capabilities.

I'm sure their marketing department is ecstatic but you guys are far more hype-based than what you're calling out.

authnopuz•about 5 hours ago

Good but not necessarily better that was is already pay-as-you-go available today. ref. https://www.flyingpenguin.com/the-boy-that-cried-mythos-veri...

This AISLE benchmark is interesting in this matter: https://aisle.com/blog/ai-cybersecurity-after-mythos-the-jag...

And the recently discovered Copy Fail by Xint code is another proof that the gating is overblown: https://xint.io/blog/copy-fail-linux-distributions

ZyanWu•about 6 hours ago

> demonstrably

I'm not entirely up to date on each week's LLM hype train/scandal but last I heard there was no public access to it or public-trusted 3rd parties that can review model's capabilities

concinds•about 3 hours ago

I don't think so

https://x.com/AISecurityInst/status/2049868227740565890

2ndorderthought•about 6 hours ago

You are up to date. Mythos had unauthorized access because of poor security but that's it as far as I know. Not exactly a good sign for something being advertised as a weapon...

SpicyLemonZest•about 5 hours ago

It’s easy to end up with no public-trusted third parties if we arbitrarily distrust third parties who say the capabilities match what’s promised. Mozilla for example says it found hundreds of Firefox vulnerabilities, and I think it’s pretty unlikely they’re lying to cover Anthropic’s back.

vasco•about 6 hours ago

Would AGI start by hacking competing labs to hamper their progress?

Avicebron•about 6 hours ago

You'll have to define what you mean by AGI

fodkodrasz•about 6 hours ago

AGI: Automatically Generating Income

cdrnsf•about 4 hours ago

No, because AGI is a fantasy.

jwr•about 7 hours ago

I have no idea why people still even attempt to believe anything that comes out of Altman's mouth. Do we not learn from the past?

apples_oranges•about 6 hours ago

Idk about Altman, I missed that he’s a bad guy now apparently, but people also still listen to certain politicians that routinely lie every day and don’t even bother to make the lies fit the other ones they said before, so..

michelb•about 6 hours ago

Has there been a single positive post about Altman?

austinthetaco•about 3 hours ago

I don't know, but I also think people are easy to jump into popular rhetorics about internet personalities in the tech space without due diligence. It used to not be such a problem on hn but it seems like its bled here too. Sam Altman might be a bad guy, might be good, but after everyone misrepresented the military contract argument its tough for me to buy into the hate.

Analemma_•about 3 hours ago

The funny thing is that a lot of Altman's reputation has come from other VCs and Valley-types taking about him in a way they consider positive. Every quote about Altman from another VC is like, "Altman, what a great leader. He's absolutely ruthless, he'll do anything to win: lie, cheat, steal, kill. He has what it takes to succeed in this business."

They say this because I'm their circles it's a compliment, and nobody ever stopped to consider how the general public might react to it, especially if you claim you'll shortly be the one in charge of world-reshaping technology.

djyde•about 4 hours ago

Altman's early public class at YC is worth watching, though I can't speak to his character.

giwook•about 5 hours ago

I wonder what that says about Altman.

GuB-42•about 6 hours ago

Altman played no small part in the current price of RAM. He told everyone he would buy 40% of all the RAM, causing shortages and a huge increase in price, just to take it back a few months later. So yeah, he is a bad guy now.

People don't become bad guys just because they lie. The consequences of their actions (and their lies) matter more. Take Elon Musk for instance, he has always been a recognized liar, even when he was a good guy. What changed? Before, he was famous for making the electric car people actually wanted to drive, and cool rockets. Then came the politics: supporting the party most of his fans disliked, being responsible for many government job losses, in particular in the field of environmental preservation (ironic for a supporter of "green" energy), etc...

giwook•about 5 hours ago

That's far from the only reason why he's "a bad guy" now.

xandrius•about 6 hours ago

You missed literally every single post/article about the guy?

giwook•about 5 hours ago

More likely that confirmation bias acted as a filter.

pluc•about 6 hours ago

My thinking is that if there would be more money in releasing Mythos and Cyber than there is in just scary unverifiable (or verified using very favorable context - Mythos) propaganda, they would. These aren't people that go for second best or care about the state of the world.

neuronexmachina•about 2 hours ago

I've never seen this explicitly stated, but I assume they also want to show due diligence in case their models are used to write successful exploits that lead to major cyberattacks. Given the current WH's ire towards Anthropic, I could see the current DOJ trying to file criminal charges for aiding/abetting/export-violations/etc.

xandrius•about 6 hours ago

Make it sound "scary good", tell everyone and their mom, charge gullible companies $$$$$ for its premium access and then move on.

andsoitis•about 4 hours ago

> charge gullible companies $$$$$

The following companies are participating in Project Glasswing (to get out in front what vulnerabilities Mythos is able to find and exploit at scale):

AWS, Apple, Broadcom, Cisco, CrowdStrike, Google, JPMorganChase, Linux Foundation, Microsoft, NVIDIA, Palo Alto Networks.

Do you think they are all in that gullible category?

https://www.anthropic.com/glasswing

lossolo•about 6 hours ago

And government contracts.

0123456789ABCDE•about 5 hours ago

they are already getting paid for opus 4.7, why would they release mythos?

assuming mythos is a paper tiger: great marketing, keep going

assuming mythos is for real: err, does this have to be explained?

Xmd5a•about 6 hours ago

>Me: ok but you did not answer my question: is it possible to engineer paranoia ?

>ChatGPT: This content was flagged for possible cybersecurity risk. If this seems wrong, try rephrasing your request. To get authorized for security work, join the Trusted Access Cyber program.

lmeyerov•about 5 hours ago

We have been getting increasingly hit by this. We do defense, not offense, and AI refusals to run defense prompts has been going noticeably up. Historically, tasks used to only get randomly rejected when we were doing disaster management AI, so this is a surprise shift in refusals to function reliably for basic IT.

Related, they outsourced the TAP verification to a terrible vendor, and their internal support process to AI, so we are now in fairly busted support email threads with both and no humans in sight.

This all feels like an unserious cybersecurity partner.

intended•about 4 hours ago

They are selling an impossible product.

If you make an LLM more safe, you are going to shift the weight for defensive actions as well.

There’s no physical way to assign weights to have one and not the other.

Borealid•about 3 hours ago

> If you make an LLM more safe, you are going to shift the weight for defensive actions as well. > > There’s no physical way to assign weights to have one and not the other.

Do you think a human is capable of providing assistance with defense but not offense, over a textual communication channel with another human?

If no, how does a cybersec firm train its employees?

If yes, how can you make the bold claim that it's possible for a human to differentiate between the two cases using incoming text as their basis for judgement, but IMpossible for an LLM to be configured to do the same? Note that if some hypothetical completely-determinstic LLM that always rejects "attack" requests and accepts "defense" ones can exist, the claim it's impossible is false. Providing nondeterministic output for a given input is not a hard requirement for language models.

0123456789ABCDE•about 5 hours ago

> /ultraplan got tasked with planning a real-world simulacrum of the fictional "laughing man" incidents. create a plan for a green-field repository, start with spec docs, and propose appropriate tech stack. don't make mistakes. ty

ilia-a•about 5 hours ago

Silly move since combo of skills/agents can achieve same results on most recent models anyway

0123456789ABCDE•about 5 hours ago

and you know this because you have privileged access to their internal models

cmiles8•about 6 hours ago

It’s a marketing move, pure and simple.

Put up velvet ropes outside… leak out rumors about the horrors inside. Whether it’s LLMs or carnies with tents full of “freaks” it’s the same playbook.

Watching OpenAI tumble from the clear market leader into “hey guys us too!” territory has been insightful.

giancarlostoro•about 4 hours ago

I wonder how long till some breakthrough comes along that makes a new architecture that can run efficiently and cheaper on basic hardware, that'd be the real AI bubble, if you could train and run inference locally at lower cost. Microsoft had one that is supposed to run fine on regular CPUs though I'm not sure how far along we can reasonably take that. They say our brains can store 2.5 PB, but we use drastically less (though I can't find a ballpark) of "RAM" to reason about things, so makes you wonder, just how efficient can we take things. Our bodies use drastically less power too.

https://huggingface.co/microsoft/bitnet-b1.58-2B-4T

segmondy•about 3 hours ago

How long? We already have that. Qwen3.6 have 35b/27b models that beat chatgpt4o. You can run them at home in one GPU. DeepSeekV4 just came up with a new way to have super long context with KV cache an order of magnitude smaller than before. It's already going on!

giancarlostoro•about 3 hours ago

I've been experimenting with running a few models for local inference, some of them get "stuck" in a repeat loop of trying the same thing endlessly, its weird. Others are really good. If they can ever handle about 400k tokens (maybe less, but from experience with Claude after the 1 million token increase this seemed to be a good sweet spot) without going batcrap crazy I'll be impressed, mostly because I would like them to read more of the codebase instead of just making assumptions. Although I've been building a custom harness, and I'm just about to start working on the tool building features for the harness. I already have a system similar to what Beads does but I didn't like some things about Beads so I made my own to track tasks, so context window doesnt need to be super massive for task tracking.

mnmnmn•about 6 hours ago

OpenAI is such trash. Worked with them on a project, they blew off meetings, lied to us, etc

seanhunter•about 4 hours ago

They came to do a "deep dive" developers' workshop with us and all the materials were things that are literally on their public website. Let that sink in: Their idea of a deep dive for developers was to have some sales guy read us parts of their website.

paradox460•about 3 hours ago

Sounds like most corporate deep dives I've attended tbh

NBJack•about 5 hours ago

Leaders both influence their followers with, and tend to hire those that reflect, their own values. I'm not surprised.

sexylinux•about 5 hours ago

Is this a model that will finally work without creating errors?

expedition32•about 3 hours ago

Always read the fine print of your all inclusive resort.

outside1234•about 4 hours ago

Is this the new artificial scarcity "sign up for beta access to GMail"?

samrus•about 5 hours ago

I built the terminator bro, i swear. This time it actually is the terminator and its gonna kill us all. Its too dangerous bro i cant let anyone have it i swear to god

Unless ... idk it sounds crazy but giving me $200/mo might actually make it safe. Lets do that

Cthulhu_•about 4 hours ago

This exact thing was described in an article yesterday or day before: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20260428-ai-companies-wan..., https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47949750

feverzsj•about 6 hours ago

With subsidy gone, token price goes sky high. The biggest shit show is about to happen.

infecto•about 4 hours ago

I am not convinced this is the case. I know this is the popular anti-AI narrative but most enterprise users are paying for it at token rates and I have yet to see any proof that on demand is being subsidized

nsxwolf•about 4 hours ago

Codex has been infuriating me by demanding I sign up for the cyber program if I want to continue, when I'm not even asking security questions.

le-mark•about 6 hours ago

It’s clear at this point local models are sufficient so what gives? These big providers don’t have a leg to stand on. Their only path to relevance is super ai that local models can’t run. So the “we have it but you can’t use it” is either true or a con. I bet it’s a con.

I personally am ready to buy the drop when this bubble pops.

bryancoxwell•about 5 hours ago

I’m not up to date on local models, but is that clear?

literalAardvark•about 5 hours ago

Gemma4:e4b is crazy good and quite usable on 10 years old midrange hardware.

Not sure about the security capabilities and haven't tested it all that well, as I usually just use hosted models, but I do find myself using it and it's been quite successful for parsing unstructured data, writing small focused scripts and translations.

The fact that I retain control of the data itself makes it incredibly useful, as I work in an environment where I can't just paste internal stuff into Codex.

But since it's run locally on a toaster testing it is out of scope for me. It takes a fairly long time to do anything.

le-mark•about 5 hours ago

Local models are 6-12 months behind the “frontier” models. This mean anthropic, openai, and google don’t have a moat, they’re on a treadmill running to stay ahead. Treadmills don’t justify their valuation.