Probably not. "This model is too powerful for the public" can also be interpreted another way, which they've also strongly hinted at - the cost/benefit ratio of the upgrade is negative for the vast majority of all users. Finding vulnerabilities is one of the few cases where it makes sense to use it.
Their writing about the model so far does say this is an issue where, for instance, you can't really use Mythos for interactive coding because it's so slow. You have to give it some work, go home, sleep, come in the next day and then maybe it'll have something for you.
All the AI labs and startups are still losing money hand over fist. Launching Mythos would require it to be priced well above current models, for a much slower product. Would the majority of customers notice the difference in intelligence given the tasks they're setting? If the answer is no, it's not economic to launch.
Really, I'm surprised they've done Mythos. Maybe they just wanted to exploit access to larger contiguous training datacenters than OpenAI, but what these labs need isn't smarter models, it's smaller and cheaper models that users will accept as good enough substitutes (or more advanced model routing, dynamic thinking, etc).
We've had such models before. GPT Pro, Gemini DeepThink. Mostly targeting science advancements as opposed to security research, but still, in a way Mythos is just more of the same.
Bug bounties don't reflect the market impact of the vulnerability though, just the amount needed to incentivize white hats to do research they wouldn't otherwise (or that they would target to other platforms that pay higher bounties). You need to look at market prices for zero days on the black market to get closer.
Bug bounties reflect what companies are willing to pay to find bugs. Mythos would have to be more expensive than that (probably considerably so) to not be worth its cost. If you are saying that finding bugs has significantly more value than reflected by bug bounties, then that strengthens my point.
This happened before with GPT-2 being touted as "too dangerous to release"[0] at the time by OpenAI. I don't think that means every model will be safe to release in the future, but nothing I've read about Mythos seems like it's going to be different this time.
It's going to be a slightly better Opus. Every model released by any provider since 4o has been a modest improvement but over-hyped. Opus 4.6 included.
I believe they are starting to split hairs and the primary lever left is adding compute.
Yeah the only thing that will be left is to scale up compute and pray it creates escape velocity. Which frankly has been Sam’s whole thesis in raising money.
> This feels really premature. The announcement was a week ago. The “this model is too powerful for the general public” sounds like marketing to me.
Anthropic was born out of the idea that they feel paternity over humanity. They believe by limiting access they are performing a necessary pillar of security in multiple facets.
I think it's up to the public, and articles like this are part of the public's voice, whether this belief is serious or not and secondarily whether it's okay to even posture this kind of belief since it inherently results in marginalizing the many and rewards an already very successful few.
Their main motivation of the model being too dangerous is predicated on their discoveries in its ability to find exploits in commonly used software. The idea is that if this were served on a public API, it would massively increase the scale and scope of what malicious actors could do.
I think it's a reasonable choice to make given that Mythos actually does have cyber capabilities on that level. We already have evidence that large-scale scams are being perpetuated using AI models (such as AI video being passed as real, people deepfaking themselves in job interviews).
If you've noticed your new model can be trivially pointed at some open-source codebase with a prompt and harness that amounts to "find as many exploits as possible" and your results are non-trivially substantial and beyond what existing models can do given the same initial parameters, then a gated rollout seems the most reasonable option.
For me, the seeming majority optimism and acceptance of “mythos’” as yet untold capabilities is betrayed as not real by the fact that one can’t react to it with the same reverence while framing it as a downside without being told “it’s not even out yet”.
“It’s not even out yet” should apply to both situations or neither.
Yup, this whole thing is quite typical for my generations attempts at activism: they always end up as marketing pawns for the very thing they set out to stop.
This whole "this model is too dangerous" ploy originated from (in my opinion severely misguided) activists who wanted to stop or slow AI development down as much as possible, spreading outlandish Doomsday scenarios wherever they could.
These online-first activists have always been a key driver of the success of the very thing they fight. They share the offending thing among themselves, making it go viral in process, and soon baiting these groups is the best marketing imaginable.
There were some rather interesting studies made on the subject around 2011, I particularly remember one made by Swedish jeans brand cheap Monday, but i can't find it now.
> online-first activists have always been a key driver of the success
Eh, pressing X to doubt that. Maybe way back in the early GPT days, but once we got to GPT-4 these people could have completely disappeared and wouldn't have changed the trajectory we're on.
I feel like "this model is too powerful for the general public" was really just the equivalent of responsible disclosure, with the "too powerful" bit just a positive marketing spin like you say.
That is, Mythos will make it much easier to find lurking zero days, so just like responsible disclosure requires a security researcher to notify the software author first and give them some time to patch, giving critical infrastructure folks at least some time to analyze and patch systems seems reasonable to me.
> The “this model is too powerful for the general public” sounds like marketing to me
I tend to agree here. Anthropic has built a reputation and now they are in a position where they can claim to have a model way more powerful than it might actually be, and by limiting its access, there won't be an independent way to test it. I'm not denying that it's not smarter than Opus, but probably it's somewhat exaggerated.
There’s a drain clog clearer sold in a jug like all the rest. But they wrap the jug in a thick clear bag. The implication is clear - this stuff is so powerful it’s extra dangerous.
Anthropic marketing is working very well. They are strongly incentivized to say their model is too powerful to release even if it’s not. It’s almost standard practice these days.
> But it is another thing entirely to share access only with enterprise partners such as Crowdstrike, Cisco, and Microsoft, which are known to have massive security incidents regularly.
The stated purpose of Glasswing is to give infra and security orgs the chance to close holes and improve their security. In that context, it seems odd to call for not providing them access with the justification being that they have security breaches sometimes.
Mythos may or may not itself be opened to the public at some point, but I would charitably expect that Anthropic plans that a future model at least as good as Mythos Preview will be, and the limited release for Mythos is intended to make that eventuality safer by having most of the existing holes patched.
> A 16-year-old with no credentials and no capital could just do things. The world of bits offered the freedom to build without being drowned in arbitrary constraints, in a way that didn’t require assembling vast capital or prestige or connections, where your creativity and work could speak for itself, and you had agency.
It has always baffled me how quickly, and how voraciously, people started to rely on privately owned AI systems.
AI is not something discovered by scientists and plucked out of the ether. It's engineered and controlled, for profit, by corporations which have demographics and KPIs. These companies don't owe you anything, and they make no promises.
If you're running a business that deeply relies on AI, you might as well add Sam Altman to your board of directors--because he has just as much control over your company as you do. If they have a bad quarter and need to increase rates by 1000%, your choices are to pay up or shut down.
This Mythos situation is just the beginning. Not only do they have everyone hooked, but they've actively stalled the personal skill growth of millions of people who fell into vibe-coding rather than genuinely learning. And now they have that choice: Pay up, or shut down.
The same corporations that insist upon private Maven repositories to control all code dependencies are nevertheless fine with establishing a massive dependency on a privately-held corporation in order to write software that hardly anyone in the organization understands. When I really think about this and how it plays out in the long run, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
I can't run my business without electricity. Yet we don't fear of its access being revoked. Sam makes the comparison of intelligence to electricity a lot. So we are on the path to these systems becoming utilities.
Whatever is in Mythos will be open source in 6mos-1yr tops. You might not have the GPUs but you won't be locked out of the capability.
We're still not at the point where one person with a coding agent can max out their salary in effectively using credits, so the capability is still well within reach of the vast base of the industry.
Meaning that for now, most people who want to pay for the product (which IMO is pretty reasonably priced for what it does) will be able to get the product.
The economics will make sure of that. The market is ripe for someone basically copying the likes of Mythos and pricing it competitively.
>> We saw yesterday that expert orchestration around small, publicly available models can produce results on the level of the unreleased model.
This is false. Yesterday's article did not actually show this, and there are many comments in the discussion from actual security people (like tptacek) pointing that out.
I think that remains to be proven. The context was 16-year olds being able to freely build things. They still can do that as before. Not everything is a competition.
The irony is that we've just shifted the complexity. Anyone can make something now, but since everyone is making things, now you need to compete on reach/distribution more aggressively. The new "capital" is social media juice and pre-AI rep. Same problem, different skin.
Jokes aside, this is just a different flavor of the same promise we see with each new technology, and 9/10 times it just ends in worse professional environments.
The problem is Anthropic doesn't have the compute to deploy this model to scale to everyone yet. Dario didn't believe that they needed as much compute, OpenAI is going to have much more compute unlocked this year and especially next year.
Great to see they were able to spin their lack of resources and money losing business model into an abundance of benevolence and concern for the proletariat.
So? They could basically open up an auction for bidding on compute with mythos.. that’s what you do with a scarce resource. I’m sure many large enterprises would be willing to pay a lot to have first dibs.
There’s a whole lot of traffic they are servicing that comes at a cost with no revenue in return. Why would you choose to forgo potential revenue for this?
Anthropic should provide a specific service where they attack a businesses infrastructure using this frontier model and then issue a report of all vulnerabilities found. I could imagine it would be quite lucrative.
Much better than hiding it away where it can't help anyone.
Hypothetically... I'm joey joe bob who happens to be maintainer of a top 10 npm package. My wife got cancer so I need money FAST. Unrelated: can you mythos my lib?
1 month later: whoopsie my lib got hacked and the hackers stole a bunch of stuff. Sorry guys.
It just wouldn't be good PR. And this is the best case scenario.
Most important point in the piece (though I’m not sure if the historical analogy to the grid holds, given local electricity production has been unavailable for the majority of the history of the grid)
> You can generate your own electricity with a solar panel (think local models), but most people would rather pay a utility bill. And the power company doesn’t decide, on the basis of pedigree, who is worthy of electricity. Intelligence should work similarly, where the capabilities you can access scale may scale with vetting and due process, but the presumption should be access. Add safety guardrails to restrict dangerous use; start by making them overly trigger-happy if you must, and calibrate over time. But the default should be to allow entry.
The opportunity from the early days of the American frontier is not typical. Instead, it's the brief burst of unrestrained growth as a better-adapted organization (the US, software companies) expands into, and expands, a niche--cannibalizing the previous occupant (Native Americans, older stagnant companies.) At times growth is so rapid that individuals are able to advance the frontier, but if the field stagnates, individuals will be outcompeted by corporations.
So, opportunity for individuals comes from disruption. Creative destruction is good up to a point, but it results from advancing capabilities. Technological advances compound and accelerate exponentially. Eventually we reach the point where any malcontent can destroy the world by snapping their fingers. At some point we need to place restrictions on the capabilities accessible to individuals. We have reached that point with nuclear weapons, and I think it is sensible to believe that AI is reaching that point as well.
Frontier mythology also hides quite a lot of tragedy and deaths too because of how many native Americans needed to die for it to be a frontier. It was not by any means unsettled land.
You never needed a godzilla or a megatron to get on with your life. But the sellers of those monsters would make every attempt, in connivance with the authorities, to make it a basic necessity to use their services. That's a survival strategy for the monsters. The owners can't keep the monsters in cages for too long, even if the owner is a state actor.
It's long been conventional wisdom that you shouldn't write your own crypto libraries - leave that to experts. But excellent open source libraries are available, which do get reviewed by experts. And if you're willing to study, maybe you can learn enough about cryptography to become one of the experts?
I'm wondering what other security-sensitive software that might become true of in the era of Mythos-or-better AI's?
There will still be open source projects that anyone could learn enough to contribute to, but maybe starting from scratch and writing your own becomes less feasible if you aren't attracting enough attention to get attention from people with access to the best AI's?
For example, Linux patches are going to get expert reviews, but maybe your homegrown OS won't?
Maybe not. You stated "Every country will pursue it as far as it can, and given the multipolar world we are back in, and our recent record with treaties and commitments, I do not believe there will be global alignment on risk reduction" and that is true. While Anthropic may hold of releasing Mythos I don't think they will for long. As long as there is someone somewhere in the world that releases a competing model then Anthropic will be forced to release Mythos. This also assumes that its not a marketing tactic from Anthropic in the first place, build suspense before releasing it.
I would like to see more countries capable of producing frontier models. At the moment we have two in the world but many countries are building their own national models and AI infrastructure and may join the race.
Having a multipolar world may actually result in more freedom in gaining access to frontier models.
I admit I didn't read the entire post (I honestly think authors really need to come to terms with the fact that we now live in a world of information excess, and pithiness is more important than ever), but I wouldn't feel too bad yet given there was a recent front page HN post about how free, open models could actually catch all the issues Mythos did, it just required a little more orchestration. E.g. see https://aisle.com/blog/ai-cybersecurity-after-mythos-the-jag... for a detailed analysis.
I apologize for getting stuck on your parenthetical but while pithiness is a fine aspiration in a North American business setting, pithy reads generally can't exist without more detailed and nuanced long-form analyses, and the latter face a more dire existential threat. You are right that pithy [writing] is an important skill, as are slow and deliberative reading and writing of longer form work
I'm not claiming the original post is detailed or nuanced, to be clear
To give a clearer example of what I was talking about, look at the linked article from my comment above. It is much longer than the original article from this post, but it (a) starts with a TL;DR, so it gives me a summary that lets me know if I want to read it in the first place, (b) combines detailed original research with analysis and opinion, and, IMO (c) continually adds new information/insights so it builds on itself.
Obviously not apples-to-apples comparison to this article as they have different purposes (original research vs. pure opinion), I just point this out because a bunch of comments seem to be stuck on the idea that I was saying "don't write anything that doesn't fit in a tweet", and that wasn't my point at all.
It's not that 1800 words is too long, it's that I've seen probably 40-50 (at least) posts, analyses, and bloviations about Mythos since it came out. If the author doesn't very quickly get to why I should read their particular 1800 words over the other similar and competing tens of thousands of words on the subject, they are "cooked".
They could just be writing for themselves, or their friends, or for people with the patience to read. You are making assumptions about how badly they want to reach your particular eyeballs. They might not care about trying to win over people with a minimal attention span as much as you think they do.
What makes you think your comment was worth reading?
I’ve read it, it’s taken me about ten minutes, and it’s been refreshing to read something that is not sloppy. The page design and type are soothing, too.
I don’t agree with everything that the article says but it soulfully blends concepts in history, politics, economics, cryptography and AI.
I don’t think the author could’ve compressed it without precisely sacrificing the essay’s soul.
I interpreted their "too dangerous to release" comment as a statement about the current situation. If the model is truly as capable as they say, and the security issues so numerous, it makes sense to hold out until the biggest targets have been patched.
It'd only take one company deciding to not worry about safety, to change the calculus back to "we have to release this to stay competitive".
I think we are going to look at the era between 2019-2025 as a very rare blip in the history of public AI access. Regardless of whether fears about Mythos end up being justified, the clear trend is
1. AI models are becoming better and better at causing massively disruptive effects, leaving up larger and larger liabilities, especially as laws and regulations are being passed/proposed which would put the responsibility of some mass disruption/hacking event on the company which serves the model that made it possible
2. The relative advantage of serving an AI model for inference in exchange for money is waning compared to the advantage of using that model internally for purposes which accrue money/power/leverage for that AI company. Why serve a model at 30 dollars/million tokens when you've discovered you can use that model to run a simulated Quant firm with a net profit of 300 dollars/million tokens? Why offer the model to companies so they can find zero-day exploits, when you can find them yourself and sell the discovery to companies which would may millions to avoid this exploit being taken advantage of?
3. Why serve models so another wrapper company like Cursor can make billions off your tokens, and then try to train their own models as fast as possible, trained on your outputs so they aren't dependent on you? The entire AI startup industry and like 90% of YC batches depend on being able to serve frontier models at a profit, mediated through some wrapper, why can't OpenAI/ANthropic, once their models are good enough to handle the ideation/organizational problem, become their own incubator for thousands of AI run startups, running on models way better than the public has access to?
As a consequence, there is less and less incentive over time to offer models as an API to the public.
> AI models are becoming better and better at causing massively disruptive effects
Anthropic chose to use their model to find a bunch of vulnerabilities. People have used much smaller models since to find the same issues. We are being set up to have certain pre-concieved notions about this model.
Ripping away AI access from the public at this point would be catastrophic for the world economy. It's just not happening.
It's not clear to me if the author talk about European invasion as the colonization pattern behind pretended American frontier, as it was lands that never any human had reached before.
In other, underreported news, companies like AirBnB are using open source models. Anthropic and OpenAI have a six months to year advantage over Qwen and other models. We reached the point a while ago where Anthropic models where good enough, and so now, inevitably, we’ve reached the point where open models are good enough. The boasting of models so good they can’t be shared was propaganda to frame the conversation. But for anyone paying attention, what matters is that open models are now good enough.
Underrated comment. I think the future is actually quite bright, if we can continue to use open models, even if they are behind closed SOTA models they are still capable and will continue to improve.
I doubt that Mythos is just so wonderful and not able to be replicated that we are actually being 'closed off' from frontier models.
For example, the people who Anthropic "trusts" with this "dangerous" model are a handful of fortune 500 companies? Seriously? Those are the people we trust?
We are going to have access to this within 6 months, and if we don't, someone else will offer an equivalent. Anthropic hasn't walked to the edge of the abyss only to be like "let the CEO's handle this!"
Human race is indeed fascinating. We kill millions of cows for food while doing the following in the same breath.
A bronze sculpture unveiled in March 2026 in Almaty, Kazakhstan (near the Europe/Asia border region), honors strangers who formed a human chain to save a dog from the Sayran Reservoir in 2016. The statue, located along the canal embankment, symbolizes unity and collective action after the 2016 viral rescue.
I had a similar thought, though not as extreme, the second they started nerfing and filtering models
Their intensions were good, they always are, but the minute you decide to nerf something powerful for someone, it means someone out there has access to the full blown, unnerfed version
Which means there are powerful people out there using AI in ways or for activities in which you will never be allowed to anyway
While I don't think Mythos is so powerful that it justifies containment permanently - I wonder how it might work when there is such an AI that can justify containment.
What if this new model can start proving Millenial problems and provide insights in other fields that was not possible before?
My intuition says that a model that is as good will also be equally well aligned -- but it is still highly risky to give it to the general public because all you need is one jailbreak from bad actors.
At that point I think society would change so dramatically that "access to general public" would be a non issue. Rather, time would be spent on making abundance happen - you might think of the political struggles, economics and new ventures.
Its a bit sad that democratised access is not provided because of negative sum possibilities like cybersecurity.
if it is an actual leap, expect more 90% is good enough open weights to hit the next 6 months. Theres no reason competitors will hold underperforming models if they have to retool.
might as well do more marketing.
That dream was always a lie. But in the past, people could
purchase more in parity. You only need to look at income
versus housing cost in, say, Canada.
Realistically there should not exist any superrich, but
this seems hard to change. That means there needs to be
a different society be given as promise. Other countries
manage that. In the USA they have the orange oligarch who
said a while ago how there is no money for health care
because he has to invade countries and wage war. So much
for the "no more wars" promise.
The American dream was not a lie if you come from a country with no economic opportunity, or where the govt can just steal your successful business at any time. It's still not dead in that regard, although it's seen better days.
> The Anthropic Mythos announcement is the first time in my life I’ve felt truly poor. Maybe because I grew up on the internet and it was the one permissionless place where you could have leverage and a shot at uncapped exploration and ambition. That is now changing with the gap between models that are publicly available vs those reserved for the already wealthy and pre-established.
The Internet was developed by the US state sector and handed off to the private sector in the 90’s. Then it worked as an open space until it didn’t any more. Predictably driven by corporate interests.
> In 1893, Frederick Jackson Turner argued that much that is distinctive about America was shaped by the existence of free land to the West where anyone could start over, and that this condition infused America with its characteristic liberty, egalitarianism, rejection of feudalistic hierarchy, self-sufficiency, and ambition.
A more asinine comparison could not have been picked.
Give it a few months and it will be just another model they are selling, but the NEWER model is just too powerful for the public.
Their writing about the model so far does say this is an issue where, for instance, you can't really use Mythos for interactive coding because it's so slow. You have to give it some work, go home, sleep, come in the next day and then maybe it'll have something for you.
All the AI labs and startups are still losing money hand over fist. Launching Mythos would require it to be priced well above current models, for a much slower product. Would the majority of customers notice the difference in intelligence given the tasks they're setting? If the answer is no, it's not economic to launch.
Really, I'm surprised they've done Mythos. Maybe they just wanted to exploit access to larger contiguous training datacenters than OpenAI, but what these labs need isn't smarter models, it's smaller and cheaper models that users will accept as good enough substitutes (or more advanced model routing, dynamic thinking, etc).
One thing to compare to would be what’s been paid for bug bounties in the past.
[0]: https://openai.com/index/better-language-models/
I believe they are starting to split hairs and the primary lever left is adding compute.
Anthropic was born out of the idea that they feel paternity over humanity. They believe by limiting access they are performing a necessary pillar of security in multiple facets.
I think it's up to the public, and articles like this are part of the public's voice, whether this belief is serious or not and secondarily whether it's okay to even posture this kind of belief since it inherently results in marginalizing the many and rewards an already very successful few.
I think it's a reasonable choice to make given that Mythos actually does have cyber capabilities on that level. We already have evidence that large-scale scams are being perpetuated using AI models (such as AI video being passed as real, people deepfaking themselves in job interviews).
If you've noticed your new model can be trivially pointed at some open-source codebase with a prompt and harness that amounts to "find as many exploits as possible" and your results are non-trivially substantial and beyond what existing models can do given the same initial parameters, then a gated rollout seems the most reasonable option.
For me, the seeming majority optimism and acceptance of “mythos’” as yet untold capabilities is betrayed as not real by the fact that one can’t react to it with the same reverence while framing it as a downside without being told “it’s not even out yet”.
“It’s not even out yet” should apply to both situations or neither.
This whole "this model is too dangerous" ploy originated from (in my opinion severely misguided) activists who wanted to stop or slow AI development down as much as possible, spreading outlandish Doomsday scenarios wherever they could.
These online-first activists have always been a key driver of the success of the very thing they fight. They share the offending thing among themselves, making it go viral in process, and soon baiting these groups is the best marketing imaginable.
There were some rather interesting studies made on the subject around 2011, I particularly remember one made by Swedish jeans brand cheap Monday, but i can't find it now.
Eh, pressing X to doubt that. Maybe way back in the early GPT days, but once we got to GPT-4 these people could have completely disappeared and wouldn't have changed the trajectory we're on.
That is, Mythos will make it much easier to find lurking zero days, so just like responsible disclosure requires a security researcher to notify the software author first and give them some time to patch, giving critical infrastructure folks at least some time to analyze and patch systems seems reasonable to me.
If you make a better vulnerability scanner and find a bunch of vulnerabilites, you should try to get them fixed before making all the results public.
I tend to agree here. Anthropic has built a reputation and now they are in a position where they can claim to have a model way more powerful than it might actually be, and by limiting its access, there won't be an independent way to test it. I'm not denying that it's not smarter than Opus, but probably it's somewhat exaggerated.
It’s the same stuff inside as all the others.
Is no one else suspicious that they literally called it mythos?
The stated purpose of Glasswing is to give infra and security orgs the chance to close holes and improve their security. In that context, it seems odd to call for not providing them access with the justification being that they have security breaches sometimes.
Mythos may or may not itself be opened to the public at some point, but I would charitably expect that Anthropic plans that a future model at least as good as Mythos Preview will be, and the limited release for Mythos is intended to make that eventuality safer by having most of the existing holes patched.
AI is not something discovered by scientists and plucked out of the ether. It's engineered and controlled, for profit, by corporations which have demographics and KPIs. These companies don't owe you anything, and they make no promises.
If you're running a business that deeply relies on AI, you might as well add Sam Altman to your board of directors--because he has just as much control over your company as you do. If they have a bad quarter and need to increase rates by 1000%, your choices are to pay up or shut down.
This Mythos situation is just the beginning. Not only do they have everyone hooked, but they've actively stalled the personal skill growth of millions of people who fell into vibe-coding rather than genuinely learning. And now they have that choice: Pay up, or shut down.
Another choice is to switch to a different model, perhaps open source this time.
We're still not at the point where one person with a coding agent can max out their salary in effectively using credits, so the capability is still well within reach of the vast base of the industry.
Meaning that for now, most people who want to pay for the product (which IMO is pretty reasonably priced for what it does) will be able to get the product.
The economics will make sure of that. The market is ripe for someone basically copying the likes of Mythos and pricing it competitively.
I take a contra view and instead see this as fuel on the fire for tinkering to squeeze advanced functionality out of more available things.
It has always been like this, the amateur improvising tooling and equipment to outdo companies with comparably infinite resources.
This is false. Yesterday's article did not actually show this, and there are many comments in the discussion from actual security people (like tptacek) pointing that out.
Your example author, actually corrected themselves saying LLMs “possibly” could perform successfully: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47732696
I don’t agree with vibe coding, I see the appeal of an AI ticking through my code at night to see if tests could be better or I missed something, etc.
You could always take the time to do something or pay someone else to do it.
You pay others to focus on things you can’t.
Unless myths fully does that (which I say in full confidence that it doesn’t) it’s just making it cheaper to provide focus.
Including speaking to humans/bots with more resources to monetize said work.
> you had agency
Distribution is also helpful for revenue generation.
Jokes aside, this is just a different flavor of the same promise we see with each new technology, and 9/10 times it just ends in worse professional environments.
The Elons/FANGS are generally doing fine though.
Great to see they were able to spin their lack of resources and money losing business model into an abundance of benevolence and concern for the proletariat.
There’s a whole lot of traffic they are servicing that comes at a cost with no revenue in return. Why would you choose to forgo potential revenue for this?
Much better than hiding it away where it can't help anyone.
1 month later: whoopsie my lib got hacked and the hackers stole a bunch of stuff. Sorry guys.
It just wouldn't be good PR. And this is the best case scenario.
> You can generate your own electricity with a solar panel (think local models), but most people would rather pay a utility bill. And the power company doesn’t decide, on the basis of pedigree, who is worthy of electricity. Intelligence should work similarly, where the capabilities you can access scale may scale with vetting and due process, but the presumption should be access. Add safety guardrails to restrict dangerous use; start by making them overly trigger-happy if you must, and calibrate over time. But the default should be to allow entry.
So, opportunity for individuals comes from disruption. Creative destruction is good up to a point, but it results from advancing capabilities. Technological advances compound and accelerate exponentially. Eventually we reach the point where any malcontent can destroy the world by snapping their fingers. At some point we need to place restrictions on the capabilities accessible to individuals. We have reached that point with nuclear weapons, and I think it is sensible to believe that AI is reaching that point as well.
In today's world, a new digital service is more likely to be successful when attached to celebrities than from pure PLG / Marketing.
I'm wondering what other security-sensitive software that might become true of in the era of Mythos-or-better AI's?
There will still be open source projects that anyone could learn enough to contribute to, but maybe starting from scratch and writing your own becomes less feasible if you aren't attracting enough attention to get attention from people with access to the best AI's?
For example, Linux patches are going to get expert reviews, but maybe your homegrown OS won't?
I would like to see more countries capable of producing frontier models. At the moment we have two in the world but many countries are building their own national models and AI infrastructure and may join the race.
Having a multipolar world may actually result in more freedom in gaining access to frontier models.
I apologize for getting stuck on your parenthetical but while pithiness is a fine aspiration in a North American business setting, pithy reads generally can't exist without more detailed and nuanced long-form analyses, and the latter face a more dire existential threat. You are right that pithy [writing] is an important skill, as are slow and deliberative reading and writing of longer form work
I'm not claiming the original post is detailed or nuanced, to be clear
Obviously not apples-to-apples comparison to this article as they have different purposes (original research vs. pure opinion), I just point this out because a bunch of comments seem to be stuck on the idea that I was saying "don't write anything that doesn't fit in a tweet", and that wasn't my point at all.
What makes you think your comment was worth reading?
I don’t agree with everything that the article says but it soulfully blends concepts in history, politics, economics, cryptography and AI.
I don’t think the author could’ve compressed it without precisely sacrificing the essay’s soul.
Is this what everything is coming down to?
It'd only take one company deciding to not worry about safety, to change the calculus back to "we have to release this to stay competitive".
1. AI models are becoming better and better at causing massively disruptive effects, leaving up larger and larger liabilities, especially as laws and regulations are being passed/proposed which would put the responsibility of some mass disruption/hacking event on the company which serves the model that made it possible
2. The relative advantage of serving an AI model for inference in exchange for money is waning compared to the advantage of using that model internally for purposes which accrue money/power/leverage for that AI company. Why serve a model at 30 dollars/million tokens when you've discovered you can use that model to run a simulated Quant firm with a net profit of 300 dollars/million tokens? Why offer the model to companies so they can find zero-day exploits, when you can find them yourself and sell the discovery to companies which would may millions to avoid this exploit being taken advantage of?
3. Why serve models so another wrapper company like Cursor can make billions off your tokens, and then try to train their own models as fast as possible, trained on your outputs so they aren't dependent on you? The entire AI startup industry and like 90% of YC batches depend on being able to serve frontier models at a profit, mediated through some wrapper, why can't OpenAI/ANthropic, once their models are good enough to handle the ideation/organizational problem, become their own incubator for thousands of AI run startups, running on models way better than the public has access to?
As a consequence, there is less and less incentive over time to offer models as an API to the public.
Anthropic chose to use their model to find a bunch of vulnerabilities. People have used much smaller models since to find the same issues. We are being set up to have certain pre-concieved notions about this model.
Ripping away AI access from the public at this point would be catastrophic for the world economy. It's just not happening.
Are any AI labs claiming this?
For example, the people who Anthropic "trusts" with this "dangerous" model are a handful of fortune 500 companies? Seriously? Those are the people we trust?
We are going to have access to this within 6 months, and if we don't, someone else will offer an equivalent. Anthropic hasn't walked to the edge of the abyss only to be like "let the CEO's handle this!"
It is simply not the edge of the abyss.
OMG this generation - we can't separete the outrage from reality anymore.
Meanwhile 3000 people have died arbitrarily in Iran War -while we navel gaze.
A bronze sculpture unveiled in March 2026 in Almaty, Kazakhstan (near the Europe/Asia border region), honors strangers who formed a human chain to save a dog from the Sayran Reservoir in 2016. The statue, located along the canal embankment, symbolizes unity and collective action after the 2016 viral rescue.
Their intensions were good, they always are, but the minute you decide to nerf something powerful for someone, it means someone out there has access to the full blown, unnerfed version
Which means there are powerful people out there using AI in ways or for activities in which you will never be allowed to anyway
So yeah, this is just more of the same
What if this new model can start proving Millenial problems and provide insights in other fields that was not possible before?
My intuition says that a model that is as good will also be equally well aligned -- but it is still highly risky to give it to the general public because all you need is one jailbreak from bad actors.
At that point I think society would change so dramatically that "access to general public" would be a non issue. Rather, time would be spent on making abundance happen - you might think of the political struggles, economics and new ventures.
Its a bit sad that democratised access is not provided because of negative sum possibilities like cybersecurity.
That dream was always a lie. But in the past, people could purchase more in parity. You only need to look at income versus housing cost in, say, Canada.
Realistically there should not exist any superrich, but this seems hard to change. That means there needs to be a different society be given as promise. Other countries manage that. In the USA they have the orange oligarch who said a while ago how there is no money for health care because he has to invade countries and wage war. So much for the "no more wars" promise.
The Internet was developed by the US state sector and handed off to the private sector in the 90’s. Then it worked as an open space until it didn’t any more. Predictably driven by corporate interests.
> In 1893, Frederick Jackson Turner argued that much that is distinctive about America was shaped by the existence of free land to the West where anyone could start over, and that this condition infused America with its characteristic liberty, egalitarianism, rejection of feudalistic hierarchy, self-sufficiency, and ambition.
A more asinine comparison could not have been picked.