Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • This is how you do it when you're not AS childish. You go "here's a model for cybersecurity" and put a price on it. I know they're releasing it to some vendors first, etc. but the lack of a clown spectacle is nice.

    The whole "it's too dangerous to release!" is complete hogwash.

    A person can take a hammer, walk out in the street, and we can count how many people he can kill with the hammer before he is stopped. My local hardware store still sells hammers, and I haven't seen the CEO of it claim that their hammers are much more dangerous and it's totally going to end the world if you allow any random person to have one!

    by lionkor
  • It's amusing that what Anthropic does is basically:

    1. Browse the internet

    2. See what people hate about OpenAI

    3. Adopt the worse version of it

    4. Profit?

    Sam Altman fearmongered about AI alignment - we fearmonger harder.

    OpenAI is CloseAI now - we are even less open.

    OpenAI is going to IPO - we IPO first.

    by raincole
  • Does your local store sell aerosolized anthrax?
    by estearum
  • The risk of catching federal charges, proper jail time and aggressive responses from law enforcement is a far more effective means of preventing malicious behavior than anything proposed so far.

    I can go into stores that sell things that are much more dangerous than hammers (or frontier cyber models) and no one will give me a hard time about it.

    by bob1029
  • If that hammer could allow people to go into people's homes / work en masse, steal all their information, blackmail them, steal their identities, break their systems (including those of hospitals and other critical infrastructure) and generally help fund bad actors through it all we'd think of having restrictions on hammers too. A hammer can't screw people over by the millions.

    I don't like this argument specifically with AI. Facial recognition everywhere you go is just a tool. Your job creating a detailed profile on exactly how you work, who you talk to, and about what is just a tool. The tools have become so good and easy to use we have to have serious discussions about them before things get out of hand.

    by ragequittah
  • It's a pretty interesting opportunity. I wonder if they will reach to companies and tell them how many things they could fix and how many are critical, before selling them the solution.
    by tetrisgm
  • If they won't, some consultant with a subscription eventually will.
    by KeplerBoy
  • Does the EU CRA now mean that every European company that either sells software or sells anything that has a software component is now forced to pay for this by September and update their software?
    by spwa4
  • Realistically, what can these types of commitments look like for the AI frontier companies, moving forward?

    They're releasing ever more powerful models with stronger offensive capabilities. So do they have to help bolster the defense of all existing software, just... forever?

    If we advance both the offence and defense with each new release, is this sustainable?

    by Oarch
  • Would love to see the benchmark comparison between Mythos / Fable and GPT-5.5-Cyber
    by GL26
  • Do you mean full benchmarks? Because from the article they claim 85.6 for 5.5-Cyber vs. 83.8 for mythos on Cybergym.
    by mijoharas
  • Is it only my feeling, that the US government rolled back the Fable release, because they wanted their guy to get to the market before Anthropic?
    by kstkrv
  • No one commenting on the fact that oAI is releasing a Claude Mythos-class model - with apparent 0 restrictions or concerns by the US government, while Anthropic's (their competitor) model has been pulled weeks prior by the administration for 'security' reasons.

    It certainly has nothing to do with openAI's co-founders donating to the current administrations election fund, are actively supporting the DoW war efforts of autonomous weapons and also otherwise being ideology tightly coupled with the current US government.

    by mentalgear
  • Also the fact that the president’s daughter, son in law, and his brother have a significant amount of their net worth invested in OpenAI via Thrive.
    by toufka
  • Interesting beside the time when Anthropic were banned for not allowing the MoW to use claude to kill people, then OpenAI come in and swoop up the contract.
    by scrollop
  • Entirely possible but let's give it some time to see if they try to make it GA and if the DoD sends them a letter.
    by maxbond
  • Maybe if Anthropic haven't called it too dangerous for public things could be different?
    by postepowanieadm
  • It's 1) Not mythos class 2) restricted to "security partners"
    by FergusArgyll
  • Do you think that Anthropic's models would have been pulled if they did not say for months how their models is basically going to break the whole internet and that governments should most definitely restrict AI? I doubt it.

    The problem is, though, given Anthropic have said all of that, they really have very little grounds for objecting to the US government's intervention here. Everything that the government would have to prove to justify their intervention has already been freely admitted by Anthropic, even though the "admission" was maybe more intended as a marketing ploy.

    by flanked-evergl
  • I feel like we’re all just operating on vibes at this point (including the government). These models are already powerful and could probably be used to do some bad things even without the next gen.

    Anthropic has successfully made their vibe the bringers of the end of the world so please stop us. ChatGPT is in some weird middle ground where they’re no longer the evil company of a year ago and are trying to act like the mature one in the business. XAI is the vanity project of a jealous kid who wants to ignore anyone elses opinion but is falling behind. Gemini is viewed as the less cool cousin and no one pays attention to since google has generally avoided the end of the world talk (coincidentally I think gemini has the best non-coding model but no one seems to talk about that)

    I think each company has been treated in the wider discourse based on their vibe and no one is operating on facts here since it’s all pretty obfuscated intentionally. I could see some things going very bad as a result of these models but I also don’t believe anyone who’s just pattern matching to their favorite scifi book here and we’re all playing into it. May as well go outside for a bit and enjoy the sun.

    by snaking0776
  • >No one commenting on the fact that oAI is releasing a Claude Mythos-class model - with apparent 0 restrictions or concerns by the US government

    We don't know that it is Mythos level, it could very well be at (guardrailed) Fable or below.

    This is not a wide open distribution, this is only being provided to hand picked partners, similar to how Mythos was distributed (unlike Fable which had wider distribution)

    The larger question, which I don't see an answer to in this post:

    1) was this tested and validated by the US Government?

    2) is the list of partners vetted by the US Government?

    If This is "mythos-class" AND

       OpenAI approves SK Telecom as a trusted partner ( https://www.wired.com/story/sk-telecom-anthropic-mythos-export-controls/ )
    OR

       OpenAI did not get approval.
    will this be shut down as quick? Otherwise, it is not really a comparable scenario.
    by frankacter
  • I see a lot of knee-jerk comments to this, but I highly recommend running a scan ( https://openai.com/daybreak/codex-security-plugin/#codex-cli ) in your projects so you can evaluate it yourself. It found a real security issue in a project of mine, with very few false-positives.

    Its built-in resume mechanism didn't work after it crashed when running out of my 5 hour session limit, but Claude Code was easily able to resume it 5 hours later reading the session logs and https://openai.com/codex/security/scan.sh

    by Recursing
  • "trusted defenders" sounds really Orwellian. Reminds me of EU's "trusted flaggers": https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/trusted-fl...

    I don't trust any of these people. Meanwhile I'm paying ChatGPT and Claude and can't use their top-tier levels because they assume I'm some security risk/terrorist.

    Local AI is our only hope.

    by jasonvorhe
  • Why not stop paying for ChatGPT and Claude, then?

    Like, seriously, while you can, invest in your own stack or find cloud alternatives.

    If you actually want to use these products, the easiest way you will contribute to changing their money-grubbing minds about their policies and offerings, is to stop giving them yours.

    Peace of mind and control of your destiny is worth a bit of cash. And there's seemingly little risk of any kit you buy radically depreciating in cost.

    I am still really cynical about all of this BS but I must say I am fully impressed by the diligence and quality of some of the open source tooling — Unsloth Studio, Opencode, Paseo, Pi, etc.

    And I look at it and think: putting aside local models (and I am not sure you should, even now), is this stuff really so inferior that it's worth risking a critical dependency on a commercial cloud product that might get switched off with no notice?

    by dofm
  • I read this news as white noise because there is no scenario in which I will be allowed access to this model. First, I happen to be a citizen of a country that is not the USA. What's more shocking is that I'm not even located in the US. Thus in the eyes of OpenAI I do not exist in regard to SOTA security models. Second, I will never ever do KYC with a company that provides text transformation services*. Third, even if I did, I will not be able to pass KYC because the typical KYC requirements are strictly tailored to a certain subset of the world's population and lifestyle choices, tuned by Americans according to their world view. Fourth, even if I pass KYC, my account will be banned by OpenAI immediately on the first prompt because they have close to 1B users and couldn't care less about any single one of them.

    (*) which are nothing short of amazing and are changing the world, there's no doubt about that.

    by egorfine
  • There is so much to unpack here.

    > Thus in the eyes of OpenAI I do not exist in regard to SOTA security models.

    I'm not seeing anywhere it says it's only limited to the U.S. Only that they had 'ongoing dialogue' with them. Which reads weird to me, how can an ongoing dialogue be past tense? But I digress.

    > We’ve had ongoing dialogue with the U.S. government about our cyber approach, including today’s announcements and on our preparation for upcoming model releases.

    > Third, even if I did, I will not be able to pass KYC because the typical KYC requirements are strictly tailored to a certain subset of the world's population and lifestyle choices, tuned by Americans according to their world view.

    KYC is just that, Know Your Customer, if your 'permitted customers' are security researchers in the industry with a proven identity of employment etc then that is the KYC process, I don't see any issues with that.

    > even if I pass KYC, my account will be banned by OpenAI immediately on the first prompt because they have close to 1B users and couldn't care less about any single one of them

    Why do you assume this? Are you planning on intentionally trying to do something actively nefarious ? It's such a strange take.

    by bilekas
  • > Second, I will never ever do KYC with a company that provides text transformation services*

    I guess you would also not provide KYC to a bank that provides number additions/subtractions between database rows services

    by dist-epoch
  • Ok so why I don’t have access to this if I already pay for the max plan? Should I pay a security researcher to run codex on my code? Is this how it is supposed to work? Let’s hope we get some real cyber models that people can actually use from the Chinese without the stupid application forms.
    by theplumber
  • Why do you think you should have access…? People who pay enterprise API rates also don’t if this makes you feel better (it shouldn’t, you shouldn’t have felt bad in the first place)
    by baq
  • Why does paying for the max plan build the expectation that you get access to everything?
    by infecto