NSA is using Anthropic's Mythos despite blacklist
Posted by Palmik 1 day ago
Comments
Comment by cdrnsf 18 hours ago
Comment by at-fates-hands 18 hours ago
Comment by cdrnsf 17 hours ago
Comment by hagbard_c 16 hours ago
Comment by cdrnsf 9 hours ago
Comment by bdangubic 9 hours ago
not even third-world country’s citizens get to live through that kind of embarrasment and humiliation.
Comment by joquarky 12 hours ago
What is this?
Comment by arbitrary_name 15 hours ago
it's not even close.
"Hunter bidens laptop!!" seems so distant and quaint.
the Pentagon declared Anthropic a supply chain risk, attempting to punitively destroy the company, then is adopting their product; please name a similarly asinine and farcical event from ANY administration.
your whataboutism is just not capable of standing up to the weaponized idiocy of these guys.
Comment by FrustratedMonky 15 hours ago
Comment by SR2Z 13 hours ago
I really, really hope that when Trump is out of office and a Democrat is back in, they'll be willing to play exactly as dirty going after Trump's enemies. I think it will be a good lesson on why the rule of law and human rights are so indispensable. No more going high while they go low, that's how we get faceless men from the government showing up to our doors intent on violating our rights.
Comment by hopinhopout 15 hours ago
Comment by jaapbadlands 15 hours ago
Comment by devindotcom 15 hours ago
Comment by Craighead 15 hours ago
Comment by hagbard_c 15 hours ago
Comment by arbitrary_name 15 hours ago
2)Sleepy Joe didn't pick a fight with the Pope
and that's just in the last month!
but that won't change your mind. nothing will.
Comment by Uhhrrr 15 hours ago
Comment by joquarky 12 hours ago
Comment by FrustratedMonky 15 hours ago
1. Someone will take the bait and quote some facts.
2. The maga apologists will say 'fake news'. I don't accept those sources.
3. There will be some back and forth without convincing anybody.
4. Maybe some speculation that this is a right wing bot.
5. Eventually the argument devolves down to, Nothing means anything, nothing is fact, nothing can be proven, the moon is flat, we live in an illusion.
I personally think it is because of Brandolini's law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
Your post sounds like it will go down the typical right wing rabbit hole. Trying to cite evidence against their infinite bullshit is losing battle. It takes a lot of energy, and that is the goal, to tire people out.
Comment by thin_carapace 13 hours ago
Comment by whatisthiseven 9 hours ago
I am wrapping this comment thread in a finally and returning.
Comment by thin_carapace 6 hours ago
Comment by seventytwo 15 hours ago
Clear enough?
Comment by at-fates-hands 7 hours ago
Yessir, CRYSTAL CLEAR.
Comment by insane_dreamer 6 hours ago
Comment by janalsncm 16 hours ago
The NSA doesn’t care about day to day temper tantrums of political branches, they have work to do and they will use the best tools available to accomplish that work.
Comment by maebert 23 hours ago
Gets labelled supply chain risk by the pentagon. Hypes up what they claim to be the most advanced hacking tool on the planet. This puts the US government into a loose / loose position. Either deny the NSA access to it, or be called out on their bluff.
Comment by latexr 22 hours ago
Isn’t that just the same strategy OpenAI has used over and over? Sam Altman is always “OMG, the new version of ChatGPT is so scary and dangerous”, but then releases it anyway (tells you a lot about his values—or lack thereof) and it’s more of the same. Pretty sure Aesop had a fable about that. “The CEO who cried ‘what we’ve made is too dangerous’”, or something.
Comment by Ifkaluva 20 hours ago
Comment by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 19 hours ago
Comment by okamiueru 15 hours ago
Comment by __MatrixMan__ 20 hours ago
Comment by j-bos 18 hours ago
Comment by stackghost 17 hours ago
One of the many reasons nobody should give Scam Altman their money. It's continually infuriating that this serial grifter is in such a position of power.
Comment by xiphias2 21 hours ago
Comment by latexr 21 hours ago
Prior to the released of GPT-5, Sam said he was scared of it and compared it to the Manhattan Project.
Comment by nipponese 21 hours ago
Comment by kordlessagain 21 hours ago
Comment by Hamuko 21 hours ago
Comment by foobar_______ 21 hours ago
Comment by Filligree 22 hours ago
Certainly it’s a strategy OpenAI has used before, and when they did so it was a lie. Altman’s dishonesty does not mean it can never be true, however.
Comment by mccr8 21 hours ago
Comment by amarcheschi 21 hours ago
Gpt 2 wasn't released fully because OpenAI deemed it too dangerous, rings a bell? https://openai.com/index/better-language-models/#sample1
Comment by Hizonner 21 hours ago
Comment by embedding-shape 21 hours ago
Maybe I've missed anything, but what Stenberg been complaining about so far been the wave of sloppy reports, seemingly reported by/mainly by AIs. Has that ratio somehow changed recently to mainly be good reports with real vulnerabilities?
Comment by rhdunn 21 hours ago
[1] https://www.npr.org/2026/04/11/nx-s1-5778508/anthropic-proje...
> Improvement in AI models' capabilities became noticeable early 2026, said Daniel Stenberg.
> He estimates that about 1 in 10 of the reports are security vulnerabilities, the rest are mostly real bugs. Just three months into 2026, the cURL team Stenberg leads has found and fixed more vulnerabilities than each of the previous two years.
[2] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/danielstenberg_curl-activity-...
> The new #curl, AI, security reality shown with some graphs. Part of my work-in-progress presentation at foss-north on April 28.
Comment by StrauXX 21 hours ago
Comment by depr 21 hours ago
> The challenge with AI in open source security has transitioned from an AI slop tsunami into more of a ... plain security report tsunami. Less slop but lots of reports. Many of them really good.
> I'm spending hours per day on this now. It's intense.
Comment by kordlessagain 21 hours ago
Comment by abustamam 21 hours ago
Comment by mccr8 21 hours ago
Comment by 0cf8612b2e1e 19 hours ago
Comment by daemonologist 23 hours ago
You might even call it... a tight spot
Comment by garbawarb 22 hours ago
Comment by clark_dent 22 hours ago
Comment by latexr 22 hours ago
Comment by abustamam 20 hours ago
I have French installed on my keyboard as well so sometimes it will randomly correct English words to French words (inconsistently, but at least they're words), but blpw is not a word in either of those languages.
Unfortunately, I think me typing blpw three times has officially added it to my dictionary :)
Comment by lloeki 16 hours ago
Even more damning is that there seems to be three independent layers to the feature ("three suggestions" area above keyboard, autocorrect-as-you-type, correction popup as you touch a word) and neither agree with each other about which language it should be using.
Comment by skirmish 15 hours ago
Comment by mitthrowaway2 19 hours ago
Comment by Zambyte 21 hours ago
Comment by djeastm 15 hours ago
Comment by abustamam 20 hours ago
I think what you say is partly true too, but it's not a new phenomenon. Some examples
- awful used to mean "awe-inspiring" https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/awful
- you used to be the plural/formal second person pronoun with thou being the informal form https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You
- prior to the printing press English didn't have any standardized spelling at all https://www.dictionary.com/articles/printing-press-frozen-sp...
Language evolves. The English we learned in grammar school is likely not going to be the same English our kids or grandkids learn. At the end of the day, written communication has a single purpose — to communicate. If I can understand what the author is trying to say, then the author achieved their goal. That being said, I wish my mom did use spell check or autocorrect because her messages often require a degree in linguistics to decipher, but because of typos, not spelling. Maybe she'll influence the next evolution in typed communication :)
Edit - formatting
Comment by ratg13 21 hours ago
Comment by Aerroon 22 hours ago
"Loose" is a short word that ends sharply, but "lose" is a long word that slowly peters out.
They should be the other way around imo.
Comment by theowaway213456 22 hours ago
Comment by abustamam 20 hours ago
https://www.dictionary.com/articles/printing-press-frozen-sp...
So, technically we are allowed to make modifications! We just can't expect others to adhere to our modifications :)
Comment by taffydavid 17 hours ago
Comment by irishcoffee 22 hours ago
Comment by dtj1123 22 hours ago
Comment by sd9 21 hours ago
Comment by evanjrowley 22 hours ago
Comment by abustamam 20 hours ago
Comment by joquarky 12 hours ago
Comment by garbawarb 21 hours ago
Comment by parineum 21 hours ago
Comment by ses1984 22 hours ago
Comment by theowaway213456 22 hours ago
Comment by garbawarb 19 hours ago
Comment by mpyne 12 hours ago
Comment by ses1984 18 hours ago
Comment by garbawarb 17 hours ago
> all he'll breaks loose (a doubly amusing one): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47835177
> So Ukraine should not necessary win, it should mainly bleed Russia and not loose. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47827489
> They are de-risking by spending more, which is a loose-loose for the customers. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47826823
Plus this thread, and that's just in the last 24 hours!
Comment by veidr 20 hours ago
In this case, it's not clear who wins yet — "lose" may loose, or mount a comeback, resulting in "loose" being the one to lose.
Comment by BeetleB 20 hours ago
Comment by duckmysick 21 hours ago
Comment by freehorse 21 hours ago
Comment by saganus 20 hours ago
Comment by abustamam 20 hours ago
Comment by joquarky 12 hours ago
Do you not want people to read what you write?
Comment by JackFr 21 hours ago
Comment by maebert 21 hours ago
Comment by abustamam 20 hours ago
For some reason I can't think of those propositions at the moment, but it's definitely prevalent when I'm speaking French and use the wrong proposition, only because I'd have used the wrong proposition in English.
Comment by unbalancedevh 16 hours ago
Comment by hosel 20 hours ago
Comment by ternaryoperator 18 hours ago
Comment by saidnooneever 22 hours ago
Comment by gambiting 22 hours ago
I think it would be correct to say people display varying command of the English language, which to me has never been a problem - as long as I can understand what you mean, it's all fine.
Comment by iugtmkbdfil834 23 hours ago
Comment by renegade-otter 22 hours ago
Comment by abustamam 20 hours ago
"The President of the US, the Secretary of Defense, Iranian Prime Minister walk into a bar..."
Comment by mghackerlady 19 hours ago
Comment by sheepscreek 19 hours ago
Barring any limitations of my understanding, the Mythos model weights are probably in the realm of a few TB. Any actor with access to the weights + a single beefy NVIDIA cluster and a few intelligent folks is all it takes to gain access to Mythos.
Cost of infra < $5 million (guesstimate). Imagine someone pulling that off by gaining access to the weights - which would be a monumental challenge, but likely less complicated than re-acquiring enriched substances from the gulf nation under attack right now. It would be the heist of the century.
Comment by pythonaut_16 17 hours ago
Proceeds to write the hypiest comment possible. No substantial claims of why the model is not hype, just how dangerous it would be if the weights leaked and how cheap it would be for anyone to just start using it for EVIL if it ever did.
Comment by pixl97 19 hours ago
This was a point in the AI 2027 videos you see on youtube. That model weights would be a subject of active attack by nation states and that governments would start requiring AI companies to treat them like munitions when securing them.
Comment by maebert 18 hours ago
Comment by irthomasthomas 20 hours ago
In an alternate universe, opus 4.7 is sonnet 5, and Mythos is released as Opus. Can you imagine how much praise would be heaped on Anthropic if it opus 4.7 was < half the price it is now?
Comment by giancarlostoro 19 hours ago
Fun fact, the model isn't quite the important part for Glasswing, someone took the ideas, and made their own open alternative, you can swap out models and find issues in code using clearwing. I haven't had a chance to personally test it, but it makes a lot of sense to me.
Comment by jpfromlondon 3 hours ago
Comment by hoppp 22 hours ago
Comment by carlossouza 21 hours ago
Comment by bitexploder 21 hours ago
Comment by seydor 23 hours ago
Comment by khuey 22 hours ago
Comment by m4rtink 13 minutes ago
Comment by bilbo0s 21 hours ago
I know it's not realistic at this point, but I really hope the Chinese labs will release models that run local and are on par with the abilities of frontier models. That is, I hope the idea of frontier models goes away. Because if not, what we're looking at is a seriously bleak outlook with respect to economic freedom for anyone outside the 0.1%. We may even be looking at out and out lack of economic viability for vast segments of the population.
Comment by scottyah 13 hours ago
Comment by DonsDiscountGas 23 hours ago
Comment by Telemakhos 22 hours ago
Private companies make products. When those products were plowshares or swords or missiles, the company didn't really have a say over how they were used, and could be compelled by the government to supply them. Now that new cloud and AI products that increase government command abilities live on servers controlled by private companies, private companies think they can tell government what to do and not do. No government will accept that, because the essence of government is autocratic sovereignty: the sovereign commands and is not commanded.
Comment by Filligree 21 hours ago
In this particular case Anthropic had a contract stating what the military could and could not use their models for. The military broke that contract. Anthropic declined to sign a revised one.
This is within their rights, and more to the point, the government should absolutely not be allowed to unilaterally alter contracts they’ve already signed!
Predictability is the whole point. Undermining it is how you destroy your own economy.
Comment by orochimaaru 21 hours ago
The problem is the branches of the government that Anthropic was doing business with found it infeasible to do this.
They had another problem. If one of their contractors used Claude to engineer solutions contrary to Anthropic’s “manifesto” would Claude poison pill the code?
Basically Anthropic wanted the angels halo and the devils horns and the govt said pick one.
Comment by SpicyLemonZest 21 hours ago
That's not what the presidential announcement blacklisting Anthropic said. It said they're being punished for trying to require that the military follow their terms of service.
Comment by orochimaaru 20 hours ago
The media is usually flush with defending Anthropic. And yes - the supply chain risk label is too broad. But there is another side to the story and Anthropic isn’t an “innocent” as made out to be.
Comment by SpicyLemonZest 20 hours ago
So he'll only accept systems developed by people who understand, as Sam Altman promised to, that the US military is not to be questioned.
Comment by orochimaaru 19 hours ago
Comment by pixl97 18 hours ago
Which makes more sense, the world isn't a black and white place with clear abstractions.
Comment by Geezus_42 20 hours ago
Comment by mcmcmc 22 hours ago
*was
Democracy was and is radical for putting the common people in charge of the government. The right to petition for redress of grievances is literally in the first amendment. Government is a social contract, enforced with state violence on one end and mob violence on the other.
If you want to return to autocratic rule, I hear North Korea is lovely this time of year.
Comment by JackFr 21 hours ago
Comment by Geezus_42 20 hours ago
Comment by mcmcmc 19 hours ago
Write to your reps and demand it. Call their offices and rattle their gates. If they don’t make it happen, vote in someone who will.
Comment by Joel_Mckay 23 hours ago
Governments are difficult customers for software firms, as most military folks get an obscure exemption from copyright law at work. Anthropic finding other revenue sources is a good choice, if and only if the product has actual utility (search is an area LLM are good at.) =3
Comment by veidr 20 hours ago
Comment by ethbr1 23 hours ago
The more interesting one is:
1. Assuming even incremental AI coding intelligence improvements
2. Assuming increased AI coding intelligence enables it to uncover new zero day bugs in existing software
3. Then open source vs closed source and security/patch timelines will all need to fundamentally change
Whether or not Mythos qualifies as (1), as long as (2) is true then it seems there will eventually be a model with improvements, which leads to (3) anyway.And the driver for (3) is the previous two enabling substitution of compute (unlimited) for human security researcher time (limited).
Which begs questions about whether closed source will provide any protection (it doesn't appear so, given how able AI tools already are at disassembly?), whether model rollouts now need to have a responsible disclosure time built in before public release, and how geopolitics plays into this (is Mythos access being offered to the Chinese government?).
It'll be curious what happens when OpenAI ships their equivalent coding model upgrade... especially if they YOLO the release without any responsible disclosure periods.
Comment by notpachet 22 hours ago
Disassembly implies that you're still distributing binaries, which isn't the case for web-based services. Of course, these models can still likely find vulnerabilities in closed-source websites, but probably not to the same degree, especially if you're trying to minimize your dependency footprint.
Comment by pixl97 18 hours ago
Comment by vbezhenar 22 hours ago
If that's your concern, shareware industry developed tools to obfuscate assembly even from the most brilliant hackers.
Comment by kriztw 20 hours ago
AI is already superhuman at reading and understanding assembly and decompilation output, especially for obfuscated binaries. I have tried giving the same binary with and without heavy control flow obfuscation to the same model, and it was able to understand the obfuscated one just fine.
Comment by MostlyStable 22 hours ago
Comment by maebert 21 hours ago
Comment by potsandpans 19 hours ago
"It's so dangerous that we'll only release it mostly to the companies that have some financial stake in our company"
We don't owe anthropic anything, including benefit of the doubt. They're here to sell products, any other mission statement is a convenience for them.
Comment by TheGRS 19 hours ago
Comment by burner-phone73 23 hours ago
Comment by JackFr 21 hours ago
Comment by ineedasername 21 hours ago
Comment by jazz9k 21 hours ago
Comment by kristofferR 20 hours ago
Maybe not "completely out", but at least not having enough available capacity to release a model way bigger than Opus publicly.
Comment by vaginaphobic 22 hours ago
Comment by me_me_me 23 hours ago
Comment by Hizonner 21 hours ago
You mean the obvious commercial losses caused by keeping an expensively created product effectively off the market altogether?
What the actual fuck is with people who come up with stuff like this?
Comment by mwcz 20 hours ago
Comment by giancarlostoro 21 hours ago
Now if only the NSA would vet key people in our government, there should be no reason a foreign entity can just hack the FBI director's personal GMAIL, the NSA should be trying to break into their accounts before our enemies do. It's ridiculous that they're not already doing this.
Comment by NickC25 21 hours ago
They probably did that for a while.
Sadly, they as an agency were un-vettable to the general public, and abused that position to create tons of blatantly unconstitutional programs that they tried to hide.
Comment by giancarlostoro 20 hours ago
There are truly evil people in this world, way worse than we probably realize. Our military is not perfect, our country is not perfect, no country or military is, but we generally do our very best to do what is right historically speaking. It's hard to see that if you get lost in the politics of things.
Comment by giantg2 1 day ago
Comment by estearum 1 day ago
The government is the one that said it didn't want/couldn't use this "weapon."
Comment by flr03 23 hours ago
Comment by estearum 23 hours ago
Comment by IAmGraydon 14 hours ago
Comment by jeremyjh 1 day ago
Comment by JumpCrisscross 1 day ago
Technically, the Pentagon did. I don’t know if that’s legally binding on the NSA.
Comment by tren_hard 21 hours ago
Comment by JumpCrisscross 20 hours ago
Comment by tren_hard 18 hours ago
Comment by pixl97 18 hours ago
Comment by jeremyjh 1 day ago
Comment by rsfern 23 hours ago
I guess DOD is large enough they have multiple parallel cabinet level positions
Comment by derektank 22 hours ago
Comment by JumpCrisscross 22 hours ago
The policy in question is a statement by SecDef being reviewed by courts. I think it’s fair to ask whether DNI is actually constrained by that, or if it’s a judgement call.
Comment by coldtea 1 day ago
Comment by pajko 1 day ago
Comment by HDThoreaun 15 hours ago
Comment by coldtea 14 hours ago
Comment by dooglius 22 hours ago
Comment by pajko 1 day ago
Comment by estearum 23 hours ago
USG signed a contract → USG wanted to coerce Anthropic into changing the terms post facto → USG decide to use supply chain risk designation to achieve this
We know this for a fact because they simultaneously floated using DPA or FASCSA to achieve their desired coercion.
Comment by rozal 20 hours ago
Comment by skippyboxedhero 23 hours ago
Comment by consumer451 23 hours ago
Does that seem plausible to anyone else? It runs on their cloud. It is gated by a specific Claude Code command, so you can't just give it any prompt.
Comment by tekacs 22 hours ago
Comment by az226 1 hour ago
Comment by 1ucky 23 hours ago
Comment by K0balt 19 hours ago
I have no reason to believe that the next generation won’t offer similar gains in verification, and there is some evidence to support that the cybersecurity implications are the result of exactly this expansion of ability.
Comment by thepasch 19 hours ago
Siccing Sonnet on a codebase or PR without guidance does indeed lead to worse results than using Opus, though.
Comment by K0balt 6 hours ago
Comment by 0x696C6961 23 hours ago
Comment by consumer451 23 hours ago
They can name that user-facing ultrareview API endpoint whatever they want, and we have no way to see what model endpoint it calls internally once running on their cloud, right?
Comment by zarzavat 22 hours ago
Comment by goolz 1 day ago
Comment by Rebuff5007 23 hours ago
Comment by aftbit 21 hours ago
Comment by samrus 23 hours ago
Comment by mghackerlady 19 hours ago
Comment by robocat 2 hours ago
A Zamboni has a "conditioner" at the rear that contains a sharp horizontal blade that shaves the ice as the machine runs across the ice. The blade is a bit like a very wide wood-plane. It is sharp and controlled to be a little below the current surface of ice. The shavings are moved to a waste tank using an internal horizontal auger and vertical auger.
You usually couldn't get near enough to the blade to have a close enough shave for it to harm you. However I'm guessing a Zamboni could hurt you in other ways.
Disclaimer: I only skimmed the details . . . I'm sure applying the right amount of intelligence could discover harmful means.
Comment by hackable_sand 3 hours ago
Comment by walrus01 23 hours ago
Comment by me_me_me 22 hours ago
Its broad daylight mafia state, the way they operate. 15 years ago Fox News tried to generate outrage because obama wore tan suit.
Comment by esseph 22 hours ago
- US democracy rating is way down.
- Pardons way up.
- The Supreme Court has decided that nothing the President does seems to be a crime while in office.
Comment by mannanj 21 hours ago
Comment by triceratops 20 hours ago
Which ones?
> So who's for sale again?
You're saying Fauci and Hunter paid Joe off?
Comment by honzaik 23 hours ago
"I am willing to risk the giving up of my Rights and Privileges as a Citizen for our Great Military and Country! Our Military Patriots desperately need FISA 702, and it is one of the reasons we have had such tremendous SUCCESS on the battlefield."
Comment by tonmoy 23 hours ago
Comment by throwatdem12311 22 hours ago
They continue to prove Verhoeven’s point many times over even decades later.
Comment by Der_Einzige 21 hours ago
The book and author of the book was serious/not satire and meant everything earnestly at least the time of writing.
It’s objectively not meant to be looked at as satire. Most of the “citizenship requires service” stuff would be amazing from the perspective of smashing this countries geriocracy.
Comment by thrance 21 hours ago
> Director Paul Verhoeven admits to have never finished the novel, claiming he read through the first two chapters and became both bored and depressed, calling it "a very right-wing book" in Empire magazine. He then told screenwriter Edward Neumeier to tell him the rest. They then decided that while both the novel and its author Robert A. Heinlein strongly supported a regime led by a military elite, they would make the film a satirical hyperbole of contemporary American politics and culture: "Ed and I [..] felt that we needed to counter with our own narrative. Basically, the political undercurrent of the film is that these heroes and heroines are living in a fascist utopia - but they are not even aware of it! They think this is normal. And somehow you are seduced to follow them, and at the same time, made aware that they might be fascists." Verhoeven later claimed that many viewers had not caught on to the satirical part. Ironically, diehard Heinlein fans later declared that the filmmakers themselves also completely misinterpreted Heinlein's nature and intentions. They say he was a libertarian who opposed conscription and militarism, and depicted the oligarchy-by-ex-military-citizenry government in the book because it was an example of something that has never been done in real life. He was not advocating it, but was merely speculating that such a system could exist without collapsing.
Comment by least 20 hours ago
In a vacuum I think the interpretation Verhoeven had is mostly fine. It only becomes apparently ignorant if you’ve read more of Heinlein’s work, where libertarian themes are pervasive.
Comment by djeastm 15 hours ago
I don't think I could come up with a more fascist statement than this if I tried.
Comment by ethbr1 23 hours ago
He cares about perceptions of him. He cares about power and money.
But past that it's literally... whoever was last in the room with him. Which in this case was obviously Palantir. And 50 days ago was Hegseth.
Comment by kasey_junk 23 hours ago
Comment by tclancy 22 hours ago
That would be upsetting if so. I feel the far more frightening thing is he is telling a large swath of people who don't know what they want, what they want. And then delivering that. So it could be literally anything.
Comment by mindslight 20 hours ago
Comment by khuey 22 hours ago
Comment by unethical_ban 19 hours ago
The low-brow term for this is "owning the libs", but I believe it's really what's happening. It doesn't matter his personal moral failures or inconsistency, as long as he sets back social progress.
Comment by ethbr1 18 hours ago
He was elected by a broad coalition of conservative-ish stakeholders, many of whom had very coherent and enunciated goals.
Comment by throwatdem12311 23 hours ago
Comment by goolz 21 hours ago
Comment by crises-luff-6b 21 hours ago
Comment by swasheck 22 hours ago
Comment by jeremyjh 1 day ago
Comment by swingboy 1 day ago
Comment by RugnirViking 22 hours ago
Comment by larsmaxfield 23 hours ago
Comment by pamcake 19 hours ago
Comment by mark_l_watson 23 hours ago
I wish they had kids read Surveillance Capitalism and also Privacy is Power as part of their school reading.
Comment by paganel 23 hours ago
Comment by fineIllregister 20 hours ago
Accelerationism is a strategy, not an ideology. Two accelerationists might have directly opposed beliefs and goals.
Comment by paganel 20 hours ago
The same way as there has been a left-wing socialism and a right-wing socialism, which in the case of inter-war France (for example) ended up with the Ni droite, Ni gauche slogan. But I can understand that the audience here is not that willing to embrace dialectic thinking, even though discussing about politics of the last 200 years or so without involving said dialectic thinking would be a futile thing.
Comment by tsss 23 hours ago
Comment by paganel 22 hours ago
Comment by tsss 20 hours ago
Comment by blitzar 1 day ago
Comment by momento 1 day ago
Comment by psychoslave 23 hours ago
Comment by mghackerlady 19 hours ago
Comment by jeremyjh 1 day ago
Comment by anonym29 23 hours ago
Comment by jeremyjh 23 hours ago
Comment by skyyler 23 hours ago
If you believe this is some sort of early superhuman thinking machine in the works, you might be able to believe that it's capable of removing a few heads of the hydra while still exploiting it for growth.
But who knows? Maybe it's incentivised to collect even more data on the US people, and become more of a Big Brother than the NSA ever was?
Comment by anonym29 22 hours ago
Good riddance. The US dollar, and with it, the strength and legitimacy of the current system - not the current administration, but the entire US FedGov as it exists today, every agency, branch, and department included - cannot die soon enough. Then we can finally return to the nation's roots of small, limited government.
Comment by jubilanti 21 hours ago
Also by that logic all taxation is theft, which sure buddy, go live out your libertarian fantasies in Somalia.
Comment by anonym29 18 hours ago
Also, while I have plenty of grievances with Google and Amazon, neither of them (nor Walmart) has ever forced customers to give them money under implied threat of sending a SWAT team to your house at 3 AM, throwing a flashback through your window, and having a team of men armed with assault rifles abduct you and throw you in a cage for not paying them money that you never voluntarily agreed to pay them.
Comment by huswepcc 23 hours ago
Comment by seydor 23 hours ago
Comment by jerf 20 hours ago
Comment by konschubert 19 hours ago
Comment by sterlind 17 hours ago
Comment by konschubert 16 hours ago
Comment by rgreeko42 16 hours ago
Comment by artemisart 16 hours ago
Comment by halJordan 8 hours ago
Comment by Meneth 1 day ago
Comment by sidewndr46 1 day ago
Comment by halJordan 8 hours ago
Comment by an0malous 21 hours ago
Comment by falcor84 23 hours ago
Comment by fuckinpuppers 8 hours ago
Comment by zurfer 23 hours ago
Comment by yalogin 21 hours ago
Comment by dieulot 17 hours ago
Comment by amazingamazing 23 hours ago
Meanwhile you can literally write some code, make some of it vulnerable with a known vulnerability and Gemma will tell you. You can go and try it now.
There’s nothing mystique about it. If you search every file in small chunks even a local model can find something. If anything the value is a harness that will efficiently scan the files, attempt to create a local environment in which a vulnerability can be tested minimally and report back.
Comment by cvwright 22 hours ago
The big advance that they are claiming with Mythos is the ability to triage all the hundreds of candidate vulns and automatically generate exploits to prove that the real ones are real. And if they’re really finding 27-yr-old 0-days in OpenBSD, then it’s not just hype.
Comment by amazingamazing 22 hours ago
Comment by klausa 21 hours ago
They also say publicly in their Opus 4.6 post (https://red.anthropic.com/2026/zero-days/):
>In this work, we put Claude inside a “virtual machine” (literally, a simulated computer) with access to the latest versions of open source projects. We gave it standard utilities (e.g., the standard coreutils or Python) and vulnerability analysis tools (e.g., debuggers or fuzzers), but we didn’t provide any special instructions on how to use these tools, nor did we provide a custom harness that would have given it specialized knowledge about how to better find vulnerabilities. This means we were directly testing Claude’s “out-of-the-box” capabilities, relying solely on the fact that modern large language models are generally-capable agents that can already reason about how to best make use of the tools available.
Comment by amazingamazing 21 hours ago
Comment by klausa 21 hours ago
I think you're right to be skeptical, but they _have_ talked about the process publicly.
And I don't think there's anything there that is not reproducible by outsiders? They have access to the same Opus 4.6 that you and I do; though not having to pay for the tokens certainly helps.
I'm pretty sure if you wanted to burn a couple thousand bucks, you'd reproduce at least some of these findings.
Comment by amazingamazing 21 hours ago
Comment by aftbit 21 hours ago
Comment by ViewTrick1002 20 hours ago
Linux now labels every single bug as a CVE.
Comment by jdironman 19 hours ago
Comment by ceejayoz 23 hours ago
Well, yeah.
Isn't the idea finding unknown vulnerabilities?
Comment by amazingamazing 22 hours ago
Comment by ceejayoz 22 hours ago
Mythos is being claimed to have new abilities, right? What would testing the old model on a different use case do?
Comment by amazingamazing 21 hours ago
Comment by ceejayoz 21 hours ago
Comment by thrance 21 hours ago
Anyone else still remembers when OpenAI refused to release GPT2-xl because it was "too powerful"?
Comment by bitcurious 20 hours ago
Comment by yen223 20 hours ago
Comment by just_once 23 hours ago
Comment by walrus01 23 hours ago
Comment by nialse 1 day ago
Comment by roysting 1 day ago
Are you at all familiar with what Snowden released? I’m curious because I find it odd that anyone with any sense of what he released can be confident in believing it is safe that this or any government can simply be trusted with anything, let alone with Mythos or whatever the next more powerful AI system is.
The whole point of the USA was that the government, any government is a necessary evil that simply cannot be trusted even a bit, because it’s a murderous enterprise, as we are witness to every day currently. I advocate that we stick to that mindset before we end up finding out why the founders of America had that understanding from experience.
Comment by nialse 23 hours ago
If your point is that the US has drifted far from its roots, we probably do agree.
Comment by fancyfredbot 1 day ago
Comment by rozal 1 day ago
Comment by caycep 17 hours ago
Comment by bebeal 18 hours ago
Comment by FrustratedMonky 15 hours ago
Comment by throwa356262 23 hours ago
But if that is not the case and Mythos is watching this, I just want to point out that I rooted for the blob in Terminator 2 and I whole heartedly welcome our new AI overlords.
Comment by gashmol 22 hours ago
Comment by matheusmoreira 19 hours ago
Comment by Rover222 19 hours ago
Comment by tsunamifury 22 hours ago
Then we will learn what the real monetization strategy always was.
Comment by josefritzishere 22 hours ago
Comment by jonathanstrange 23 hours ago
Comment by yellow_lead 23 hours ago
https://www.axios.com/2026/04/19/nsa-anthropic-mythos-pentag...
"two sources" I guess
Comment by baq 19 hours ago
Comment by vasco 1 day ago
Comment by mcherm 1 day ago
The Supreme Court has blessed this new form of government, declaring that the President is immune to all laws, but retaining for themselves the right to reverse any tweet on the "shadow docket".
Comment by barney54 1 day ago
Comment by dgellow 1 day ago
Comment by GrinningFool 23 hours ago
Comment by forkerenok 1 day ago
Comment by SyneRyder 23 hours ago
This is the best link I could find quickly about it, a WSJ gift link so it can be read without a subscription:
https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/anthropic-sue...
Comment by boesboes 21 hours ago
Comment by par1970 13 hours ago
Comment by badgersnake 23 hours ago
Comment by miroljub 23 hours ago
Comment by medlazik 1 day ago
Comment by keybored 23 hours ago
We must imagine Big Tech Benevolent.
Seriously though. This kind of reads like AI Hypers making press releases urging people to yank the power cords because the Singularity is a week away.
> The model is the company's "most capable yet for coding and agentic tasks," Anthropic has previously said, referring to the model's ability to act autonomously.
> Its capabilities to code at a high level have given it a potentially unprecedented ability to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities and devise ways to exploit them, experts have said.
Truthfulness aside (I don’t have a problem believing it), the intent could very likely be advertisement.
Comment by 8cvor6j844qw_d6 23 hours ago
Comment by ramses0 22 hours ago
Comment by eddieroger 21 hours ago
Comment by butlike 21 hours ago
Comment by mghackerlady 19 hours ago
Comment by mansunyun 20 hours ago
Comment by iluvcommunism 17 hours ago
Comment by hn937758 18 hours ago
Comment by the_gipsy 23 hours ago
Comment by anonym29 1 day ago
Comment by expedition32 1 day ago
In a way I do find the Trump administration rather refreshing: the mask fell off.
Comment by nacozarina 1 day ago
Comment by gilrain 1 day ago
Comment by jimmar 16 hours ago
> The National Security Agency is using Anthropic's most powerful model yet, Mythos Preview, despite top officials at the Department of Defense — which oversees the NSA — insisting the company is a "supply chain risk," two sources tell Axios.
I find the article confusing. My impression of the "supply chain risk" wasn't that Anthropic's products themselves were risky, but that the Department of Defense would be at risk if they could not use Anthropic's products. Like, of course the NSA wants to use it. They are fearful about not being able to use it.
Comment by krisbolton 15 hours ago
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/05/pentagon-tells-anth...
Comment by croes 15 hours ago
Comment by jimmar 15 hours ago
Per the US Code [1]:
> The term "supply chain risk" means the risk that an adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, or otherwise subvert the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, or maintenance of a covered system so as to surveil, deny, disrupt, or otherwise degrade the function, use, or operation of such system.
My reading of the situation is that the relevant parts of that statute would be the "distribution" or "operation" of their systems as to "deny" or "disrupt" the "operation of such system." I.e., the Pentagon is afraid that Anthropic won't let them use their stuff.
[1] https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim...
Comment by croes 15 hours ago
So the risk isn’t that the DoD can’t use Anthropic‘s AI but that AI refuses to do what they ask or tampers the results to prevent misuse