"my model is the most dangerous"
"No mine is the most dangerous"
"Nuh uh mine is"
"Mine could kill everyone!"
"Mine could do it faster!"
"Prove it!!!"
This is where we are
"my model is the most dangerous"
"No mine is the most dangerous"
"Nuh uh mine is"
"Mine could kill everyone!"
"Mine could do it faster!"
"Prove it!!!"
This is where we are
Yeah I guess two companies who would otherwise be considered going for bankruptcy have models too expensive to run. As they don't see themselves making money any time soon, they have to turn every future model into a weird fascination.
China’s DeepSeek prices new V4 AI model at 97% below OpenAI’s GPT-5.5
Did somebody say that Elon is stealthly funding: Seven lawsuits filed against OpenAI by families of Canada mass-shooting victims
As always, when the going get's tough, the tough ultimately resort to lawsuits.
If the difference is that large, it seems plausible to me that the Chinese models are subsidized in order to gain market share, this is not exactly the first time the Chinese government has done so (or at least been rumoured to have done so).
You should assume that everyone has a hidden agenda when money is involved.
> it seems plausible to me that the Chinese models are subsidized in order to gain market share
In this case, this point is kinda moot since the entire US and SV VC tech ecosystem, has been subsidized first by the US defense industry then by the US government by its unique cheat-code ability to infinitely print the world reserve currency with little to no inflation consequences upon its own economy, and dump it on its tech sector or buy foreign competitors, to be ahead of everyone else.
Given this, China's state subsidize pale in comparison, when we talk about what is fair.
think about it in the form of who can pay. theyre at b2b. and swiftly moving to government.
All that user data is a huge asset for government contracts.
[dead]
I am convinced the models are not as good as they say, but everyone benefits from the continued AI hype, so nobody says so.
Remember that they have been saying that since gpt2.
I didn't think crying could be such a successful business model.
It's just "thinking past the sale" which they've been doing forever.
i.e. "I'm so worried that our capped for-profit structure will limit your returns when we make over 1 Trillion in profit".
Marketing stunts. The equivalent of holding a line outside a popular bar.
Given the USG has asked Anthropic not to release Mythos I'd wager it's more than a marketing stunt.
It can be both and I don't know how much I would trust the USG as the canary in the coal mine given their technical readiness typically seems low across most institutions in that they are probably more exposed because they haven't shored up their systems.
Can't wait for the Chinese models to completely wipe the floor with them in 6 months.
I doubt it. By not releasing it, Chinese companies will be unable to break TOS and use it to acquire high quality training data...which, I suspect, is how they've kept pace
Ominous phrasing.
[dead]
Yup, we are somewhere between "my model can beat up your model" and "you wouldn't know my model, it lives in Canada".
This is the world we live in.
It's like that phone call in The Big Short where Goldman suddenly change their mind once they hold a position.
These models demonstrably have good vulnerability research capabilities.
I'm sure their marketing department is ecstatic but you guys are far more hype-based than what you're calling out.
Good but not necessarily better that was is already pay-as-you-go available today. ref. https://www.flyingpenguin.com/the-boy-that-cried-mythos-veri...
This AISLE benchmark is interesting in this matter: https://aisle.com/blog/ai-cybersecurity-after-mythos-the-jag...
And the recently discovered Copy Fail by Xint code is another proof that the gating is overblown: https://xint.io/blog/copy-fail-linux-distributions
> demonstrably
I'm not entirely up to date on each week's LLM hype train/scandal but last I heard there was no public access to it or public-trusted 3rd parties that can review model's capabilities
You are up to date. Mythos had unauthorized access because of poor security but that's it as far as I know. Not exactly a good sign for something being advertised as a weapon...
You'd think if Mythos was so good at finding security issues they could point it at their own setup for it and have found those issues easily...
It’s easy to end up with no public-trusted third parties if we arbitrarily distrust third parties who say the capabilities match what’s promised. Mozilla for example says it found hundreds of Firefox vulnerabilities, and I think it’s pretty unlikely they’re lying to cover Anthropic’s back.
I think the question around the Firefox find, is not that they found hundreds of vulnerabilities - they found hundreds of bugs.
What would be really interesting is a side by side Claude Opus 4.7 and Mythos comparison.
Would AGI start by hacking competing labs to hamper their progress?
No, because AGI is a fantasy.
You'll have to define what you mean by AGI
AGI: Automatically Generating Income
This is a surprisingly concrete and defensible definition of AGI.
Is it defensible? It sounds like a thin disguise over "income for me but not for thee"?
[dead]