Hacker News Reader

Comment by rvz | Hacker News Reader

> Open models are promising and cost a fraction of what they proprietary models cost which the big two are vulnerable to when companies start to feel the cost of tokens.

Anthropic are scared of open weight models and need to fear-monger towards you to continue paying for their models.

That's the whole point of their 'safety' marketing narrative, account bans, and Dario being the AI scarecrow scaremongering everyone about nonsense like 'Mythos' towards the world.

'Mythos' is already here in the form of open-weight models that also found the same vulnerabilities as Anthropic did.

View on HN

Genuine question here about the open-weight models finding the same vulnerabilities as mythos thing: is it just a matter of false negatives/positives? I’ve seen a few cases where people show other models (even opus) can find the same vulnerabilities given many passes. Is there some disadvantage to the extra passes that give the claimed Mythos performance extra value (assuming it finds them in less)?

The thing is, mythos found those with multiple passes, thousands of passes... So using thousands of passes or perhaps the same budgets, yes, cheaper open weight models could potentially (and have) found the same/similar vulnerabilities.

Mythos screams of marketing hype, and nothing more. Opus 4.7 isn't really a meaningful upgrade in any sense, other than being more expensive.

Once you can see what something like Qwen3.6-35B-A3B can do... with just a FRACTION of the size of the larger models, You'll understand that the future is open weight models you can run yourself.

Same goes for companies, bringing inference onsite isn't hard, I'm actively building tooling to orchestrate it.

What is the failure state for a pass that doesn't find a real vulnerability? Do the models report no issues or hallucinate issues that aren't real? I'm trying to run open weight local models and finding them really impressive... Just also trying to understand the cybersecurity side of all this.

You have to keep in mind that it's not like anthropic just asked mythos to "find fancy bug, make no mistakes" and got the result.

my quick read of the process they describe is that first they asked agents to rank files in order of potential to have interesting bugs, then they launch agents for each file in order of "interesting bug potential" and finally launch another agent for verification. (maybe i am mistaken, this is my read of this post https://red.anthropic.com/2026/mythos-preview/ )

it's not clear to me if they made just one pass over each file or made several passes for same file, but regardless, I think if you recreate roughly same process and burn 20000$ on tokens with other reasonably good model, you will find some fancy bugs too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com