Top
Best
New

Posted by ricksunny 3 days ago

NSA director: 'Mythos "broke into almost all of our classified systems in hours"(www.economist.com)
https://archive.ph/dXddV
113 points | 119 commentspage 2
infinite_spin 2 days ago|
It's important to point out that it's not necessarily the underlying model, but also the harness, which is the real wagon in this race
ggm 3 days ago||
https://archive.is/aA1dB
pelario 3 days ago|
The link does not seem to be working
johndough 3 days ago||
Works for me though, even when using a proxy that is usually blocked everywhere.
georgehotz 2 days ago||
lol so how long have the Chinese had access for? this doesn't make Mythos look good, it makes the NSA look bad
Jamesbeam 3 days ago||
Have to give it to Cyber Command. This is cheap and effective propAIganda.

Of course, America is now the only nation on the planet with advanced weaponised AI models that are so good they beat billions of dollars and decades of IT security experience with some of the brightest minds in their fields within hours.

If this were true, you’d see the president yapping and bragging about it on Truth before the NSA director even gets a chance to publicly talk about it. Probably doing a live stream about how he personally prompts his way into an unconditional Iranian surrender. You know it, I know it.

Nice try, William, but unless I see the Senate Intelligence Committee freaking out with you sweating black goo like Giuliani, I ain’t believing it.

This is the same kind of bullshit that was showing a gun on TV that could apparently give people heart attacks with some frozen, untraceable darts.

If the US really was in possession of a technology that could hack into the most secure environments on the planet autonomously within hours, you would see all their partners pulling their access from shared IT systems and blocking all traffic coming from the US immediately.

Especially considering they have been caught spying on allies before:

https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/cover-story-how...

You know what they say in intelligence circles.

Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, it's open windows season.

None of the partners or adversaries seem to give a fuck about Mythos, so there is a good chance this is just another lying NSA director as usual.

Come on, people. You don’t run the NSA if you’re an honest man. It’s a spy agency.

throwwwll 2 days ago|
>brightest minds

more like dimmest tbh

MaxPock 3 days ago||
What happens when open source models achieve Mythos level capabilities in six months' time?
ionwake 3 days ago||
I dont seem to understand why no one is talking about this obvious fact? I mean suddenyl everyone is banning .. ok .. well how many months behind are the open source models?
hdgvhicv 2 days ago||
If you assume that open models catch up in 6-12-36 months, then you either assume exponential growth destroying the global economy and probably the world in a few years, or you assume it plateaus and commoditises.

Even if your country prevents access to compute to protect the trillion dollar companies, it’s not going to apply for every country, and as models get better it becomes easier to compete. There’s no way an AI non proliferation treaty will be passed or even enforceable.

impossiblefork 2 days ago|||
I think it's probably more like a year or a year and a half. I don't want to say two years, but it's what I'm actually thinking.
mariebks 2 days ago||
GLM 5.2 is already between 4.6 Opus 4.7 Opus level based on Artificial Analysis aggregation. 4.6 Opus is about 4 months old at this point, so seems like open source is maybe 4-6 months behind. It could still take a year but seems closer to 6 months.
Der_Einzige 2 days ago||
Artificial Analysis is just as benchmark-maxxed as they come. Aggregating tons of benchmark-maxxing means you're still benchmark-maxxed.

There's simply no replacement for training on more, better tokens, with more parameters. Mythos/Fable was estimated to be closer to 10T parameters than the 800B like GLM 5.2 is.

handoflixue 2 days ago|||
We'll see Mythos 2.0 patching all the Mythos 1.0 vulnerabilities before we see an open-source Mythos 1.0.

What matters isn't the power of the tool, but whether defenders have had time to secure against. Today's cyberweapon is tomorrow's laughably obsolete.

Stuxnet used to be a national security threat, now I'm not sure it would be useful for anything.

anakaine 2 days ago||
They were not saying f Open Spurce Mythos 1.0. They were talking about performance / capability parity in other open source models.
handoflixue 2 days ago||
Yeah, and by the time that happens, we will have seen Mythos 2.0 released
latentsea 2 days ago||
Open source models get banned.
DaSHacka 2 days ago||
in America, maybe, but all of our adversaries will still have access to them, and continue working on them.
BobbyTables2 1 day ago||
And to think we’d used to mock the National Enquirer and other tabloids for ridiculous headlines.

I think we owe tabloids a small apology…

ForHackernews 2 days ago||
What are the chances this is a fun honeypot the NSA has set up to get adversaries pointing their best LLMs at NSA systems and suss out their capabilities?
red-iron-pine 2 days ago|
anyone that clever at the NSA, CIA, or CISA has already been fired by the Trump administration
michelb 2 days ago||
Is this a fabrication to justify the blocking after the fact?
instagib 3 days ago||
https://archive.ph/dXddV

“Donald Trump’s blocking of Anthropic is capricious and chaotic” - current title

I don’t understand the posted title quote and assume it’s missing a lot of context or was misinterpreted as it’s a secondary attribution. “Mythos broke into almost all of our classified systems in hours”.

When you put it on those networks already and gave it compute?

ricksunny 3 days ago|
(see other comment about HN titles). I think expecting an HN post title to match the article title is an overzealous interpretation of the fieldname ‘title’ in the HN submission form. Happy to be corrected if it’s right in the HN forum rules, but I’ve found highly upvoted posts to have an accurately descriptive title that is other than the source article’s title.

In other words, ontologically speaking, post.title -= article.title

I used to treat it as post.title = article.title, but the community taught me by example to cease being a purist.

Anyway article’s flagged so this is just pedantic at this point.

Ekaros 2 days ago|
I also question do they even need AI? If "almost all" refers to many systems in general. How many of those are human exploitable? Or known vulnerable... Depending on number and importance even say 10% would be very bad...
More comments...