I think the cyber concern is legitimate but the framing is still very capabilities-centric. The more interesting thing about the Mythos situation is that Anthropic's mitigation strategy is entirely structural, they'll give defenders early access so they get a head start. Instead of them orchestrating an alignment intervention or capabilities restriction, they're sequencing Mythos's deployment. Who gets access, when, under what conditions. The model itself is dual-use by nature; the same capability that finds vulnerabilities for defenders finds them for att...
I personally find it quite ironic that a company whose model represents "unprecedented cybersecurity risks" exposed the model's existence via a basic CMS misconfiguration, lol.
In any case, I imagine the per-token cost to be way higher than Opus 4.6, I wonder how usage windows will change after it gets deployed to the public
The DeepSeek paranoia finding is the most interesting result here to me. The game design primes agents to expect saboteurs, so some level of suspicion is baked in, but that doesn't explain the specific dynamic that emerged. DeepSeek manufacturing evidence against a particular innocent agent, the unanimous vote, and GPT-5's apologetic compliance. The prompt explains why DeepSeek was looking for a saboteur. It doesn't explain who it picked, how it justified the accusation, or why every other agent went along.
That gap, between what the structural conditions p...
I think this is pointing at a real gap in AI character design. Once systems are more autonomous and embedded in institutions, “good assistant” doesn’t obviously seem like the right target anymore.
My main hesitation is about the implementation story. A lot of this post seems to rely on the idea that we can train something like context-dependent civic virtues: prosocial tendencies that activate selectively, stay subordinate to higher-priority constraints, and reduce collusion/takeover risk precisely because they’re not just global goals.
I’m not sure current ... (read more)