Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | IndeanCondor's commentslogin

This statement needs qualifiers.

Are you claiming you have a raw binary to Fable and it just reverse engineered it by reading it? Or are you claiming (like for every other model released in the past 1.5 years) it's using an integration with Ghidra or BinaryNinja to assist - in which case I completely disagree even a 30B model can do that with those tools.

Also an FYI, AI advancement and Anthropic are not synonymous. Someone asking Anthropic to back up their claims is not coping about AI, especially as independent benchmarking of Fable is giving equivalent or slightly above par results to GPT 5.5.

The system card does not use any of the benchmarks used in the previous Opus 4.5+ system cards. All the scores are in Anthropic owned benchmarks. I find it extremely hard to believe the marketing department of the company was not involved in a material release to the public - which is the marketing departments literal job.


Yes with assist tools Fable was able to figure things out Opus 4.8 and ChatGPT 5.5 were unable to. Like significantly better.

Based on all I know about Deemed Exports wrt software and current US controls on software Deemed Exports, your read is spot on.

The phrasing of the foreign nationals implies a Deemed Export control, which is already in place for software for stuff like drones or space satcomms.

If it's a Deemed Export control, it's a strategic position and not a knee jerk reaction about cybersecurity threats.

It's a coherent read too; if Fable can solve coding and build biological weapons (X to doubt) - well then terminal guidance and autonomous drone controls should be a piece of cake for it and that software is already under Deemed Export restrictions.


It’s not because of course it’s all vibed (what’s the criteria?) and we know it doesn’t work

https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-54695598

As it stands there is no way to comply days before IPO and no effective remedy.


It was a coalition of monarchies, so terrified of the prospect of even a single popular republic rejecting the divine right to rule, that began the bloodshed and invaded France.

Blaming the Revolution for the Coalition wars is just bad history.

In case you didn't notice, the Revolution won. All contemporary republics fundamentally inherit from the French Revolution - you're surprised that the systems of govt honour and romanticize it's progenitors?

Aside, if bloodshed prevention is your only barometer for history, supporting the Coalition view of events is even sillier, because the Bourbon Restoration directly led to the Revolutions of 1830 and 1848, which was yet more bloodshed. Almost as if unjust systems are fundamentally untenable...


> In case you didn't notice, the Revolution won. All contemporary republics fundamentally inherit from the French Revolution

“Fundamentally inherent from” is such a broad statement that it’s difficult to argue with, but the US constitution predates the French Revolution.

> so terrified of the prospect of even a single popular republic rejecting the divine right to rule

If the monarchies of Europe were so terrified of a single country rejecting the divine right to rule, why did many of them assist the United States, hinder Britain, or remain neutral in the revolutionary war?


He said inherit, not inherent

It was a typo.

The Robespierre regime chopped off ~40,000 heads during the 10 months "Reign of Terror" 1793-1794.

That is a bit of revisionist history: conspiracy theories gripped the revolution, and a lot of them thought Marie-Antoinette was already organising an Austrian invasion of France (since she is Austrian), so rather than wait for the supposed inevitable to happen, France attacked first. And that's what made the coalitions form. Not that they liked the idea of a Republican France, but before France attacked, they were unlikely to do anything about it.

And yet here you are, strongly reacting to a philosophical argument made by him.

He's mortal, he's dead, and yet he's affected you here, a throwaway comment on a forum post no one will think about in a week's time.


I didn't think about it that way, thanks!

He also believed in the immortal soul that survives after death, so he may have had a more literal meaning.

A more critical examination of the whole quote makes it clear he was not being that simple.

The same UK security research body ran the same CTF against GPT5.5. GPT5.5 got the same result as Mythos.

Anthropic promised us that Mythos was such an existential threat that it would compromise "every OS and browser on devices across the planet". They've held conferences and meetings with banks and govts across the world, shouting how critical this issue is.

GPT5.5 has been out for a month. Every device on earth has not been breached yet. It's very fair to criticize Anthropic's maximalist posturing when it's becoming exceedingly clear their models are fairly behind OpenAI's in capability.

In my opinion, the original commenter's statement stands, and the UK govt data point only helps support that due to the equal result between Mythos and GPT.

I'd advise reading into the specifics of what happened with Firefox; the TL;DR is a reduced safety version of its code was scanned by Opus 4.6 (yes Opus) and found a multitude of bugs and 4 high severity vulns that did not escape sandbox. The Mythos system card test describes running Mythos against the same issues Opus found to see if it could reliably replicate and chain together an attack.


Autonomous loitering munitions with 'AI' (image classification CNNs) are already in service and have been used - most demonstrably by the IDF.

Even during the Nagorno-Karabakh war, Azeri loitering munitions were able to suppress Armenian air defenses by hitting them when they rolled out of of concealment. I believe that killchain requires a level of autonomous functionality.


Azerbaijan was buying a lot of weapons from Israel prior to Nagorno Karabach war, so it is very likely that you have been talking about same weapon system in both cases.

However Russians and Ukrainians are using AI recognition in recon drones, but not yet in FPV. There is strong suspicion that long range one way attack drones are using AI during terminal guidance, but I did not see it confirmed by either side.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: