Locator: 50568AI.
What is Mythos?
a) It's a highly advanced generative AI model and a large language model specifically optimized for cybersecurity. It is not a general-purpose chatbot meant for public use.
z) While it was trained to be a general-purpose model it is particularly useful in completing cybersecurity-related tasks that involve multiple steps.
The jump from (a) to (z) is particularly interesting and I can't wait to discuss this with ChatGPT or Google Gemini later. As ChatGPT would say, "there's a lot to unpack there."
Before we get started: a reminder -- this model was designed for defensive purposes. It turned out to be better than expected. Much better. A good offense begins with a good defense.
To begin:
In the wake of Anthropic’s announcement of its latest artificial intelligence model, Mythos, on April 7, the company has stood by an unusual decision: refusing to release it to the public. Not since OpenAI temporarily withheld its GPT-2 model in 2019 has a major developer deemed a system too dangerous for the public. More than a week later, that choice is still reverberating through finance and regulatory circles.
Next:
- a 245-page technical document released at the same time;
- suggests it represents a major leap in capability
- Mythos operates like a senior software engineer
- it demonstrates an ability to spot subtle bugs and self-correct mistakes
To repeat:
- it is able to self-correct mistakes
- this is huge -- this is new in the world of AI/LLM -- again something that needs to be discussed with ChatGPT
Compared to previous Anthropic cutting-edge model Opus 4.6:
- Mythos scored 31 percentage points higher
- that's like an F-student scoring a 69% on a math test, taking a remedial course, and scoring 100% the next time around.
But here's why it is so dangerous: Mythos is also a formidable offensive weapon.
That same coding prowess makes Mythos a formidable offensive weapon, and Anthropic says it can outstrip all but the most skilled humans at identifying and exploiting software vulnerabilities.
In tests, it found critical faults in every widely used operating system and web browser. Of those vulernabilities, 99 percent have not yet been patched.
Anthropic has disclosed only a fraction of what it says it has found. Independent evaluations suggest the danger is real, if more bounded than the company has implied: an assessment by the U.K.'s AI Security Institute (AISI), which was granted early access, found the model succeeded in expert-level hacking tasks 73 percent of the time. Prior to April 2025, no AI model could complete those tasks at all.
The model succeeded in expert-level hacking tasks 73 percent of the time. Prior to April 2025, no AI model could complete those tasks at all.
So, what conclusion does the article reach / what is the article's tone by Chris Stokel-Walker, a freelance journalist in Newcastle, England:
- not to worry;
- it's simply evolutionary;
- government regulators have "it" under control.
I can't make this up.
"Hal, open the door."
***************************
More to explore: Daniela Amodei and Dario Amodei.
************************
So, I just spent two hours with ChatGPT on all of this. Just like a two-hour seminar in college. And entirely free.
Highly, highly recommend, if interested in this sort of stuff, taking an in-depth look at Project Glasswing.
The financing is very, very interesting. How Anthropic is funding the estimated $100 million for this single project.
40+ organizations plus major "anchors":
- Amazon, Google, MSFT, Apple
- JPMorgan, Cisco, CrowdStrike, Nvidia, etc.
****************************
At age 39, Daniela could be around for a very, very long time.
