Yeah... let's not.

I'm old enough to have zero fondness for old computer shit. Vintage is for those who haven't had to suffer it to do actual work.

He's 65 years old and worth almost $6B. But no, he must keep his nose to the grindstone or he'll be a rat abandoning a sinking ship. Couldn't just be sailing off into the sunset in a megayacht, why would somebody want to do that?

Sometimes the 1000 lb gorilla has the worst odds of leading the next generation because they're still making good money on the old model during the years when they would have to be building a lead in the new model, but doing that would destroy the old (highly profitable, for them) model even faster.

I think the idea is to keep shitting out 4.X releases until openai releases GPT-6, at which point anthropic will release whatever version of "mythos" they have mostly working that day as Opus 5.0 on the same day, or the next. They'll probably claim it's so operful they're skipping 5 and just calling it Opus 6 for marketing reasons

I was doing the same things you are doing to point out how stupid you sound, so I do agree that you are stupid, as you rightly point out. Herp Derp. Off you go now ...

Why didn't you repeat it to Aristotle dipshit

You clearly don't even know the difference between marketing and engineering. Off you go now ...

Online I keep hearing I'm supposed to be jealous of the EU with their great "UN Quality of Life Index" scores and whatnot, but it sure is getting heavy-handed over there.

All humans are trained to reason. So by your argument brains don't reason, which is an argument for which I openly admit you do seem to be an example.

Seriously ... you have to be the biggest idiot on Slashdot. "LLMs can't work, even though they do, and I'm going to keep claiming they can't, and I'm never going to admit it!" Herp Derp.

It helps to have some idea what you are talking about before you write a post. Of course, that has really never been your thing.

Mythos Preview has been found to be extremely capable at reverse engineering: taking a closed-source, stripped binary and reconstructing plausible source code for what it does. From there, it's provided both the reconstructed source code and the original binary, with instructions to find vulnerabilities in the closed-source project, validating against the original binary where appropriate.

I'm not "just assuming" it can. It is a known fact that it can and does.

If you get convicted, you mean. Since criminals tend to have guns, you just incentivized them to kill more potential witnesses. Great job!

Unless they don't plan on making the executable available, this won't help. Do they really think that AI can't understand machine code and find vulns that way?