[fcpk]

The fact there is no mention of what were the bugs is a little odd. It'd really be nice to see if this is a "weird never happening edge case" or actual issues. LLMs have uncanny abilities to identify failure patterns that it has seen before, but they are not necessarily meaningful.

[iosifache]

You can find them linked [1] in the OG article from Anthropic [2].

[1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2026-1...

[2] https://www.anthropic.com/news/mozilla-firefox-security

[larodi]

The fact that some of the Claude-discovered bugs were quite severe is also a little more than something to brush off as "yeah, LLM, whatever". The lists reads quite meaningful to me, but I'm not a security expert anyways.

[jandem]

Here's a write-up for one of the bugs they found: https://red.anthropic.com/2026/exploit/

[deafpolygon]

I’m guessing it might be some of these: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2026-1...

[muizelaar]

Yeah, the ones reported by Evyatar Ben Asher et al.

[robin_reala]

I correctly misread that as “et AI”.

[moffkalast]

we can put that one next to the Weird AI Yankovic music generator.

[deafpolygon]

“et AI, Brutus!"

[tclancy]

Yon Claude has a lean and hungry look.

[deafpolygon]

An LLM by any other name would hallucinate the same

[nervysnail]

He computes too much.

[pjmlp]

Indeed, without it looks like a fluffy marketing piece.

[tptacek]

And now that you know that it isn't, do you feel differently about the logic you used to write this comment?

[john_strinlai]

i am curious, what are you hoping to get out of this comment? will you feel better if they say yes? what is your plan if they say no?

[tptacek]

I genuinely want to understand how they arrived at the claim that this was a fluffy marketing piece. Like, if you said on a different thread, "the Linux kernel is probably mostly written in Pascal", I would really want to understand how it was you got to that idea.

[JumpCrisscross]

> what are you hoping to get out of this comment?

Rando here. It gives a signal on the account’s other comments, as well as the value of the original comment (as a hypothesis, albeit a wrong one, versus blind raging).

[john_strinlai]

>"It gives a signal on the account's other comments,"

fair enough. i typically use karma as a rough proxy for that, especially when the user has a lot of it (like, in this case, where the poster is #17 on the leaderboard with 100,000+ karma). you dont get that much karma if you are consistently posting bad takes.

>as well as the value of the original comment (as a hypothesis, albeit a wrong one, versus blind raging).

i dont see, in this case anyways, how or why that distinction would matter or change anything (in this case specifically, what would you change or do differently if it was a hypothesis or simple "raging"?), but im probably just thinking about it incorrectly.

[tptacek]

I think a lot of people are overreading this and really all that's happened here is that I was out at a show last night and was really foggy when I woke up and asked a question clumsily. It happens!

[TheBicPen]

> you dont get that much karma if you are consistently posting bad takes.

I wonder how true that is. While this site doesn't have incentivize engagement-maximizing behaviour (posting ragebait) like some other sites do, I would imagine that simply posting more is the best way to accrue karma long-term.

[pjmlp]

Do I?

[tptacek]

I don't know. I'm really asking. I have you bucketed in my head in the cohort of "HN commenters who write lots of assembly", so the mismatch between your prediction and the outcome is just really interesting to me.