[IX-103]

I work for a company that has been using Mythos for vulnerability detection in our software. The results we're getting are revolutionary to the point that our software security teams are heavily overloaded addressing the deluge of thousands of real bugs/vulnerabilities and design flaws across our billions of lines of code.

For comparison, we are invested heavily the the AI space to the point where Anthropic is one of our competitors. We were already using state of the art models to find flaws in our code, but Mythos was just so much better at finding real vulnerabilities it's not even funny.

[thrawa8387336]

Read the above comment again. Both your comments and his/hers are compatible

[anon84873628]

They are directly contradicting the claim that if you ran other models on the same codebases you would get similar results.

[zelda420]

Yeah I’m a security researcher and my colleagues who have access say it’s insanely good… but interestingly they also work for places like nvidia which have a deep vested interest selling tokens and hardware. So of course they are pushing this narrative.

[The_Blade]

if you are invested heavily in the AI space, isn't it in your best interest for the froth around Mythos to be true and the comment you are responding to to be invalid? even if you are competing with Anthropic, a rising tide raises all ships

i'd like to see more facts and data one way or another!

[anon84873628]

This is the "circumstantial" version of the ad hominem fallacy. Just because the author may benefit from the argument being true doesn't mean it is invalid.

They are clearly disputing the assertion the Mythos is an incremental gain rather than quantum leap. Of course objective unbiased data would be nice, but these anecdotes are all we have right now.

[bob1029]

> billions of lines of code.

Billions as in 10^9?

[foundart]

https://research.google/pubs/why-google-stores-billions-of-l...