Jack Clark, co-founder of Anthropic said the following at an Oxford lecture last week ([0], at around 10 and 12 mins):

    "It's a technology that we do not fully understand because it's more grown than made. And it is a technology that you can concoct plausible scenarios where it could kill every single person on the planet. So to think building this technology is without risk would be an act of hubris or insanity.

    The technology is in fact so powerful that I should clearly state that if it was possible to elegantly slow the development of this technology to give ourselves more time as a species to deal with it, that would likely be a good thing. ... But in the absence of a coordinated global slowdown, we are left with the current situation, which is a powerful technology being developed at breakneck speed by a variety of actors and a variety of countries locked in a competition with one another where commercial and geopolitical rivalries are often drowning out the larger existential-to-the-species aspects of the technology being built. This isn't an ideal situation, but it's the one we find ourselves in."

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zIcP5WlShw

I find this line of reasoning highly dubious.

Yes, Anthropic is compute constrained, even after the SpaceX Colossus deal.

But supply constraints are the normal operating mode of any market. Anthropic could choose to serve whatever models it pleases at whatever price points it chooses and let the market decide where the value is.

If Mythos at $X overwhelms their capacity, they could just charge $X+1. If still overwhelmed, there are larger prices as well.

It is not "clear", as your comment suggests, it's hidden. Which is semantically the opposite of clear. Regarding your theory, might be true, might be false. But it's highly speculative.

I had to patch my Linux boxes daily at some point in the past couple months. I don’t want Mythos to be publicly released for as long as it is economically feasible for Anthropic. I hope they have a gentleman’s agreement with OpenAI and DeepMind about this, too.

Chinese labs will force their hands, until then let’s hope maximum number of projects get patched at a reasonable pace.

They started Glasswing before they struck that $1.25B/month deal with xAI/SpaceX for their (notoriously dirty) Memphis data centers.

So they have a whole lot more compute now than they did last month.

While I tend to be cynical with big tech, if this statement is indeed true we owe them some thanks for staving off a zero day tsunami.

> 50 initial partners ... found more than 10,000 high- or critical-severity security flaws.

So why is OpenAI also releasing 5.5-Cyber in a private manner? Are they also out of compute?

Why do you think that? All these rumors about compute constraint just seem like speculation and not based on any data or information. All they would need to do is increase their prices to free up compute capacity.

The security concerns argument would have worked better if a forum full of people hadn't promptly obtained access by the extremely sophisticated tactic of guessing its URL...

I bet Huawei and co would be happy to sell them some cheapo chips for inference!

Or they actually take the 'technology can kill' serious.

Probably. This is an 8-12 trillion-parameter model, which is why it costs so much, that is also a major reason, besides RL and synthetic data, why it suddenly gained these new capabilities. They claim it was not fine-tuned or trained specifically for cybersecurity, but is instead a general purpose model.

it's also a marketing ploy.

Also, they just want to jack up the price by creating sensation.

[dead]