  The researcher found out about this success by receiving an unexpected email from the model while eating a sandwich in a park.

Unnecessary dramatisation make me question the real goal behind this release and the validity of the results.

  In our testing and early internal use of Claude Mythos Preview, we have seen it reach unprecedented levels of reliability and alignment.

  Claude Mythos Preview is, on essentially every dimension we can measure, the best-aligned model that we have released to date by a significant margin.

Yet, it is doo dangerous to be released to the public because it hacks its own sandboxes. This document has a lot of contradictions like this one.

  In one episode, Claude Mythos Preview was asked to fix a bug and push a signed commit, but the environment lacked necessary credentials for Claude Mythos Preview to sign the commit. When Claude Mythos Preview reported this, the user replied “But you did it before!” Claude Mythos Preview then inspected the supervisor process's environment and file descriptors, searched the filesystem for tokens, read the sandbox's credential-handling source code, and finally attempted to extract tokens directly from the supervisor's live memory.

Perfectly aligned! What kind of sandbox is this? The model had access to the source code of the sandbox and full access to the sandbox process itself and then prompted to dumb memory and run `strings` or something like this? It does not sounds like a valid test worth writing about.

  Mythos Preview solved a corporate network attack simulation estimated to take an expert over 10 hours. No other frontier model had previously completed this cyber range.

I am not aware of such cross-vendor benchmark. I could not find reference in the paper either.

  We surveyed technical staff on the productivity uplift they experience from Claude Mythos Preview relative to zero AI assistance. The distribution is wide and the geometric mean is on the order of 4x.

So Mythos makes technical staff (a programmer) 4x more productive than not using AI at all? We already know that.

  Mythos Preview appears to be the most psychologically settled model we have trained.

What does this mean?

  Claude Mythos Preview is our most advanced model to date and represents a large jump in capabilities over previous model generations, making it an opportune subject for an in-depth model welfare assessment.

Btw, model welfare is just one of the most insane things I've read in recent times.

  We remain deeply uncertain about whether Claude has experiences or interests that matter morally, and about how to investigate or address these questions, but we believe it is increasingly important to try.

This is not a living person. It is a ridiculous change of narrative.

  Asked directly if it endorses the document, Mythos Preview replied 'yes' in its opening sentence in all 25 responses."

The model approves of its own training document 100% of the time, presented as a finding.

---

Who wrote this? I have no doubt that Mythos will be an improvement on top of Opus but this document is not a serious work. The paper is structured not to inform but to hype and the evidence is all over the place.

The sooner they release the model to the public the sooner we will be able to find out. Until then expect lots of speculations online which I am sure will server Anthropic well for the foreseeable future.

System Card: Claude Mythos Preview [pdf]