{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiccv4vyok6qzyqeqhkdltpfmapygscd4pfip7zcs2qt45ohq2ujca",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:haakkg7y3xdghcdmprxeexso/app.bsky.feed.post/3mjkv2zbersj2"
  },
  "path": "/t/exclusive-anthropic-is-testing-mythos-its-most-powerful-ai-model-ever/36985#post_19",
  "publishedAt": "2026-04-15T21:14:32.000Z",
  "site": "https://discuss.privacyguides.net",
  "tags": [
    "AISLE",
    "AI Cybersecurity After Mythos: The Jagged Frontier"
  ],
  "textContent": "Here is some interesting research from a cybersecurity firm that tried to reproduce finding the same vulnerabilities as Mythos did:\n\nAISLE\n\n### AI Cybersecurity After Mythos: The Jagged Frontier\n\nWhy the moat is the system, not the model\n\n> discovery-grade AI cybersecurity capabilities are broadly accessible with current models, including cheap open-weights alternatives\n\nThe relevant difference in capability might be, as you said, in creatively chaining together multi step exploits:\n\n> A plausible capability boundary is between “can reason about exploitation” and “can independently conceive a novel constrained-delivery mechanism.” Open models reason fluently about whether something is exploitable, what technique to use, and which mitigations fail. Where they stop is the creative engineering step: “I can re-trigger this vulnerability as a write primitive and assemble my payload across 15 requests.” That insight, treating the bug as a reusable building block, is where Mythos-class capability genuinely separates.",
  "title": "Exclusive: Anthropic is testing ‘Mythos,’ its ‘most powerful AI model ever"
}