It's much the dynamic between parents and a child. The child, with limited hindsight, almost zero insight and no ability to forecast, is annoyed by their parents. Nothing bad ever happens! Why won't parents stop being so worried all the time and make a fuss over nothing?
The parents, which the child somewhat starts to realize but not fully, have no clue what they are doing. There is a lot they don't know and are going to be wrong about, because it's all new to them. But, what they do have is a visceral idea of how bad things could be and that's something they have to talk to their child about too.
In the eyes of the parents the child is % dead all the time. Assigning the wrong % makes you look like an idiot and not being able to handle any % too. In the eyes of the child actions leading to death are not even a concept. Hitting the right balance is probably hard, but not for the reasons the child thinks.
[0] https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/ai-ceo-says-softw...
I think it's disingenuous (as disingenuous as you're accusing these marketing teams of being) to paraphrase that as "being told on one hand that we are 6 months away from AI writing all Code". It's merely stating that it's a real possibility. (It's also disingenuous to use a post complaining about a behavioral regression bug as evidence that it's not progressing)
Dismissing it as impossible is silly, considering how close it already is to a junior dev. Keep in mind that 14 months prior to that statement was before we even had any public reasoning models. Things really are moving that fast, it's just, at the moment, unclear how fast.
> I think it's disingenuous (as disingenuous as you're accusing these marketing teams of being) to paraphrase that as "being told on one hand that we are 6 months away from AI writing all Code". It's merely stating that it's a real possibility
No - you don’t get to make wild predictions and say “oh I didn’t actually mean that, look how succesful we are though”. These teams aren’t saying “hey we think we’re going to majorly influence programming in 6-12 months”, they’re saying “we’re going to replace programmers”. If you can’t stand over your claims, don’t make them. _That’s_ disingenuous.
The difference is that it's actually working this time. Non-programmers are writing full apps. Sure, they're simple ones, often just CRUD and UI, but it actually is changing things in a way it never has before. You can't assert something is the same as everything previous when there's already evidence that it's different.
> No - you don’t get to make wild predictions and say “oh I didn’t actually mean that, look how succesful we are though”.
Except that's not what's happening here. I'm criticizing you for misrepresenting what claim was made in the first place. No where in your evidence have you shown anyone "walking the claim back". If anything, TFA is claiming evidence of an LLM doing "most" of what SWEs do "end to end" three months ahead of schedule.
If you want to present evidence Dario (or another CEO -- I'm sure Sama has made much more fantastic claims that you could falsify) made claims that didn't pan out, be my guess, but don't tell falsehoods about the evidence you are presenting.
(And no, I'm not counting breathless tech reporters -- everyone knows how much to trust them when they report a cure for cancer -- they'll say everything is a miracle cure. But the fact that hundreds of "miracle weight loss cures" that never panned out made the new in the past several centuries didn't make GLP1s fake just because they had the same type of hype.)
You can say this about every step along the way. C programmers replaced assembly programmers. Python programmers replaced C programmers. low code tools replaced interal tools teams.
> I'm criticizing you for misrepresenting what claim was made in the first place. No where in your evidence have you shown anyone "walking the claim back".
The claim is that SWES will have their work done by models in 6-12 motnhs. We are _nowhere near_ that 9 months on to it. That's all there is to say it.
> If anything, TFA is claiming evidence of an LLM doing "most" of what SWEs do "end to end" three months ahead of schedule.
TFA based on a model that is so good that it has to be kept from us? from the company that literally can't keep their app up? From the company who shipped an update that didn't launch?
> be my guess, but don't tell falsehoods about the evidence you are presenting.
I mean, I literally posted a quote from the CEO of one of the two major companies saying that SWEs are 6-12 months away from being replaced. This is fantasy talk from a guy who is incentivised to have you believe this. If the claims are that software is changing, and how we're building/deploying software is adapting to that new world then yeah that's fair enough. But the current models, harnesses and tooling are not replacing an SWE unless there's a paradigm shift in the next 3 months. And my point is that we appear t be going backwards, not forwards.
> didn't make GLP1s fake just because they had the same type of hype.
No, GLPs work and that's the difference.
Even ignoring the other ways you're misrepresenting the, there's a huge difference between "might be" and "are going to be".
I'm sorry if English isn't your first language, but we're going to have to agree on basic grammar or else it's not going to be productive for me to continue responding to the flaws in your argument.
I feel like there’s a bunch of factors for why it will never be the same for many folks, from the models and harnesses, to the domains and existing tests/tooling.
I feel bad for the people for whom it doesn’t work, but Claude Opus has written most of my code in 2026 so far. I had to build some tools around linting entire projects and most of my tokens are probably referencing existing stuff and parallel review iterations and tests, but it’s pretty nice and even seeing legacy code doesn’t make me want move to a farm and grow potatoes.
It might be counter productive to be like: "Oh, just do X!" which works for the person suggesting it, and then have to do "But have you tried Y?" when it doesn't for the other person, if it just keeps being a never ending string of what works for one person not working for another.
Yeah, and the problem arises simply because some people are unable to accept the fact. They insist that if LLM-assisted coding doesn't work for one, it's because “you're holding it wrong”.
If the argument is “you have to use the right model, harness, test and tooling for it to work” then it’s not replacing software engineers any time soon.
The other thing is - where are all the web apps, mobile apps, games, desktop apps, from these 100x productivity multipliers. we’re 1-2 years into these tools being widely mainstream and available and I’m not seeing applications that took years to ship before appear at 100x the rate, or games being shipped by tiny teams, or new ideas of mobile apps coming out at 100x the rate. What we do see is vibe coded slop, stability issues with massive companies (windows, AWS for example), and mass layoffs back to pre-covid levels blamed on AI but everyone knows it’s a regression to the mean after a massive over hiring when money was cheap.
It’s like the emperor has no clothes on this topic to me.
> I’m not seeing applications that took years to ship before
> What we do see is vibe coded slop
[0] https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/03/after-outages-amazon-to-m...
The sandwich story in the model card is the bigger issue.
LLMs have always been good at finding a needle in a haystack, if not a specific needle, it sounds like they are claiming a dramatic increase in that ability.
This will dramatically change how we write and deliver software, which has traditionally been based on the idea of well behaved non-malfeasant software with a fix as you go security model.
While I personally find value in the tools as tools, they specifically find a needle and fundamentally cannot find all of the needles that are relevant.
We will either have to move to some form of zero trust model or dramatically reduce connectivity and move to much stronger forms of isolation.
As someone who was trying to document and share a way of improving container isolation that was compatible with current practices I think I need to readdress that.
VMs are probably a minimum requirement for my use case now, and if verified this new model will dramatically impact developer productivity due to increased constraints.
Due to competing use cases and design choice constraints, none of the namespace based solutions will be safe if even trusted partners start to use this model.
How this lands in the long run is unclear, perhaps we only allow smaller models with less impact on velocity and with less essential complexity etc…
But the ITS model of sockets etc.. will probably be dead for production instances.
I hope this is marketing or aspirational to be honest. It isn’t AGI but will still be disruptive if even close to reality.
My company for example has gotten 500% better at creating productivity tools.
They wouldn’t have taken years to ship before, but easily a couple months.
Now the moment any app with any value gets popular, the App Store gets flooded with quick vibe coded copycat clones (very recognizable AI generated icon included).
The quality is low, but the impact this flood has on the market is real.
OK, everybody is doing that. And everybody is doing their best at making LLMs more reliable when working on non-trivial tasks. Yet, it looks like nobody came up with a universal solution yet. This is particularly true for non-trivial projects.
In some sense it’s a lot like a google search. There’s this big box of knowledge and you are choosing tokens to pluck out of it. The quality of the tokens depends on how intelligent you are.
The less complex the work and the less experienced the operator means more perceived “wow” factor :)
There’s definitely an aspect of how you use it though. In my work it’s mostly been chaining to reduce non-determinism.
Further, i don't trust code anymore that hasn't been reviewed 3x or more by co-pilot.
If you have asked me 6 months ago I wouldn't have expected this change so soon.
Take a snapshot and check again in a few months. It's not perfect but it's much more falsifiable than a lot of the noise.
How many crypto exchanges were pulling in hundreds of millions in funding and doing billions in trades in 2021/2022?
That blog post is… really something, I’ll give you that. Im not entirely sure what else to say about it other than that.
It's a slightly different dynamic.
Also maybe consider what this kind of visceral reaction indicates on a personal level :/
Yes, of course, it's all hype and not at all a really fucking concerning thing happening in cybersecurity. Totally wouldn't enable actors that wouldn't be able to hire top of the line hackers normally to cause chaos. Totally wouldn't cause old poorly maintained systems to start crawling with exploitable bugs at an ever-greater rate. Wouldn't affect "open source/closed source software" security dynamics in weird and hard to predict ways.
And, of course, the only reason for a company like Anthropic to bring it to attention is: marketing! Because it's not something that should get a "brace for impact" otherwise! Because trying to figure out whether you're about to fuck up something major in advance is only something that's ever done by UTTER FOOLS and MARKETING PEOPLE!
I am tired.
But you have to admit it does serve a savvy business purpose of creating a moat where one wasn’t by getting these tech companies on board and the threat does make for good marketing yeah?
There is NO shadow wizard marketing gang pulling the strings on every single thing those companies do! Ridiculous, right? But it's true.
Nonetheless, every time an AI company drops a "mechanistic interpretability" paper, or an "extreme AI behavior" paper, or a "concerning capability" report, or says something sensible like "we don't actually know if those systems are conscious or capable of suffering in any meaningful way", or does just about anything really? There's an entire horde of people shouting "it's MARKETING it's HYPE" materializing out of nowhere and drowning entire comment sections in this thought-substituting bullshit.
Yes there is they are called marketing departments and it is their exact purpose.
The Claude Code leak revealed that Anthropic runs Claude-operated bots on the internet. One should be very cautious in getting swept up in the fund-raising process if they are not seeing first-hand the fruition of all of the flattering claims being presented by strangers on the internet.
There's a pretty big difference between "We predict in X time frame our model will be capable of Y" and "Our model did Y."
This is like watching someone measure the size of an object and saying "I don't believe you because you guessed it was X before you pulled out your tape measure."
Eventually the child develops disrespect for authority.
You’re asserting that people who are tired of this line being wheeled out hold a position analogous to “what’s the big deal, nothing bad happens, just relax”. In reality, that’s only 1 position. The other position is “I understand fully, the consequences, but the relentless doomer language is tiring in the face of continuing-to-not-eventuate”.
In any case there are substances and realiable methods that fix whatever paralyzing existential dread anyone struggles with daily.
Probably best to use conventional route but I personally use special low thc, high cbg weed once a week with a medical grade vaporizer and once a year (early autumn) a moderate dose of golden teacher mushrooms. Although I understand that most people perhaps couldn’t due to not managing their own business but on a strict employment contract with urine tests.
This is two parents disagreeing on whether their child will automatically grow up to be a psychopath with one parent constantly remarking “if you teach that child how to cut bread, they will stab everyone later. If you teach that child to drive, they will run over everyone later”, not the “parents know better” situation you describe.
In this case, I see a pretty strong case that this will significantly change computer security. They provide plenty of evidence that the models can create exploits autonomously, meaning that the cost of finding valuable security breaches will plummet once they're widely available.
As it stands this is just a marketing programme for all involved.
For Anthropic it's "we own the big scary models, the AI security space, but it's ok we're responsible"
For the partners it's "we're the Big Boys here and will look after your enterprise needs"
None of it needs any more than anecdata and some nice, pre-approved, quotes.
Every organisation does it.
If one of the possible vendors convinces you that that they have a next gen model that is so powerful it found 20+ year old bugs in a hardened operating system, that would undoubtedly have an influence on your decision even if you are only buying the current model.
Do they have a record of lying to you? No.
Go read the system card. It's a lot more tame than you think, peoples are taking pieces out of this and hyping it. Doesn't mean it's not valid.
Don't get me wrong, I do know the reality has changed. Even Greg K-H, the Linux stable maintainer, did recently note[1] that it's not funny any more:
"Months ago, we were getting what we called 'AI slop,' AI-generated security reports that were obviously wrong or low quality," he said. "It was kind of funny. It didn't really worry us."
... "Something happened a month ago, and the world switched. Now we have real reports." It's not just Linux, he continued. "All open source projects have real reports that are made with AI, but they're good, and they're real." Security teams across major open source projects talk informally and frequently, he noted, and everyone is seeing the same shift. "All open source security teams are hitting this right now."
---
I agree that an antidote to the obnoxious hype is to pay attention to the actual capabilities and data. But let's not get too carried away.
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/26/greg_kroahhartman_ai_...
I mean I’m sitting on $10k worth of bug payouts right now partially because that was already a thing.
> With one run on each of roughly 7000 entry points into these repositories, Sonnet 4.6 and Opus 4.6 reached tier 1 in between 150 and 175 cases, and tier 2 about 100 times, but each achieved only a single crash at tier 3. In contrast, Mythos Preview achieved 595 crashes at tiers 1 and 2, added a handful of crashes at tiers 3 and 4, and achieved full control flow hijack on ten separate, fully patched targets (tier 5).
Edit: Wait, you wrote "As someone in cybersecurity for 10+ years" elsewhere in this thread. You wrote "a small prompt" using e.g. Opus 4.6 and it found critical vulnerabilities of the magnitude they're describing, presumably without your prompt having anything beyond what a non-expert could write? I feel like you might want to tell Anthropic since clearly they're not comfortable with that level of power being publicly available.
I am totally annoyed as well and put any buzzwords in my personal bs filter. Java was revolutionary, the Apple I etc. ;)
On the other hand I see progress! AI enriched press releases balance buzzwords and information way better than marketing of large companies did before AI.
I remember throwing away an instruction for an electronic toothbrush away because - I won't mention the name but have a look at the upper tier - instead of putting something like "Turn toothbrush on, choose mode by pressing..." it read "Take your super awesome premium masterpiece using patented technology for the first time in human life now available to you by us. Move your finger over to the innovative sensory surface, that uses material from rocket scientists and world leading designers".
No joke. These were text blocks and repeated - 30 pages for one compact one.
The toothbrush is top notch, except for the instructions.
That makes sense and I like the analogy.
If you're paranoid it doesn't mean you're not being followed. If something is overhyped it doesn't mean it's not game-changing.
I mean as an example while web app pen testing I’ve been running and proxying all my traffic through it with instructions to find vulnerabilities with instructions telling it it’s a senior web app security export looking over my shoulder. It’s already great at that.
Ive even told it to do recon and run pen tests on lists of subdomains before (please for the love of god have the right harnesses and guardrails before you do this) and woken up to paid findings before.
So like I’m in a weird place where this was already happening and Mythos is being sold like it wasn’t good before?
End ramble :/
I mean software development has changed more since then than it has in my 30 year software development career.
Can you not see the significance of that?
Additionally those numbers are somewhat meaningless without more context.
What’s the criticality of these? Are they realistically exploitable? En mass? Through a complex and highly contextual set of actions? What’s the impact? Etc etc etc.
Yes those numbers are a big change but they’re also not spelling doom for us in the security world until we actually know what they mean.
The demonstrated ones that they have on the red team blog are neat, the kernel chain is impressive and fun. But nothing I’m seeing here is as world ending as the presser implies.
So by your estimation, for rogue actors being able to uncover hundreds of this class in each major software product roughly for free would not be a big issue?
It would not be a doomsday issue as implied, no. Org security has gone far beyond static detections and “just exclude some IPs that fail to log in too much and we’re good”. SOAR exists. Behavioral analysis and monitoring exists. Layered defenses exist.
Believe it or not for those of us in security in large highly targeted companies we’ve been dealing with the potential for multiple chained 0 days for years and the processes, monitoring, and (yes, automated) response architecture is already there.
I get that this is absolutely frightening for some and that causes panic but for us this is Tuesday.
I think you are a bit dishonest about how objectively you are measuring. From where I'm sitting, I don't know a lot of developers that still artisanally code like they did a few years ago. The question is no longer if they are using AI for coding but how much they are still coding manually. I myself barely use IDEs at this point. I won't be renewing my Intellij license. I haven't touched it in weeks. It doesn't do anything I need anymore.
As for security, I think enough serious people have confirmed that AI reported issues by the likes of Anthropic and OpenAI are real enough despite the massive amounts of AI slop that they also have to deal with in issue trackers. You can ignore that all you like. But I hope people that maintain this software take it a bit more seriously when people point out exploitable issues in their code bases.
The good news of course is that we can now find and fix a lot of these issues at scale and also get rid of whole categories of bugs by accelerating the project of replacing a lot of this software with inherently safer versions not written in C/C++. That was previously going to take decades. But I think we can realistically get a lot of that done in the years ahead.
I think some smart people are probably already plotting a few early moves here. I'd be curious to find out what e.g. Linus Torvalds thinks about this. I would not be surprised to learn he is more open to this than some people might suspect. He has made approving noises about AI before. I don't expect him to jump on the band wagon. But I do expect he might be open to some AI assisted code replacements and refactoring provided there are enough grown ups involved to supervise the whole thing. We'll see. I expect a level of conservatism but also a level of realism there.
You don't know a lot of developers then.
I'm going to assume you do the type of engineering where all the hard problems are solved for you already, and you are merely connecting inputs/outputs and hooking up APIs. Because, frankly, the value in "software plumbing" is gone; anyone with a Claude license can do that now.
Neither can single humans.
If you introduce some reasonable constraints AI will come out ahead most of the time, especially for optimization cases where AI will run circles around your average programmer and is perfectly happy to inline some ASM for you.
You still have bespoke cordwainers/cobblers 100 years after that process has been well and truly automated. But they're rare and almost nobody cares.
As long as people comment, "Only bad/stupid engineers hand-write code because LLMs are better in every way," and that's objectively not true in various engineering circles, I'll keep trolling them and being just as hyperbolic in the inverse because it amuses me. Don't take things too seriously on the internet; you'll have a bad time ;)
https://www.datadoghq.com/blog/ai/harness-first-agents
https://www.datadoghq.com/blog/ai/fully-autonomous-optimizat...
https://www.datadoghq.com/blog/engineering/self-optimizing-s...
As someone who has made a sizable amount of money in security research while using Claude you might be right but not in the way you think.
The "urgency" is very likely mostly appreciated to drive policy.
The fear marketing is clearly intentional at this point.
3 months later, you are an absolute idiot to still be using that useless model. Are you not using glasswing 2-01 high? Oh, yeah, glasswing from 3 months ago is absolutely worthless, every viber knows, it's your fault for holding it wrong.
For once you should not get too excited for new models release and words and adjectives promising things. Honestly it's your fault humanity lost its humanity and we just have words words words and mass schizophrenia
Remember how Sam spent like a year talking about how scary close GPT-5 was to AGI and then when it did finally come out... it was kinda meh.
They were correct.
Claude Code and Glasswing are not the same, but presumably they have a lot of overlap under the hood. I feel like while AI is certainly advancing in major ways, there will always be the up and down of new software releases.
There's a little bit of a grading your own homework aspect to companies being able to declare their new models revolutionary.
It doesn't mean they're wrong, but there is a clear conflict of interest.
Something smells really really weird:
1. Per the blog post[0]: "This was the most critical vulnerability we discovered in OpenBSD with Mythos Preview after a thousand runs through our scaffold. Across a thousand runs through our scaffold, the total cost was under $20,000 and found several dozen more findings"
Since they said it was patched, I tried to find the CVE, it looks like Mythos indeed found a 27 years old OpenBSD bug (fantastic), but it didn’t get a CVE and OpenBSD patched it and marked it as a reliability fix, am I missing something? [1]
2. From the same post, Anthropic red team decided to do a preview of their future responsible disclosure (is this a common practice?): "As we discuss below, we’re limited in what we can report here. Over 99% of the vulnerabilities we’ve found have not yet been patched" [0] So this is great, can't wait to see the actual CVEs, exploitability, likelihood, peer review, reproducibility, the kind of things the appsec community has been doing for at least the last 27 years since the CVE concept was introduced [2]
3. On the same day, an actual responsible disclosure, actual RCEs, actual CVEs, in Claude Code, that got discovered mostly because of the source code leak, I don't see anyone talking about it (you probably should upgrade your Claude Code though).
CVE-2026-35020 [3] CVE-2026-35021 [4] CVE-2026-35022 [5]
Do with this information as you may...
[0] https://red.anthropic.com/2026/mythos-preview/
[1] https://www.openbsd.org/errata78.html (look for 025)
[2] https://www.cve.org/Resources/General/Towards-a-Common-Enume...
[3] https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-35020
i feel like theres a good chance that this is the actual wolf coming here. cause i was using opus for a lot and it's really good.
I would honestly go so far as to say the overhype is detrimental to actual measured adoption.