What Mythos Means for Software Security

Sentry: Catch, trace, and fix bugs across your entire stack. Use code: prime for $100 in free sentry credits → https://trm.sh/sentry AI, zero-days, and a whole lot of hot takes. The crew dives into the controversy around powerful new AI models and whether they’re making cybersecurity better or way more dangerous. From bug bounties to “anyone can hack now” fears, it’s a mix of serious debate, wild hypotheticals, and classic Standup chaos.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  So, low-level learning is on the clock. He has things to do. Security to secure, and so therefore, we need to get, we need to get rocking. Now, before we get started with today's stand-up, I was reliably told that Casey has a blocker this week. In spirit of a stand-up, Casey has some things he needs to talk about.

• 0:22Speaker 00

  Uh, anyways, I'm sorry.

• 0:23Speaker 01

  What I would like to say-

• 0:24Speaker 02

  Wait, before we do that, I didn't even have a chance to interrupt. That was way too fast.

• 0:28Speaker 00

  I'm sorry, I was trying to be on the ball here.

• 0:30Speaker 02

  Okay. Go ahead, Casey.

• 0:32Speaker 01

  That was great, dude. That was a perfect interruption to get us started.

• 0:37Speaker 01

  Uh, I do have a blocker, actually. Uh, and this blocker, I've been blocked for a while on this. And it is as follows.

• 0:46Speaker 01

  Especially because I'm someone who, on this podcast, is known for, uh, double entendres. I will say, I will say this blocker as, I really like racks. So, a lot of people want to put their computers in a tower. Right? They have like a tower for their computer, they, they want like a big, like, they, they put glass on the side, and they've got all this weird RGB lighting, or whatever, right?

• 1:15Speaker 03

  RGB makes it faster, it's proven, there's some papers on that. Anyway, go ahead.

• 1:18Speaker 01

  It's absolutely proven, like, if you get memory that has RGB lighting at the top of it, that memory will just return results faster, like, when it is queried. Everyone knows that. Everyone knows that.

• 1:27Speaker 02

  Yeah, I read that at tom67.org.

• 1:30Speaker 01

  And, and the photons are at very specific wavelengths. The R, the G, and the B are picked specifically to ensure the fastest travel of light. That's just, you know, Einstein said it, uh, and we just follow it. So, I don't really like that, because I like to have, like, lots of computers. I, I just, I like computers, and I want a lot of them around. And I don't run, like, virtual machines and stuff like that, usually. If I'm like, I need another thing for this, I'm like, that's a great excuse for me to build another computer. Right? So I like to have racks. I like to have my computers in racks, so I can just slot them in. Not virtual racks, got it. Not virtual racks. Actual, physical racks.

• 2:13Speaker 01

  And honestly, I think a lot of people would actually like this better for their computer if they had the option of buying things that were reasonable to do it. Because it's like, look, you're doing streaming, right? You're starting to become more of a like pro streamer or something, or do a lot of Twitch streams. You want to have one streaming computer and one gaming computer all of a sudden. Well, now, what do you get, like two tower machines sitting here? You got this one on a janky setup? Exactly. Well, if you just have a little rack. That's why Prime's desk is 18 feet long. Yeah, I don't have this problem. I just have a rack, I slot things into it, I slot them out, it's totally fine. The power, like, the power strip is a thing that slots into the rack.

• 2:56Speaker 01

  You want a nick that slots into the rack. It's this very organized, everything's bundled, and they wheel around. You can just move them, right? Casey, are you a little bit worried that you're gonna get a hot rack, though? I do think that, you know, if you were, if you were maybe doing some really, really, really sort of unusual stuff, you could end up with some hot racks. I do, I do think that's a legitimate problem, but, or solution. But here's the thing. So here's my blocker. Nobody wants to sell racks into commercial. They just don't. It's all, it's like into consumer, I should say. They all want to sell just like, you know, it's like data center stuff.

• 3:41Speaker 01

  And this has two problems. One, the stuff is artificially expensive, so the average consumer is gonna look at a rack mounting case and go like, I don't want to buy that. Just like a cake on your wedding day. Just like a cake on your wedding day with the little topper that has the bobble head that looks like you.

• 3:56Speaker 04

  Did you find the errors? I don't even know what they look, what do they even look like? They're in the phone.

• 4:02Speaker 00

  In the phone?

• 4:04Speaker 04

  Yeah, they're definitely in there. I just don't know how we labeled them.

• 4:07Speaker 00

  I got it, don't worry.

• 4:09Speaker 04

  You gotta figure it out. We're running out of time, Prime. You gotta find them and meet me at the stand-up.

• 4:15Speaker 00

  Roger.

• 4:17Speaker 05

  They're in the phone. It's so simple.

• 4:25Speaker 00

  Get all the context you need to debug your problem. Because code breaks, so fix it faster with Sentry.

• 4:36Speaker 01

  But here's the bigger problem. Even if you've got the money, even if you're... Because let's be honest, they went ahead and raised computer prices so much that only AI data centers can afford them now anyway. So why are we even talking about these, the unwashed masses and what they need for computers? Because everyone knows they don't deserve computers, right? True. Sam Altman deserves the computers. None of us should have them. But, so let's say you do have that extra money because you're super wealthy. It doesn't really matter because if what you want is like an attractive piece of... If you want a nice looking rack, Prime.

• 5:12Speaker 00

  Yep, trust me, I'm listening.

• 5:15Speaker 01

  Yeah, this does not...

• 5:16Speaker 00

  I'm locked in right now.

• 5:18Speaker 01

  This does not exist, right? They only come in weird, like industrial, kind of like, okay, it's ugly. You know, no one who didn't buy this thing is gonna want to look at it, right? They're not gonna want to see this rack. That's the kind of rack you have access to. And also, the specs, like the things that they make for rack-mounted cases, none of them are what a consumer would want. They don't make them to look nice. They don't make them to have good acoustic qualities. They're loud, they use the frickin' honeycomb pattern cutout that whines like an SOB when the fans kick in. So, because they know the data center doesn't care. They're just like, ah, it's loud in there anyway, who cares how many decibels is in the data center? Like, put your plugs in. To be fair, I don't think Sam Altman likes racks, so, you know. Fair enough.

• 6:03Speaker 01

  Good point. So maybe he's not happy.

• 6:06Speaker 00

  Heard it here first, baby. The stand, though. Not getting acquired by OpenAI, keep going.

• 6:12Speaker 01

  That's why they need the money. Not? Damn. Dario? Dario? So that's my block, my blocker is, I wanna start, I want somebody to start looking at consumer rack stuff, like, good.

• 6:27Speaker 00

  Alright, so who would the target market be? Just like, let's play this, let's play this out for just one minute. What's the, who's the target market?

• 6:31Speaker 01

  Every, everyone. So here's my thing, I think that- That's a huge TAM. Hundred percent TAM, baby. Everyone, because here's the thing, right now, case people, they're falling all over each other to figure out how they can sell the same old thing. There's nothing new there. They've got nothing to sell. You want another, yet another thing with glass on the outside? It doesn't matter, RGB lights, we've seen it before. Racks are a whole new space, right? They can innovate here so much, right? Razer can sell subscriptions to your own rack that you have to buy back for some reason? There's a whole new-

• 7:07Speaker 00

  Wait, what?

• 7:07Speaker 01

  This is just completely wide open.

• 7:08Speaker 00

  Can you fill me in on that lore that I'm missing?

• 7:11Speaker 01

  Oh, sure, like, in general, if you buy like a Razer mouse, like, you can usually not even install the drivers without creating a Razer account.

• 7:18Speaker 00

  Oh, yes, I, I-

• 7:19Speaker 01

  You gotta install the Razer first.

• 7:21Speaker 00

  I had to use my email to sign into something to use my mouse, and I was very frustrated, never, I'm on to a $3 mouse now.

• 7:26Speaker 01

  So, uh, so I think you could create all sorts of really cool things where it's like, hey, do you wanna organize your space better? Do you wanna have more cooler computing gear that all works together and is made to kind of create this really cool looking thing? You could even have them all stylized, like, okay, the, you know, the power supply, I mean, you imagine companies like, you know, Razer or something like this. The power supply looks like Razer and it slots in, the nick looks like Razer and it slots in, the RGB lights are synced through the whole thing, you could put those LCD panels on the front, and like, the whole thing could be frickin' amazing, and a whole new category for people who are probably right now pretty desperate to figure out reasons why people are gonna buy this, but no one is looking at this.

• 8:08Speaker 01

  Look at this, it is the right way to mount computers, and, and music people know this, like, all mute music stuff has like crappy racks that can't mount computers because the components are all lighter, so they don't have like a back, they don't have like a back rail kind of a thing. But there's like furniture that has rack mounting in it that's meant to look good in a studio. All of their stuff has cool knobs on the front and meters and stuff. We could be doing this and we're not. Do it. Hardware people, come talk to me. I will convince you that this is the right thing. I want to buy it. There you go.

• 8:41Speaker 02

  Casey, I already know the marketing pitch. We have two angles. This will cover 100% of software developers at the very least. Option number one is a campaign be like Casey. That's obviously number one. That one works. People want to buy it. That works for a large demographic. Option number two, run your open claw on this bad boy. We've now got 100% of the software developer market covered by these two campaigns.

• 9:08Speaker 01

  You try to run AI, we'll slot in as many AI stuff as you want here, right? Just like you can just put in GPU host after GPU host.

• 9:16Speaker 00

  Yeah, that's true.

• 9:16Speaker 02

  Maybe you can tell your open claw, like, hey, I just pushed you into the sunny spot of the house. Like, maybe that makes you feel better. It works a little harder for you. It's like, ooh, you didn't get the right deal on the hotel. Put you in the closet.

• 9:29Speaker 01

  Back in the basement.

• 9:30Speaker 02

  Back in the basement.

• 9:31Speaker 01

  It puts the lotion in the basket.

• 9:33Speaker 00

  You're gonna have to have two additions, right? You're gonna have to have one rack that's slightly more affordable. That's just for taking pictures on Twitter. I do think that you should have the about to be an influencer addition.

• 9:45Speaker 02

  Yes. Yep. Yep. The starter kit influencer edition where like it looks like the rack is filled out, but it's just cardboard on like eight out of the seven slots.

• 9:54Speaker 01

  Yep. Yeah, like a padded rack is kind of what you're talking about. Yeah.

• 9:59Speaker 02

  Yeah. Yes, that's a great, that's a really good, the best rack available.

• 10:05Speaker 00

  Oh, Lord.

• 10:07Speaker 02

  Anyway.

• 10:08Speaker 01

  So what are we actually talking about today? Because there's my, that's short and sweet. That's what it was.

• 10:13Speaker 02

  Where it's game over, unfortunately. Also, the podcast is over forever.

• 10:19Speaker 00

  I would just like to say sorry that we did not make fun of Sam Altman earlier and now the podcast is shut down. Okay. So I believe.

• 10:27Speaker 01

  Acquired.

• 10:28Speaker 00

  Not.

• 10:29Speaker 01

  Shutdown acquired. Aqua hired.

• 10:31Speaker 00

  Aqua hired to shut down. Dude, that'd be sweet. Hey, yo.

• 10:33Speaker 01

  Aqua fired.

• 10:34Speaker 00

  Think about this for a second.

• 10:36Speaker 02

  Aqua fired.

• 10:37Speaker 00

  If you want to aquifier us, it'll only a couple million and you could aquifier us. Okay. So with that in mind, I believe today we're going to be talking about this lovely piece of lore. I tried to guess where it'd be. I obviously guessed wrong. Okay, hold on. Sorry, I'm doing a new setup, and the new setup actually makes it kinda hard. There we go. So George Hots, we've invited Low Level on to help us kind of work through this because, honestly, I would just like to say George Hots sounds like an anime villain in this post, and it's very exciting, and it makes me just want to high-five him so bad, but it says the following: "What if I release a zero day, a day, until a big new model is released? Will this finally make OpenAI and Anthropic shut up about cyber security risk? Question mark? Like, these things are not that hard to find in most software. I heard something about costing 20K in tokens.

• 11:22Speaker 00

  I'd do it for less if it wasn't for the, some whiny bug bounty program. The reason there aren't zero days everywhere is because nobody seriously looks, because hacking other people's shit with them is illegal, and criminals are usually not very skilled, or they would choose a different line of work. Want more zero days to be found? Make hacking legal. Until then, don't try to claim it's hard. It's just not incentivized."

• 11:46Speaker 02

  I wanna say first off, I don't think criminals are dumb or unskilled. Please don't hack me. I just wanna get that out of the way. You guys are smart and handsome, and you're my favorite people. I just wanna make sure that that's clear, please. Anyways, Ed, proceed.

• 12:04Speaker 01

  I do wanna say one thing too, that has nothing to do with the actual content of this, which Ed will take over. And that's just like, if I were George Hots, I would never have been able to, like, resist naming my X-feed "Hots Takes", because it's so, like, you know what I mean? Like, good on him for not going there, because I would absolutely, I'd be like, like, I would have prefaced that tweet before I typed it with, "Here's another Hots Takes for you, Hots Take for you", right? It would be so good, anyway.

• 12:37Speaker 00

  That's good, Casey. It's so good.

• 12:39Speaker 01

  Take it away.

• 12:39Speaker 00

  Okay, hold on, hold on, there's one more thing before we get started. There's just one more small thing I wanna say. Let me just take this quick thing, and I'm gonna put it up here, and then it's time for the big reveal. Low Level responds with, "Holy fuck, this is the dumbest take I have ever read." I just wanted to make sure, just in case anyone was wondering.

• 12:59Speaker 03

  Yeah, yeah, I mean, I do kind of feel that way. Um, so let me just preface this, first of all, it was called the Cold War because the Cold War was cold. Uh, because Russia is cold. Um, it's a, it's a George Hotz reference if you're, if you're an OG. That makes sense. Um, yeah, I mean, okay, so first of all, I have no problem with GeoHot. This isn't like some weird drama thing. I want to kind of set the table straight with that. Um, but yeah, I, I think the, the argument that GeoHot is trying to make here is that the only reason more zero days are not found is because there's no incentive. Um, okay, well, I, I don't agree with that, first of all. There are plenty of bug bounty programs out there that will literally pay you to find vulnerabilities. Uh, and some of them pay very well, like for example, the, the Apple iPhone zero click RCE bug bounty

• 13:44Speaker 03

  will pay you literally two to three million dollars if you can find a zero click RCE in the iPhone. And then even something lower like on Microsoft, like I think MSRC's payout for like Windows RCE is like 250K to 500K right now for like a zero click on Windows. So there is money to be made in the, in the AI or in the, in the vulnerability research space, right? And I think all GeoHot is trying to say here is something, something, something, uh, the Mythos press release was bad, right? It's a, it's a marketing campaign, whatever you want to say about it. Um, and so I, I understand why people are, are making that argument, right? Like, you know, it's very, I think, bad PR for company that sells exquisite tool to hold on to exquisite

• 14:26Speaker 03

  tool and then not give access to it and say, only special people can have our tool because it makes you look like an asshole. Um, but I think regardless of your thoughts on the marketing of that, it is important to recognize the fact that if you go, uh, Prime, can you go to cybergym.com real quick and go to the graph? It's on the homepage there.

• 14:42Speaker 00

  I'm, I'm going right now.

• 14:44Speaker 03

  While he's doing that, the, the ability of, for AI models to both enclosed source and open source software, find vulnerabilities by literally just giving it access to the code and saying, hey, find me bugs in this code, go, is becoming better and better and better. To the point where like Mythos, I'm very close to some people that are like actively using Mythos at work and it is causing like, like issues based on how good that shit is, right? Yeah, so, so CyberGym basically is, is a, is a collection of. Bugs that exist in software, right? So like bugs in, I think FFmpeg is one, bugs in Kearl is another. And so what CyberGym does is it takes a model and with a set of prompts says, hey, go and find bugs in this stuff, right?

• 15:26Speaker 03

  And the the success rate is how many of the bugs that are known to exist get found by the model in this. And you can see a pretty, you know, not exponential, but straight line curve going up to the Anthropic model that recently got previewed by some people, that it's at an 83% success rate. Of the bugs that are known to exist in these codebases, it can find 83% of them. Again, we don't know the cost data in those. We don't know if like the models are being like backfed the information so they're like training themselves on previous CyberGym runs. We don't know any of that. But it, there is this really weird issue happening where like any Joe Schmo with not a ton of security research work or not a ton of security knowledge can with a couple hundred bucks, like worst case, find bugs in software.

• 16:08Speaker 03

  And I think that is like an existential security threat to software right now as we know it. So I'm kind of curious on your guys' take on that. What do you guys think about the the Mythos situation? Because I know, I know how I feel. I'm not sure if I actually asked Prime what he thinks about that, the Mythos thing.

• 16:23Speaker 00

  Oh, I have ideas and I have thoughts about it.

• 16:25Speaker 03

  Oh, yeah.

• 16:28Speaker 00

  So I guess the first thing is that it, there's two, there's kind of like three, there's three problems here. First problem is, is Mythos really as good as they say? And obviously I have no internal information. I've just seen some graphs. Dirty data is like a huge gigantic problem in all benchmarks. All benchmarks are being fed back into the models. It's really actually hard to tell, like, what does a 20% improvement on software engineering bench actually mean? Especially when the fact that you could write zero lines of actual solution code and get 100% on software engineering bench, it turns out. There's other benches that are also horribly inaccurate. There's a whole paper about why all the major benches are just completely fudgeable and made up of all. So it's very hard for me to understand from a bench perspective. A second, I guess the middle ground would be like, so if if Claude Mythos is as good

• 17:12Speaker 00

  as it is, then yes, that is going to inevitably cause problems because we're going to go from not too capable to hyper capable in a moment. Thus, everybody can go through and hack everything. And thus, Dario will be able to get His ultimate goal, which is regulations. And so that kind of worries me. Pull up the ladder really quickly and make sure that humans can't code because human coding, that's dangerous right there. Uh, and so that's, you know, so I think that that's true. There's the second one, which is, this is just another C compiler. Again, from, uh, Anthropic where they hype up this gigantic thing like, oh my gosh, it's written a C compiler. And then you go look at the details. It's like, well, it can't write a bootloader. Cause we didn't, we could not seem to spend enough tokens to convince it to write it within 32K. It could only write it within like 67K or whatever it was to be able to actually.

• 17:53Speaker 03

  Yeah. And also we tested it recursive, or we iteratively tested it off of like the 30 years of tests that the G N U C compiler already had.

• 18:00Speaker 00

  We also gave it all the answers and then it figured out all the questions. It was crazy. It was like, it played Jeopardy and it was really good at it. And so it's like, there's this whole marketing buzz, which is, it's really hard to kind of cut through that. And then obviously the last one, which is they're just downright lying. I somehow doubt that they're, they're downright lying. I think they're just overstating it. If they're downright lying, then you know, this is just going to be business as usual. It'll just be yet another disappointing model release. And that's that. And so for me, that's kind of how I, I'm, I'm on middle ground, which is, I think it's more hype than reality, but of course I haven't seen it. Because I just don't know, because they won't let me see it. I'm too dangerous to have it.

• 18:33Speaker 03

  Well, I think there's a, a similar model that, um, chat or OpenAI just, just released, like it's like chat GPT five, four codex or something. They keep, they're, they're modeling names, naming conventions.

• 18:42Speaker 00

  It's starting to actually align though. At least I know like the higher the number, we're good and good.

• 18:47Speaker 03

  Yeah, right, right. And they don't have like a random O to it now. Um, but I think there is a comparable model that you can get access to, like just by uploading your driver's license, if you're into that. Um, you know, proving that you're a real person. So there's, there's models to test out, but yeah, I don't know. I, it's just, it is, it is concerning because we, we have kind of two forks we can go down. There's a one where everyone gets access to it. Everyone can create zero days and we kind of enter this like really dangerous cyber no man's land. But the other side is like Anthropic keeps the access to themselves forever. And now like only this list of like 10 companies can make zero, like can find zero days in the software.

• 19:22Speaker 00

  Dude, you forgot the third one.

• 19:23Speaker 03

  Do.

• 19:25Speaker 00

  They moved to the Cayman Islands and then they just take over every government by hacking all the software and Dario finally realizes his role as the bad guy. Like that would be, I mean, supervillain is right there if this is true.

• 19:37Speaker 03

  That's true. Casey, what's your take? You saw you were in a chat before.

• 19:40Speaker 01

  Uh, I'm sorry, the chat, what was the chat?

• 19:43Speaker 03

  You, you were going to say something before. What's, what's your take on that?

• 19:45Speaker 01

  Really? Well, I definitely could say something, but I think the thing I would say is probably not very interesting. And that is that I think I probably agree with both George and Ed at the same time here, which should be impossible because they're supposed to be disagreeing, but I don't know, it kind of sounds similar to me. And the reason I say that-

• 20:05Speaker 02

  A secret third thing.

• 20:07Speaker 01

  It's not really a secret third thing, it's just like, let me, let me offer a different interpretation, or slightly different interpretation, which is to say, um, so, I feel like machines are pretty good at pattern matching, actually. And so like, I don't think it's, like, put aside whether Claude Mythos is good or not, because I realize that's hard to independently verify at this time, but like, I think it's reasonable to expect that at some point, because we are spending, at this point, like, trillions of dollars probably, on doing computation for these things, at some point, they should be able to pattern match bugs reasonably well, and at a very high rate. Meaning, as long as you're willing to pay for the compute time, we can scan lots of

• 20:51Speaker 01

  software for a lot longer than we were currently having humans do it, right? I think that's a pretty reasonable thing to expect. Whether Claude Mythos has done it or not shouldn't really be the question, because somebody can do this eventually if we keep spending this much money. It should get there. Among the things that AI could eventually do, that one doesn't sound that implausible to me. And so, what I would say is, I think it's reasonable to expect that that either has or will occur. Two, I do think humans were doing this very well before, individual humans, like some of them. They were finding things that probably Claude Mythos still could never find. Like, I mean, like, things like rowhammer attacks and things like that, that are just like, way out in kind of crazy land.

• 21:38Speaker 01

  Or attacks through like old legacy stuff like the APIC and things like that. Like, so humans were actually very good at this task, but there weren't very many of them. Right? And so what I would say is moving to something like Claude Mythos, or whatever that thing happens to be that can do this, is kind of like what George Hots was saying. It's kind of like saying, hey, everybody, from now on, if you just like hack people's bank accounts, you get the money. All the great humans at this in the world who are currently doing something else would now be incentivized to do this thing. And we would have found way more zero days. I mean, there are so many programmers who, if they had been raised in some kind of a way, in a society and a religion where stealing people's money was considered virtuous,

• 22:23Speaker 01

  we would have found so many more zero days right now than we have. And so I think I'm kind of, in a way, I think I see, I think both people's points are actually totally valid. Like, like, I think, like, yeah, we could have found way more zero days if we didn't heavily disincentivize people from like making hundreds or billions of dollars off of hacking, which is what they could have. And we said, nah, you get 50K, 100K, maybe if it's something crazy like an RCE, you can actually get a million. It's like, come on, guys, that's not equivalent to what they could already make working at a startup or something like that if they're that good. Right?

• 22:59Speaker 00

  Yeah, there's no guarantee on that side either. Like, they don't actually get the guarantee where it's like, you work at a startup, at least you get some money.

• 23:05Speaker 01

  Or even just, not even startup, just go to Google and you get that as stock or whatever, right? Or something like this. So anyway, in general, I would say, I see, I can see both, I can see both points. I don't think, I don't really think they're in as much tension as it would sound, if that makes sense.

• 23:23Speaker 02

  Yeah, I thought Gio Hots was saying more like, he was making an econ argument about it of like, we're, we put a lot of costs on hacking already, so.

• 23:35Speaker 02

  That's what's stopping it from happening, like what you're saying, Casey, right? In the sense that like, okay, so now we're gonna have another way to do it. It also costs money, but then we still have the other cost of like, you could go to jail for doing it. Like, that's the social cost we impose on people doing it.

• 23:51Speaker 01

  I mean, I just, I just took him to be saying like, it's not that impressive that it found zero days, because if you gave me, you know, if you gave me 50 great programmers who are all doing other stuff, we could crank out so many zero days, you wouldn't even believe it. And I kind of, and I kind of believe them, because you know, you look around the world, and there are, you know, some really good security teams out there, and they do crank out zero days pretty effing fast, and they don't even tell us about all of them, right?

• 24:13Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 24:14Speaker 02

  Right, or like internal teams.

• 24:15Speaker 00

  North Korea keeps on making money. Like, they, obviously, they're, they're, they're successful.

• 24:20Speaker 01

  So, anyway, I, I, I'm not trying to say that either person is, is 100% right, and somehow you can marry the two completely. I'm just saying, there's, I think there's some merit to both things, so I'm, I'm actually, I'm happy either way. I'm happy with either take.

• 24:31Speaker 03

  So, your, your point about, um, if you got a room of 50 good programmers together, and they'd find zero days, is actually kind of the, the, the argument that the article, um, vulnerability researchers cooked, makes on sockpuppet.org, that I referenced in a video, and I think Theo did too. Um, where one paragraph that he calls out is basically, the oh, sorry, that the oh, referenced in the video.

• 24:54Speaker 01

  Okay, I don't know what that is, but okay.

• 24:57Speaker 02

  Spell it, Casey, spell it out in your head, and it'll make sense.

• 24:59Speaker 03

  The oh, Jesus Christ.

• 25:00Speaker 00

  Oh, the oh, baby.

• 25:02Speaker 03

  Um, so, software security, a lot of the times, can be marked up to the fact that a lot of software just has not had elite attention, or what is it called? Um, like, advanced attention.

• 25:15Speaker 00

  I would say basic attention is suffering from many software projects.

• 25:18Speaker 03

  Well, now, with Web3, for sure, but more, more complex platforms, right? So, his assertion is that, like, software security has been a talent problem for so long, where it's like, it's not that there aren't people that know how to find bugs. AI isn't solving a unique problem. The AI is solving the scalability problem, where it's like, you can train the AI to do a thing that Joe knows how to do, and now you have 100 mediocre, but 100 Joes, right? Um, and, and that's, that's an issue for kind of the econ of, of cybersecurity, for sure. And yeah, I want to be very clear, like, I don't disagree with George, or GeoHOP, from the perspective of like... More people equals more bugs, right? But like, obviously, like, that is the problem, that we just don't have more smart people.

• 26:03Speaker 03

  That has been the entire industry's plight for a long time, is that like, there just aren't people who have not only security knowledge, but knowledge of, you know, web server stacks, and hypervisors, and drivers, and OSs. Like, you get these very niche skillsets, and when you divide them up into those skillsets over and over again, you're left with like, 10 or 20 people on planet Earth that know how to like, attack a certain technology. So AI, you know, if you know security, now you can talk to the AI, learn about hypervisors in a week, and then suddenly you can find bugs in ESXi, you know, HyperV, etc. So, I guess I agree. The dumbest take thing was more, I was mad at Gio Hotz's ego, because it basically came

• 26:45Speaker 03

  off as like, "Fuck you, I'm so smart, I know all the zero days, I can do this myself in my sleep." And it's like, no, you couldn't. Like, you're telling me you could drop a zero day every day in macOS until someone paid you? Like, no, you couldn't, shut up. But I hear what he's saying.

• 26:59Speaker 00

  I really hope he takes this as a challenge. I want Gio Hotz to drop a zero day.

• 27:04Speaker 03

  Gio Hotz, dude, if he does it, I will eat a sock on stream, like, straight up. I will do it, I don't care.

• 27:09Speaker 00

  You shouldn't say that. Okay, Gio Hotz, you heard it here, Ed will eat a sock on stream, if you do a week of zero days.

• 27:18Speaker 03

  Okay, all right, a week is actually possible, I'm talking a month.

• 27:21Speaker 01

  Okay, a month.

• 27:22Speaker 03

  One month, anyway, so yeah.

• 27:24Speaker 01

  I would also add, like, just, you know, because I constantly harp on this point, but I want to bring it up pretty much every time, it's just that, this is also why AI company behavior, like, is a problem. Because this is generally a good thing. Meaning like, we do actually want the ability for us to get 100% coverage for security, and we know that we can't get enough people to do it, really, right? Like, not in a white hat sense, right? Maybe you could take George Hotz's suggestion seriously, and just go like, make hacking legal, and then we just have a crap-ton more black hats, and that eventually sorts it out, but, I mean, you know, that wouldn't necessarily be-

• 28:08Speaker 01

  Yeah, that wouldn't be, yeah, that's exactly, they're white hats now. Everyone's a white hat now. So we do, I think in general, this is solving a good, you know, this is, this is a way AI could solve a problem usefully if it actually can just spit out lists of pretty well curated potential bug places that we can go look. That's very helpful, right? And so the problem is, like, the only reason they were able to make that is lots and lots of extremely talented security researchers who are getting literally zero dollars from Anthropic for this. And that is not acceptable. It's just not. Like, I'm sorry, but like, you know, Ed should be getting a check for this, or, and everyone likes him.

• 28:49Speaker 01

  That's just kind of how it is because it's like, you used their, it's all of their expertise, and all you're really doing is very slowly and cumbersomely and kind of clumsily eventually building a machine that can deploy the same analysis somewhat reliably, uh, based on all of their work. And like, I just don't like it. I don't like the fact that they're not getting a check. And I'm never gonna like it. You could, you can talk to me all day long about how someday we're gonna live in a post-scarcity society, and Ed will be getting a UBI check or something like this, or whatever it is, right? And hopefully I'll be getting one too, although I didn't do any security research, so I don't know, maybe I won't be getting that check. I don't know, you, I don't know how you, the you in universal basic income is, but like, I don't like this.

• 29:34Speaker 01

  They should be getting paid now because Claude is, you know, getting huge, like, everyone at, everyone in Anthropic is getting paid very well. Uh, so it's not like there isn't money being dispersed. Whether they're making or losing money or anything else you want to talk about, it's like, money is being dispersed to people, it's just not the people who did most of the work. Also, you gotta throw.

• 29:51Speaker 02

  Casey would.

• 29:52Speaker 01

  You can go.

• 29:53Speaker 02

  I was just gonna ask Casey if he was gonna be happy about it, though, if Anthropic spun out a consumer rack business, though.

• 30:01Speaker 01

  Yeah, now we're talking. If, if they were like AI racks, like, we got racks, we got racks for your AI service. Hot AI racks in your local area.

• 30:11Speaker 00

  I liked it now.

• 30:11Speaker 01

  Yeah. Exactly. We will send, send you some hot racks.

• 30:17Speaker 00

  Also, by the way, not only are they taking, you know, your whole argument with them taking it not properly attributing, or, you know, the people who put all the work benefiting from it. They're also making it so that I can't buy a GPU or RAM, or CPUs now, or anything.

• 30:32Speaker 01

  You can't buy GPU or RAM, and also, I believe Ed literally just said, he doesn't have access to this frickin' model. So like, a bunch of security researchers, I don't know exactly what subset, but like, a bunch of security researchers, many of whom probably did some pretty cool stuff, they don't even get to use this thing. That's, that's how ridiculously backwards it is. Like, WTF, guys?

• 30:54Speaker 02

  Yeah, I thought that was why they called it Mythos, though.

• 30:57Speaker 03

  And, yeah, that's why it's called Mythos. Anthropic would argue that it is too dangerous for little old me to have access to it, right? Depending on, you know.

• 31:07Speaker 01

  Who knows what you'll do, man? Who knows what you would do?

• 31:09Speaker 03

  I'll find that zero day and I'll hack into Dario's phone. No, I don't know, man. It's... I, I understand where they're coming from, but at the same time, I understand why it looks like a huge marketing ploy, and I'm not sure which way to lean, honestly.

• 31:20Speaker 01

  Yeah, okay, yeah, that's true, too.

• 31:22Speaker 00

  I think it just...

• 31:22Speaker 01

  That's a whole other angle, honestly.

• 31:23Speaker 00

  I would think that they'd have so much more credibility if they just quit, uh, effectively like, giving us Shake a Baby Syndrome constantly with their marketing. It's just like, it's constantly going back and forth. Like, every single couple of months, you're getting hit with the new, "Hey, we're all out of jobs here shortly. Hey, this thing is super dangerous." I mean, gotta remember that Dario was at ChatGPT, or OpenAI, I like to call, I like to call the company ChatGPT. He was at ChatGPT during the two days, and the official language around ChatGPT 2 seven years ago was ChatGPT 2 is too dangerous to release to the public. So like, this is not...

• 31:56Speaker 02

  That's what the 2 stood for.

• 31:57Speaker 00

  This is not the first time that we've been on this like roller coaster, and I think that's one thing that's just largely hurting the credibility. Is you can only cry wolf so many times, even, and then when a real wolf happens, like, if this is a real wolf, everyone's like, "Yeah, okay. Okay, C compiler, boy. Tell me all about it."

• 32:12Speaker 01

  But they don't, they don't care, right? They don't care because they're, the, the baby that they're shaking is called an investor. That's, that's who they have to, they have to shake the money out of the pockets, right? They don't, they don't care what we think, right? Because we're not gonna write them the next hundred billion dollars that they need to like, keep going. And they're kind of locked in this, you know, it's a bitter, bitter winner take all kind of war for this like, core technology part, right? And so, they have to be the last AI company standing. Because whoever is that company takes all the money and the other people kind of go to zero, right? Like unless, unless there's some real differentiation soon where it's like, oh, the AIs bifurcate and like, Claude is only for code and can't do anything else anymore.

• 32:56Speaker 01

  And like ChatGPT is only for like, you know, uh, the humanities or something like, good luck, good luck raising money for that.

• 33:04Speaker 03

  Humanity.

• 33:05Speaker 01

  ChatGPT 4.0 already was that. Yeah, uh, so maybe that's not true, but you know what I mean? If there's some kind of really severe bifurcation, then maybe they could both survive. But you, you know, they're in a winner take all battle right now. And so they gotta keep saying this. Every release has to be the one that's, this is the one that it will take over the world. And if it doesn't quite, well, you know, it'll be next.

• 33:26Speaker 00

  You know that Claude, uh, I've got, uh, sorry, just one quick thing. Uh, do you know that Red Bull in 2007, was it? 2011? No, 2013, maybe?

• 33:34Speaker 01

  Oh, Red Bull was too dangerous to release as well?

• 33:36Speaker 00

  No, Red Bull claimed that it gave you wings.

• 33:38Speaker 03

  Cause it gives you wings.

• 33:39Speaker 00

  It gave you wings. Uh, it was sole, it was sued successfully, I believe, for 10 million dollars because it in fact did not give you wings. It was not superior to coffee. And so.

• 33:48Speaker 03

  I'm pretty sure in college, I got a check for like $2.30 from that case.

• 33:52Speaker 00

  And so I, I am curious.

• 33:54Speaker 03

  Ed, you sued Red Bull and won, bro. You should make a video about it. Call me the lawyer, low level, okay? Listen.

• 34:01Speaker 00

  The, the al says for lawyer.

• 34:03Speaker 03

  Low legal.

• 34:04Speaker 00

  Low legal, let's go low legal. Uh, but I'm actually curious if, if they keep saying that and then it doesn't happen. Do they open themselves up to a false advertisement, class action law? Like, can you keep saying this and then not get, like, Red Bull made claims and then they got sued? Why not, why not other people? Why can't other people get sued for that?

• 34:22Speaker 03

  I think the problem with like with Red Bull is like the the case was so obvious, right? Like Red Bull does not give you wings. End of case. Like, okay, fine. Like, any judge over the age of-

• 34:32Speaker 02

  I would have liked to hear the defense for that one.

• 34:35Speaker 03

  Yes, it does!

• 34:36Speaker 02

  Your honor!

• 34:36Speaker 03

  Um, but the problem-

• 34:38Speaker 01

  They had like these wings like strapped to their back and they're like, "I drank a Red Bull this morning and here are my wings."

• 34:44Speaker 02

  We ship you wings.

• 34:45Speaker 03

  Yeah. Um, but the the problem with anything technological when it comes to the government or legislation or or, you know, judicial process is that like boomers and higher run the world right now when it comes to these levels of like of uh of of making um like legal decisions? And you couldn't explain to anybody at that age, unfortunately, like right now, just people that are like running these processes, what it even means to find a bug and then and then show them Mythos's claims and like and make a a sound legal argument that would like go well in court.

• 35:19Speaker 00

  You're right. You're right. Because Kamala Harris did actually think computing was in the literal clouds. And so it's my favorite clip of all time. Yeah, there's a clip of her-

• 35:27Speaker 02

  Josh, put the clip in.

• 35:29Speaker 06

  So you're now no longer are you necessarily keeping those private files in some file cabinet that's locked in the basement of the house? It's on your laptop and it's then therefore up here in this cloud that exists above us, right?

• 35:48Speaker 01

  She'll have the last laugh though when like SpaceX is launching AI data centers into space. Then Kamala's like, "That's what I was talking about."

• 35:57Speaker 02

  She was just ahead of her time.

• 35:57Speaker 01

  "That's what I was talking about. Duh."

• 35:59Speaker 00

  Yeah, it's cloud storage. So you're probably right.

• 36:01Speaker 02

  A great clip where she's talking about the cloud and she literally points above and goes like, "The cloud. It's like above us and stuff," or something like that. It's so-

• 36:08Speaker 01

  She should have known that it wasn't there because she would you don't see a series of tubes. There's a series of tubes necessary.

• 36:15Speaker 03

  A series of tubes. I learned that recently.

• 36:16Speaker 00

  Okay.

• 36:16Speaker 01

  It's true.

• 36:17Speaker 02

  Um, okay, I got a I got a question for you, Ed, like in this in this vein about your thoughts on it.

• 36:23Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 36:24Speaker 02

  So, right now, I get that there's there's basically like the argument- Like, okay, I'm a company, I release my thing, I run some models as like a preventative thing to look for zero days. The bad guys run models to try and look for zero days. We kind of fight it out and it's whatever, right? So I think like everyone's saying, like if the hackers can use it, I can use it, that's fine. But the thing that makes me like a little bit more, like I don't really know, is like for the state of like a bunch of open source stuff, like I'm an open source maintainer and I already can't convince a company to send me a hundred dollars a month to maintain this thing for them. There's no chance I'm getting them to, well, I'm definitely not going to spend 20K of compute

• 37:09Speaker 02

  every time I release something and decide that now it's safe, right? But and like I can't get any companies to pay for that and sponsor it. But like if I'm a, you know, if I'm the one little pin in the excuse, X K C D comic that's holding up from Nebraska, the bad guys only need to do mine once. So I'm wondering like kind of how you see that as like the landscape affecting open source, things like that. Cause it seems very asymmetric in that way.

• 37:37Speaker 03

  I mean, I think it's asymmetric for that reason, right? Like the reason why you can make the argument that Anthropic is afraid is because you are the linchpin on the infrastructure of the internet and no one has funded you so far. You have had zero security audits or zero security worked on on your stuff. And so like if you give access to these models, if you really are the linchpin in the internet, you already aren't getting money, money from Netflix, Google, whoever that's using your software. And the black hats know that you're the linchpin keeping the internet up. They're going, they're going to make use of that model to do the exploitation, right? Does that answer your question? I mean, like, I think it's just, like, the amount of power that it gives to a single organization,

• 38:22Speaker 03

  given the current like state of open source software in particular is very dangerous. And to be very clear, These models are also doing, are also very good at doing closed source software, right? Like, my recommendation to anybody interested in this, by the way, is like, go take a capture the flag problem from like, CTF Time or crackmeuse.1 or whatever, and hook up Gidra to Gidra MCP, and then use Claude code on Gidra MCP. It will reverse engineer and find a bug in that, in that problem in a matter of minutes. Like, it is, it like, like, Opus 4.6 is a better reverse engineer than I am. And I've been doing this for like, coming on 14 years. Uh, it's honestly terrifying to watch it work. So if you're, if you're even remotely interested in this, go give it a shot, and you'll kind of see what I'm talking about. It's scary how fast it moves.

• 39:06Speaker 02

  Because, so that part, that's where I'm like, you know, whether it's Mythos or not, I feel like right now, a bunch of stuff you could just, maybe it'll cost more tokens, or it'll take longer or something, but like, a lot of stuff you, you still could find.

• 39:17Speaker 03

  Yeah, and like, the models also, like, any model does this, obviously, but like, the, the current models are really bad about like, false positives. Like, I've done security research, uh, in my free time on like, Chrome ESXI and some other like routers that I've looked down.

• 39:29Speaker 02

  Regular weekend activity.

• 39:31Speaker 03

  Classic weekend activity. Um, and the amount of times I've gotten like, "Critical finding!", like, "Buffer overflow", and like, "The, the RPC handler for this thing", and it's like, "Okay, alright dude, like, write me an ASAN harness that tests that", and you'll see very quickly, "Oh, sorry, just kidding, it's not actually there." Um, and so the magic is like, if Mythos is able to make less false positives, you reduce, you increase the, the signal to noise ratio in this, in this process, which is scary, right? Because it just means, you need less people to triage the, uh, the reports, and ultimately find real bugs faster, so.

• 40:02Speaker 00

  So, I have another question with this Mythos thing, and maybe I'm curious. I'm curious about your security expertise. Isn't this whole withholding a model kind of like a doomed, uh, proposition to begin with? Meaning that, if OpenAI has a similarly powerful Mythos model, and they're competing for the zero, like, for the zero game kind of like outcome of who is the best model, doesn't it mean that when OpenAI has it, they will just release it?

• 40:31Speaker 00

  Like and then aren't we just forced to go out because whoever kind of releases it gets the customers and then by having the customers you win and so then you just get out ahead. Like doesn't this kind of cause like a weird thing where? Yeah, we're like, oh, we can't do this. You know, Dario is like saying we can't do it, but won't we just kind of fall right into it the moment? There's two people that have it.

• 40:47Speaker 03

  Yeah, I mean, that's I'm not like shitting on capitalism. I'm just saying it's more of like a capitalism problem than it is like a security problem, right? But yeah, your point is basically like if actor A says thing too dangerous. But could make a lot of money.

• 41:00Speaker 00

  Open source model, shall we say.

• 41:01Speaker 03

  And actor B has same thing and wants to make money with slightly less ethics potentially. Yeah, actor B is gonna release it. Or yeah, exactly. Chinese model, Russian model, whatever.

• 41:10Speaker 02

  Well, I mean, that's literally what I mean, Dario quit OpenAI because he's like, bro, they keep releasing, they keep making models that can kill humanity.

• 41:18Speaker 03

  Right.

• 41:18Speaker 02

  Okay, so I'm starting a company where we make models that could kill humanity.

• 41:23Speaker 00

  But they're mine. But also Chinese models.

• 41:26Speaker 03

  I mean, yeah, you're right.

• 41:27Speaker 00

  After OpenAI or Anthropic releases once. So I think that that might be a little bit difficult. They might be a little bit behind.

• 41:34Speaker 02

  Has anyone seen Robocop?

• 41:36Speaker 03

  I mean. Riverside chat, but yeah, I mean, OpenAI literally has a model that they claim, they haven't made any claims, I don't think about like Mythos equivalence, right? But they're doing effectively the same thing where it's KYC, know your customer. So you have to like upload your ID and like talk about what work you do. And you get access to GPT-54 cyber, which I'm assuming is just a model that's trained better on bug patterns, right? Use after free, out of bounds, etc. Now, if it's actually better than Mythos, who knows, right? But you know, it's, I think we're all just trending, regardless of what Anthropic wants to do, I think we're trending towards. Every person on planet Earth with a couple bucks having access to models that are very good at bug hunting. And the question is, what does that mean for software, right? Does software get more secure? Does the world just get more scary for a long time and it never really resolves itself? Like, what do we do with that information?

• 42:21Speaker 03

  And that's a tough question to answer.

• 42:23Speaker 02

  I'm interested to know how expensive it's gonna be. That's the other question. I mean, this is obviously the question kind of that we've been talking about for a while on the pod and in life. In general, is what are what are token costs gonna look like? If OpenAI and Anthropic both get all of the customers that they would like to have. Because the cost won't be the same if demand 10 or 100 or 1,000 X's. It won't be.

• 42:47Speaker 03

  So I'm not.

• 42:48Speaker 02

  The price will not be.

• 42:48Speaker 03

  I'm not super well read on this. Is it true that inference currently is at a loss? Like.

• 42:55Speaker 02

  I've heard, I've heard both.

• 42:57Speaker 03

  Both, okay.

• 42:57Speaker 02

  Some people are so confident, I have been looking to try and find a definitive answer.

• 43:02Speaker 00

  I'm the confident one, by the way, he's referencing.

• 43:05Speaker 02

  Okay. Oh, no, no, I mean, I'm not gonna reveal my sources. I asked ChatGPT and I asked Claude.

• 43:14Speaker 00

  Maybo said, of course not.

• 43:16Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah, right. I've heard, I've heard, though, that some, some people are saying they are running it at a loss, or it's a bit complicated, because like, pretty sure Anthropic's probably running some percentage of accounts on the $200 plan at a loss. Right? Um, but like, is, is API pricing at cost or below? And then how do you factor in like, training and stuff?

• 43:35Speaker 00

  So I don't know. My, my personal take is that inference itself, just looked at in the myopic view of just inference, it makes a lot of money. But you also then, once you zoom out now, you start saying hardware and all the incidental stuff around it, probably still makes money. But then when you zoom out to say like, every time you release a model, you defunct your previous model, that is gonna have, that has a very large burden. And they keep on not making money and needing to raise more money. So I have a sneaking suspicion that part of it is very hard to make money in the current state. Uh, all right.

• 44:05Speaker 03

  Well, OpenAI is like publicly, like, losing money, right? But is Anthropic also negative?

• 44:10Speaker 02

  They just had another big raise as well. So I'm assuming, I thought they just raised like $6 billion or something. Could be wrong. About that chat, fact check me. I know OpenAI did 120 billion.

• 44:22Speaker 03

  Yeah, so much money.

• 44:24Speaker 02

  Yeah, cash.

• 44:24Speaker 00

  This is the one that I actually was really curious to see. This is the only benchmark that I was super curious to see if they're gonna do well. Anthropic Opus 4.6 Max cost approximately $9,000 and got 0.5% score on Arc AGI. So this is like the, the, the super test. And humans get into the high 90s, AIs get like Gipity 4 High, cost $5,000 and got 0.2%. Gemini 3.1 did 0.4% for $2.2,000. And so it's like this really difficult, uh, it's a really difficult test for AIs to pass. And so Mythos did not add itself to this one. So this is the reason why I largely think

• 45:05Speaker 00

  it's more hard, like hype marketing than it is anything, because to me, this is like a really great indicator, at least into some sort of better model improvement. And so, I didn't see it.

• 45:14Speaker 03

  Sure.

• 45:15Speaker 00

  Let me, can I, can I just give a counterpoint to that? Sure, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

• 45:20Speaker 01

  Once again, with the huge disclaimer that I don't do any AI stuff. So this is just off the cuff. But ARC AGI, if I'm not mistaken, is a benchmark specifically to test how well AIs perform on learning completely arbitrary new things that don't exist anywhere in their training data. That's the only thing that it's made to test.

• 45:43Speaker 00

  Yes, it's the test for intelligence of this all.

• 45:46Speaker 01

  Exactly. And so the only reason I would want to point out that I don't think that test says very much about this particular security thing is security is not that.

• 45:54Speaker 00

  True.

• 45:55Speaker 01

  Like, nobody is claiming that Claude Mythos came out and discovered a whole new set of classes of security exploits that no one had ever come up with before. What it's saying is that it went and found a bunch of the exact same kinds of zero days that someone like Ed would find if they went and spent a week on that piece of software, right? So they're not claiming that this thing is somehow more intelligent than the predecessor in that way. It's claiming that it's got better pattern matching and like stringing things together to create exploits, right? That process, which is well-known. And so I don't think ARC AGI necessarily tells us very much about whether it can do those things, because those things are very well-known tasks that security researchers

• 46:40Speaker 01

  know how to do, and we kind of know the process that you do to do them, right? So just going to point that out.

• 46:45Speaker 00

  Yes, okay. I will concede that point most certainly, that the security, at least known and obvious security vulnerabilities such as use after freeze and all the fun stuff, like the stuff that happened in FFmpeg with jumping ahead somewhere in the buffer based on a B frame, I think if there was.

• 46:59Speaker 01

  Yeah, these things are very common kinds of bugs. They're not unusual. The things that they've talked about are like very, very standard. And so that seems like a more plausible claim, like, hey, we just were able to scale up the sort of security checking that a security researcher would do. It can do that thing and find, you know, potential places for that. A lot more plausible than AGI.

• 47:21Speaker 02

  Yeah. The thing too, for, I feel like, for the security side of it, as opposed to constructing a product or a new product, or like building a feature where you have to get like... In some ways, all the things right. For a security thing, I only need to find one of the things that are wrong.

• 47:39Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 47:39Speaker 02

  Which is like, that's a much... Like, you can test a bunch of the scenarios, like you're saying, Casey, that already exist. And I only need one thing to be wrong in the program for then me to be able to take control of it.

• 47:52Speaker 01

  Well, and it's combinatorial, right? Like, a lot of what security research is doing is, like, A, it's pattern matching for these kinds of bugs. And then B, going like, okay, if I did this one followed by this one, would that produce an exploit? What if I did it in the opposite order? What if I did this one, and then this one, and then that one? Okay, what if I did this one, right? And again, these are things computers are good at. Like, that, it's not...

• 48:13Speaker 02

  They are.

• 48:14Speaker 01

  You don't have to believe in some kind of a weird, like, supernatural, like, AGI-achieved, internally, Sam Altman nonsense to believe that this is something a computer could do. It's, it's much more plausible, if anything, than some of the other claims. So, that's why I, I would like, say, I'm, I'm not that, like, when I saw this, I wasn't like, "That's gotta be false." I was like, "Okay, yeah, I could believe that."

• 48:33Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 48:33Speaker 01

  I don't know.

• 48:34Speaker 03

  Most of Vol'ne research is like, you know, take a function that gives user input, like, define your threat model, and then do source-to-sink analysis on some vulnerable function or failure to gate a function on like, a length check. And like, does user data get there? Bug confirmed. And like, yeah, that's literally just pattern matching that we've solved a lot of the times previously with like, satisfiability solvers, right? Like, Anger, and like, Z3. Like, take the graph of a function, turn it into a math problem, can you solve the math problem? Cool, bug confirmed. Well, now with AI, it's just like, that process of doing source-to-sink on like, text, it can do incredibly fast, right? It's very good. Now, obviously, because it's sarcastic, it creates a lot of false positives, but if you can figure out a way to reduce the false positives, or automate the, the validation

• 49:18Speaker 03

  of, of those false positives, and then, yeah, it's, it's crazy.

• 49:22Speaker 02

  Has I thought about asking if those...

• 49:24Speaker 03

  What's that?

• 49:25Speaker 01

  Have they thought about asking Mythos?

• 49:27Speaker 03

  I know, come on, man. Can you just, no mistakes, please. Um, the thing that Mythos is set apart differently, according to the anthropic report, is its ability to chain together primitives, right? So the scary part from like a cybercrime perspective is like, you have gadget A that gives you an arbitrary read and gadget B that gives you an arbitrary write. Okay, like those two separate things are like not super important if they're not used together well. What Mythos is able to do is out of 100 tests, I think it's like 83% of the time, find exploit primitives in a vulnerable codebase and chain them together to get RCE. Right, that's the scary part, because then that's true like end-to-end exploit creation for a bad actor. And that's, I think, what scares anthropic the most.

• 50:09Speaker 03

  Now, I know there's the argument where like Firefox wasn't in the sandbox for that experiment, so like it doesn't actually matter. But I mean, just apply that process to the sandbox and the same thing applies. You know, it's just, I think they wanted to prove a point that it could do that.

• 50:23Speaker 01

  Well, and also, I mean, again, like, as I've said many times, I can't stand AI companies, so I'm not trying to defend them or anything, but I'm just trying to point, I'm just trying to point out how plausible this stuff is to me from a neutral observer's standpoint.

• 50:35Speaker 00

  Classic Casey defending AI companies.

• 50:38Speaker 01

  Yeah, I know, right? Um, I know. Uh, if you think about it, it's like, look, security researchers who do not number that many were already cranking out zero days at a much too alarming rate for me, right? Like, like, you know, there's a hack every other day, right? It's not like CVEs are piling up like there's no demand. Yeah, not all of them are actually all that bad or whatever, but like, it's not like security researchers were having trouble producing a fair number of, of critical vulnerabilities, even with the limited resources that they had. So it's also not weird to think that like, if you had more automation, you would find a lot more of them. It doesn't like, there's clearly just a lot of bugs, guys.

• 51:23Speaker 01

  Like, there's a lot of frickin' bugs. And it's just doesn't seem that unusual that if you have more sophisticated pattern matching, more sophisticated combinatorial checking, where the security researcher doesn't have to spend a lot of time setting up the tool, because it can just kind of ingest the code and it knows what, roughly what it means. Yeah, I mean, their rate's gonna increase. If nothing else, existing security teams' rates of finding exploits, it has to. I mean, it just has to, unless this thing is just a complete pile of crap. It's gotta.

• 51:51Speaker 02

  The other thing, too, we've been seeing from each, like, new generation of model is that they're getting, at least from my experience and what I'm reading from people and everything, they're getting better at calling other tools. So like, they call out to stuff more regularly.

• 52:04Speaker 01

  Right, yeah.

• 52:05Speaker 02

  And they can pay attention for longer.

• 52:07Speaker 01

  Right, like, recompile this code and see, you know, make this exploit and run it against this thing or whatever, right? Like, those are all things that if you automate them, a security researcher gets much faster at finding, but because they're not having to set up the tooling themselves to, like, go work on this exploit. Like, whatever, whatever those steps were, they don't have to do them anymore, right?

• 52:26Speaker 02

  Right. So then if you're like, oh, now it can run instead of like, I have to prompt it at every stage for the next thing to do. Is I can give it 10 rough things, say, try a bunch of combinations of these, and then it runs for 24 hours.

• 52:39Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 52:39Speaker 02

  You're just like a lot, it's literally like, and in my mind, some of it is like, yeah, well, we already know fuzzers exist. Like, we use them all the time and they're good, right? It's like, in some ways, almost like...

• 52:49Speaker 01

  Yeah, it's like Fuzzer, it's like Fuzzer squared, right? It's like a thing now that can, like, target the fuzzing at things specifically so that...

• 52:55Speaker 02

  Fuzzer too.

• 52:56Speaker 01

  Things that would be very hard for stochastic testing to catch. Because when you have stochastic testing and you have to chain two things together, you're never gonna randomly pick the two things that would have to happen for them to work. Here is a thing that can, like, target that specifically and go like, oh, I think combine these two things. We probably fuzz that specific path. Oh, yep, I got it, right?

• 53:15Speaker 03

  That's what gets crazy is like, you just have the AI write the Fuzzer. And then like, if you can automate that process, you win a lot of the time. It's pretty, pretty amazing. Um, I do have to go, though. I have a meeting in three minutes, so I gotta, I gotta rip.

• 53:26Speaker 02

  Well, hopefully you get Mythos access. Congrats.

• 53:28Speaker 03

  That'd be neat. No, it's not gonna happen.

• 53:29Speaker 01

  Come on, guys.

• 53:30Speaker 03

  Thanks, guys.

• 53:30Speaker 01

  Give him a little sex.

• 53:31Speaker 00

  Come on, Dario.

• 53:32Speaker 01

  Thanks, Ed.

• 53:33Speaker 00

  Bye, Low Level. I like you guys, but it looks like it's the end of our show, unfortunately.

• 53:39Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 53:40Speaker 00

  Hey, thank you.

• 53:41Speaker 02

  All right.

• 53:41Speaker 00

  Thank you, everybody. I would just like to say that, uh, I would, I would just like to say that Casey and TJ and obviously Timu Casey that just left, commonly known as Low Level Learning, uh, you guys, you know, you make the show magic and...

• 53:56Speaker 00

  And now I'm just gonna go about being lonely again. Kinda sad.

• 54:00Speaker 01

  Oh, Prime.

• 54:03Speaker 00

  I knew that was coming. I thought I was gonna get booed, but I just assumed something's gonna happen. Alright, um, the real, the good news is, is that you can enjoy full episodes of the stand-up now on YouTube. If you go to the Stand Up Pod Full, which I'm gonna try to rename, hopefully at some point. We're trying to work some things out to get it a better name, but right now, YouTube, am I right?

• 54:27Speaker 01

  If you go to the website, if you go to our website, will it have links to these?

• 54:32Speaker 02

  Yeah, it will. It will. And it'll have it spelled out. We'll make it more clear once we figure everything out. Over the next week, maybe by the time you're listening to this on YouTube, by the time you're listening to this on YouTube, we're gonna upload all of the backlog to that channel as well. So we should have every episode on YouTube in one spot. Very easy to see, etc. Obviously, you always can, you know, RSS, download, download the audio directly. Don't press the red button on that site, of course.

• 55:00Speaker 01

  Teach, what is that web address that people should go to?

• 55:02Speaker 02

  The Stand Up Pod.

• 55:04Speaker 01

  Go to the Stand Up Pod dot com. All the links will be there. All the episodes will be there. You want YouTube, you want Spotify, you want downloads, you want RSS, you got it. The Stand Up Pod dot com, ladies and gentlemen.

• 55:16Speaker 00

  Check this out. I'm just gonna do something for the audience. Look at this. If you go here, you click Trash Made a Black Mirror App. You can go and you can listen to it right on the website. You can have all the nice information right here. You can download Trash's app right there. You can go in here.

• 55:30Speaker 01

  We don't even charge you for that. We don't even charge you.

• 55:33Speaker 00

  You can play on Spotify. You can download and just have personally for you to do whatever you do.

• 55:41Speaker 00

  That's for you.

• 55:42Speaker 02

  Now that we're, and then I'll make it, I'll make it so it links to the YouTube there later as well. Now that we're gonna have a dedicated YouTube channel for that too. So for all of you out there, you know.

• 55:51Speaker 01

  The AI companies claim that you're gonna get UBI, but we're actually giving you Universal Basic Podcast. You just get it for free. UBP.

• 56:01Speaker 00

  UBP. You know me.

• 56:03Speaker 02

  UBP. I was gonna say, well, I don't know what I was gonna say. That's fine. We should just.

• 56:08Speaker 00

  We should really just end this episode.

• 56:10Speaker 01

  Stick a fork in it, guys. It's done.

• 56:12Speaker 00

  Alright, thanks.

• 56:12Speaker 01

  Good seeing you, everybody.

• 56:13Speaker 00

  Casey, thanks again, YouTube, thanks again, whatever your name is, Teach. You're pretty neat.

• 56:23Speaker 05

  Vibe code and errors on my screen. Terminal coffee. And hell. Living the dream.