writes this^ and then proceeds to highlight a bold title from the docs that says "summarized thinking" that explains things clearly in the first sentence. lol

>On Claude 4 models, the first few lines of thinking output are more verbose, providing detailed reasoning that's particularly helpful for prompt engineering purposes. Claude Mythos Preview summarizes from the first token, so its thinking blocks do not show this verbose preamble. https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/extend...

>followed initial frustration Friday among some administration officials when they couldn’t immediately get Amodei on the phone, the people said.

That he didn't drop everything to talk to them seems like the major crux? But Dario doesn't even do the day-to-day operations Daniela does. Feel like Anthropic should just hire Dean Ball to be their liason or something

I imagine they track usage and can see whether their habitual users are switching to something else and aren't going to slash prices 'for the hell of it'.

just look at public stats on openrouter (obviously not indicative of first party app usage or direct api usage, but there's a huge difference between these graphs): https://openrouter.ai/openai https://openrouter.ai/anthropic

>To release the model both safely and quickly, we’ve tuned these safeguards conservatively—they’ll sometimes catch harmless requests, though they trigger, on average, in less than 5% of sessions. With more capable models arriving in the coming months, we’re working to improve our safeguards and reduce false positives as quickly as we can.

There's a quote from a METR report on page 52:

>We ran [Mythos 5] on 38 of our hardest software tasks, including tasks centered around R&D. [Mythos5] generally outperformed an early checkpoint of Claude Mythos Preview in these, including by succeeding on some tasks that had not been solved by any public model we have previously evaluated. However, we still observed the model occasionally failing to correctly interpret nuanced instructions in difficult tasks... Based on the available evidence, we believe [Mythos 5] is likely unable to fully and reliably automate R&D for frontier projects spanning multiple weeks. We believe that a better, more confident assessment would require more time, evaluations, and information from the model developer.

I agree with some parts of this piece, but paragraphs like this one above seem pretty uninspired and simplistic. It's entirely plausible that a conscious mind would not be evolutionarily incentivized to be able to do those things. ie just because animals on earth needed to develop specific talents doesn't mean that other conscious entities need to. Why would a computer program need to hunt for food like a mouse would? Making tools like chimp? these seem like nonsensical metrics.

I conjecture that some amount of the "doomer posting" is a consequence of other people realizing what you realized here and attempting to sway public sentiment for personal gain.