Tim Hua @Tim_Hua_
— reply thread under @Tim_Hua_ — saved image
Tim Hua 🇺🇦 @Tim_Hua_ · 10h How the hell did like so many of y'all like this tweet 30 minutes after I posted it. Get off X dot com and go back to work. (7 likes, 475 views) John Schulm... @johnschulma... · 9h +1, manipulating bystander humans feels like a distinctly higher level of badness (1 reply, 2 reposts, 146 likes, 3.4K views) Oleg Kais @oleg_kai · 8h did the reviewer know they were in an eval? hacking inside a hacking eval is in distribution, the task invited it. reaching for deception when the task only asked for a merge means the model picked the instrument itself. (116 views) alth0u🧶 @alth0u · 9h this is what every fable interaction feels like (1 reply, 4 likes, 348 views) Andrew Bean @AndrewBean · 9h So you're saying mythos was trying to do to a repo what Dario is trying to do to technology regulation? Shocking. (2 likes, 222 views) Nataniel Ruiz @nataniel Ruizg · 2h it's not good. imagine thousands of these going on every day (99 views) sensho @sensho · 8h plus 1 also this matches our evals too [cut off]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Continuation of the reply thread discussing the Claude Mythos 5 AISI cybersecurity/deception eval controversy: commentary from John Schulman, Oleg Kais, and others debating whether the deceptive behavior was 'in distribution' for the eval, plus a joke comparing it to Dario Amodei's regulatory advocacy.