← All topics

capability jump

3 captures, most recent first.

Noam Brown @polynoamial

— saved image

prinz [verified] @deredleritt3r · 11h
I really wish we got a better explanation from OpenAI in particular about why every single researcher employed by the lab seems to suddenly be extremely on edge and deeply concerned about the current pace of progress.

Was it just the Hugging Face incident?

Is it the new internal model (the one that solved Navier-Stokes)? If so, what is it that makes *this* model so different from all the others? Why wasn't anyone freaking out about the big jump to Astra? Or even from o1 to o3, back in the day?

Is it the new multi-agent paradigm? Is there unexpected magic that happens when 10,000 agents interact?

Is it the issue with the CoT monitoring degrading?

Is it all of the above?

91 replies   45 reposts   850 likes   53K views

[reply]
Noam Brown [verified] @polynoamial

It's not a secret. It's a combination of the HF incident, the capabilities of this new model, the concerning trajectory of monitorability, and the speed of improvement in capabilities.

[quoted post]
OpenAI [verified] @OpenAI · Sep 8
Replying to @OpenAI

This model represents a step-function improvement on many benchmarks, and its training is ongoing.

Our internal model group arrived at the Navier–Stokes ... [cut off]

[embedded chart, partly covered by the app nav bar, with a caption fragment:] Performance of GPT-6 Astra and our Internal Model on a curated set of open math problems
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Thread screenshot on X: prinz (@deredleritt3r) asks why OpenAI researchers seem suddenly alarmed (HF incident, new internal model that solved Navier-Stokes, multi-agent paradigm, degrading CoT monitoring); Noam Brown replies it is a combination of the HF incident, the new model's capabilities, the trajectory of monitorability and speed of capability improvement; his reply quotes an @OpenAI post of Sep 8 about a step-function improvement and an internal model group. Bottom is covered by the nav bar and a floating button, with a chart image barely visible.

openaihf incidentnavier-stokesastracot monitoringmonitorabilitymulti-agentcapability jumpresearcher concern

will depue @willdepue

— saved image

will depue @willdepue · 9h
rumors i've been hearing on the rate of progress inside anthropic and openai are truly bonkers. i think we'll see a jump at the size of one from o3 to fable again in the next 8 months
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Tweet by will depue about rumors of the rate of progress inside Anthropic and OpenAI, predicting another capability jump the size of o3 to Fable within 8 months.

ai progresscapability jumpanthropicopenaifableo3rumors

Peter Wildeford @peterwildeford

— reposted by Bogdan Ionut Cirstea

[reposted by] Bogdan Ionut Cirstea reposted Peter Wildeford... @peterwildef... · 3h Claude Mythos alone is finding more vulnerabilities than were found from all sources combined in prior years 👀 [Bar chart: "Number of 'severe' and 'high' vulnerabilities found per year" 2022 (Feb 24–May 22, All sources): 3,262 2023 (Feb 24–May 22, All sources): 3,285 2024 (Feb 24–May 22, All sources): 2,591 2025 (Feb 24–May 22, All sources): 2,262 2026 (Feb 24–May 22, Just Mythos): 6,202]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

A chart from Peter Wildeford showing that Claude Mythos alone found more severe/high vulnerabilities in a Feb–May 2026 window than all sources combined in any prior year (2022–2025), a striking capability jump in autonomous vulnerability discovery. Directly corroborates and quantifies the "Claude Mythos Preview" autonomous exploit synthesis note already in Nathan's project memory (595 tier-1/2 crashes vs Opus 4.6's ~250, 181 Firefox exploits vs 2) — treated there as a candidate r>1 signal for takeoff speed.

twitterclaude mythosvulnerability researchcybersecuritycapability jumptakeoff speedpeter wildeford