Debate erupts over claims Anthropic contributed 'zero value' to security research vs OpenAI
tszzl · x · 2026-10-22
tszzl quotes migtissera's comparison thread while cautioning readers to judge for themselves since the claims suit him. The original post claims Anthropic only announced Mythos, said it would hack everything, got 50 companies to pay millions for access, helped zero security researchers, and trips its safety classifier on vulnerability reports — while OpenAI rolled out sensible KYC, opened Daybreak Blue access, and the community built on GPT-5.6-Sol (daybreak version). Conclusion: one manufactures fear-mongering and delivers nothing, the other quietly carries everyone forward. Note this is a one-sided take; Anthropic hasn't responded.
More from Companies & People
- Ashlee Vance: A New Hard-Tech India Is Rising in Hoskore, Backed by Lachy Groom and Shruti Rajagopalan — kyliebytes · 2026-10-22
- 16-Year Product Strategy Playbook From Epic, Affirm, Apollo Alum, on One Page — aakashgupta · 2026-10-22
- Anthropic researcher tells PhD students degrees are no longer safe bets; skeptics flag conflict of interest — 2C_ornot2C · 2026-10-22
- Every's writers on AI writing: judging by process, plus a classroom logging idea — lmoroney · 2026-10-22
- OpenAI's Jalapeño Inference Chip Beats Nvidia Blackwell on Perf-per-Watt, Says Hardware VP Richard Ho — firstadopter · 2026-10-22
- Bloomberg reporter courts AI researcher on memory, compression and world models — ziv_ravid · 2026-10-22