I'm out of my technical depth here, but out of curiosity: is this meant to be a full replacement for the current IP address paradigm, or is this meant to be a specific tool on top of/alongside IP addresses that solves particular problems/frictions?

I would say it is not a replacement but an addition.

IP isn't going anywhere any time soon, but we add two capabilities on top. The ability to dial an endpoint by key, and the ability to get direct connections whenever possible.

That being said, if some other technology becomes popular that actually replaces the IP address paradigm, iroh is well positioned to make use of it. From the point of view of an iroh application developer nothing would change. You still dial by key, and iroh will just make sure under the hood to get you the best possible connection, IP or otherwise.

A little bit of both. Natively it relies on QUIC and leverages existing IP infrastructure, however it also works with custom transports just as fine so you can interact via bluetooth for example.

Even if some models are able to find some large fraction of the vulns that Mythos finds, the contention (that those of us outside Anthropic and a few select partners do not yet have the ability to replicate) is that Mythos not only found vulns, but was able to string them together into working exploits, very close to autonomously or at list with minimal hand-holding. I believe that UK AISI has at least in part confirmed that Mythos is better at this than other models like GPT 5.5, even while it's not better at the simply finding vulns part (although, again, no one else is currently able to replicate their results).

This was the primary reason for not releasing it. The difference in the two primary camps around this topic are that the doubter group thinks that Anthropic, and all of their partners, are essentially lying about this (since no one outside Anthropic and select partners has the access to replicate), whereas the other side believes that Anthropic and partners are probably mostly telling the truth without too much exaggeration.

Neither camp has evidence other than unconfirmable reports and/or arguments about economic incentives. I personally think that Anthropic has, in the past, mostly not lied about things like this and has by far been the most transparent and open AI company. That could change, and they could be lying now, but I think that the camp that is certain that they are is far, far too confident in their belief.

Why tho?

Mostly a principled (although admittedly near totally useless) stand against exactly the kind of issue talked about in this article. The organic label, as it is used in the US, is basically BS marketing bordering on misinformation. I prefer that my one, tiny, consumer signal goes in the direction of not supporting that BS marketing label.

aren't there other issues with having the motor in the wheels? Unsprung mass, plus the wheels can get pretty banged around?

You could add a short drive shaft behind the springs to put the motor on the car body. That'd give you some additional advantage of moving much of the brake weight off of the wheel as well.

Unfortunately, Anthropic and Claude models have joined the ranks of Mind-killer topics where the signal to noise ratio in any discussion has dropped through the basement.

So...no engagement with the substance? Not even to explain why it is that this is not a useful description or test of capabilities? Ok.

I would like to see it do something useful, like converting pytorch to golang.

Will you accept a port of Torch to Rust? https://github.com/forecast-bio/ferrotorch

Hot damn - is that the floor of what you consider useful?

Why not get a plan from Anthropic and get that done yourself? Probably is going to cost you as much as a coffee.

...given the line you quoted from the FAQ, I'm a bit confused about why you are still wondering. That seems about as straight forward of an answer to your question as one could expect.

>I'm a bit confused about why you are still wondering

They did admit to being German.

It is clearly a word play, but I guess their question is whether or not the old = alt connection was made or not.

(Of course the alta in Altavista is from Spanish "high", but that doesn't really change anything)

The rhyming is good, making "Oldavista" a generic wordplay that is merely more obvious to find for German speakers, and the name is insignificant compared to the effort of reproducing the whole Altavista page.

The OPs (incorrect in this very minor detail) point was that fertility is below replacement everywhere except Israel, where the only reason it wasn't below replacement was Orthodox religious members of society. That's just wrong. Fertility in Israel, across every single group except for one in your own data, is above replacement. Orthodox are the highest, and bringing the overall number up, but if you removed them, fertility in Israel would still be comfortably above replacement.

So no, their characterization was not correct, since the point was that, absent a particular group, fertility would be, like in almost every other OECD (and many non OECD) countries, below replacement.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. This is more evidence, and of greater rigor, than was used to make the assertions. That's good enough for me. If someone wants to actually do the work to support the original claims with better evidence, great. I'd love to see it. Until then, I'm going to not worry about this issue.

We don't need to squash all of them, we need to squash all of them that are practically findable by current and very near term frontier models.

Also impossible imo so it's moot.

Because you think that current models can, in a practical sense, find an infinite number of vulnerabilities, or you think that they can find so many that it isn't possible to fix them?

In other words: do you think that the impossibility lines in exhausting the number finds or does the impossibility lie in fixing them?

In either case, do you think that this was also true pre-AI? That is to say: it was not possible to, given some set of practical resource constraints, find and fix all the vulnerabilities that a similarly-resourced group would find?

If so, then would you say that you just fundamentally don't believe in secure software and the only defense is lack of attention?

I think that there are, practically, infinite vulnerabilities in common and critical software - browsers, operating systems, etc. So discovering all of them is not tractable, and even if we 100x our rate of discovery it won't matter.

> In either case, do you think that this was also true pre-AI? That is to say: it was not possible to, given some set of practical resource constraints, find and fix all the vulnerabilities that a similarly-resourced group would find?

Yes.

> If so, then would you say that you just fundamentally don't believe in secure software and the only defense is lack of attention?

I believe in security software, few people are building it though and the majority of relevant attack surface is dogshit for security.

Squashing vulns via discovery is irrelevant to security. If we want safer software it has to be built to be safer.