CBS News99%

Why Anthropic is saying its new AI model, Mythos, is too dangerous to release 77%

4/10/2026, 3:24:53 PM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Anecdotal, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 59.5% saturation with 530 hits. Analysis detected 3,706 faulty-reasoning hits from 891 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 62.5% and a BS Rank of 77% (6,210 of 26,706 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 76.70% of the video peer group.

Welcome back to TechOut. Thanks for hanging out with us. Anthropic, which is a heavy hitter in the artificial intelligence world, has announced that it is teaming up with tech giants to, in its words, quote, "secure the world's most critical software." What are they 
securing it from, you might wonder? Anthropic's own AI model called Mythos. Mythos has already found vulnerabilities in, quote, "every major operating system and web browser that it's interacted with." 
And for that reason, fearing that bad actors, if they are thrown out in the public domain, could exploit Mythos's capabilities, Anthropic says it is not releasing it just yet. A heck of a story. New York Times reporter Mike Isaac joins us now to explain. 
So, Mike, walk us through the basics. What Mythos is, what it's been allowed to encounter in the software world, and what are the implications? 
So, yeah, Mythos is the latest, what's called, model from Anthropic, a Silicon Valley startup, one of the most, I would say, buzzy AI startups out in San Francisco right now. And with each of these models, they're getting a bit more sophisticated in what they're able to do. You know, it's it's a type of research called reasoning, which allows them to, you know, think a little bit further ahead than each last one. 
But Mythos is kind of different because this is very specifically focused on digging into operating systems for everything from desktops to smartphones to, uh, you know, different systems inside of the government, and finding any possible vulnerabilities inside them. And I was reading about this as as they had released it, and they had made notes that, you know, some software that's been around for decades, uh, Mythos found bugs in it, vulnerabilities that were critical in just a few hours of of digging through it. 
it. So, it's really, I think they I think it's probably smart of them to not give it to anyone if this can immediately find security, uh, flaws in the world's most important and powerful software. So, Anthropic is not an altruistic entity. It is doing this on a cost-saving basis for now, but when this is perfected, as I understand it, Mike, it will charge a pretty high rack rate. 
I mean, you could also say this is one of their most effective marketing campaigns ever, right? You know, I 
>> You might also say that. Yes. >> [laughter] >> I I called around to some of the big tech companies. Right now, they're not releasing it. They're only allowing like the big tech companies, some of the banks, uh, to use it. And I called around and I said, you know, like, is this real? Is this hype? You know, Anthropic is filled with a bunch of people who are often saying this is very dangerous that AI is going to harm us. 
Uh, and they kind of landed somewhere in the middle. They said, look, this is actually finding real security issues that we need to take seriously. You know, Anthropic is, uh, often seen as like the Chicken Little of Silicon Valley, but this is actually important stuff in how the infrastructure of the world works. Uh, two people not named Chicken Little, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, and the Treasury Secretary of the United States, Scott Bessent, met, we are told, we have confirmed at CBS News, with a large number of very large banks to discuss Mythos and vulnerabilities because there is a sense, Mike, if I have this correct, that if vulnerabilities are exploited, lots of global finance could be at some level compromised. 
I think that's certainly right. And this is [clears throat] one of the things, too, that a lot of these very important financial systems and the stuff that, you know, our bank accounts essentially are running on or our 401(k)s, uh, are running on software that's been around for a very long time, increasingly large and complicated to support, you know, millions, if not billions, of customers. And that means there's just like a lot of holes in it. That's millions of lines of code that 
of code that now, with these AI models, you don't have to have like a security researcher like me, I'm not a researcher, but like an engineer, looking through it. You sick your little robots, uh, a crowd of robots out into the world to dig through it, and in hours you can find crazy flaws. So, I think there's a real, uh, sense of urgency, and like there's real legitimate, you know, concerns by the big banks. 
I would say, that the government is moving as quickly as they are on this sort of stuff, you know, considering they may not have done so, you know, just a few years ago. 
Mike, very quickly, if AI were smart enough, and this is the central question to its future, how smart will it get, could it not only detect vulnerabilities, but create them in themselves within software programs? 
That's right. I think that's the sort of threat. And all of the testing of all of these robots that you see out here is done basically in like internet clean 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.2%CBS News: 8.9%Confirmation Bias2.2%This article: 5.1%CBS News: 3.1%Anchoring Bias5.1%This article: 59.5%CBS News: 11.3%Availability Heuristic59.5%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 2.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 3.8%CBS News: 2.0%Hindsight Bias3.8%This article: 21.2%CBS News: 6.1%Overconfidence Bias21.2%This article: 13.5%CBS News: 15.6%Framing Effect13.5%This article: 13.9%CBS News: 1.2%Loss Aversion13.9%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 1.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.4%CBS News: 6.5%Optimism Bias8.4%This article: 21.9%CBS News: 2.8%Pessimism Bias21.9%This article: 47.1%CBS News: 13.5%Negativity Bias47.1%This article: 8.0%CBS News: 3.4%Self-Serving Bias8.0%This article: 8.0%CBS News: 2.4%Fundamental Attribution Error8.0%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 0.6%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 4.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 12.2%CBS News: 3.8%Recency Bias12.2%This article: 5.1%CBS News: 1.5%Primacy Effect5.1%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 24.7%CBS News: 10.3%Appeal to Authority24.7%This article: 12.0%CBS News: 3.3%False Dilemma12.0%This article: 19.6%CBS News: 2.0%Slippery Slope19.6%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 0.5%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 42.2%CBS News: 10.8%Hasty Generalization42.2%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 9.4%CBS News: 1.7%Bandwagon9.4%This article: 13.7%CBS News: 13.1%Appeal to Emotion13.7%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 2.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 4.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 14.5%CBS News: 2.6%Burden of Proof14.5%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 9.7%CBS News: 0.9%Composition/Division9.7%This article: 32.3%CBS News: 6.3%Anecdotal32.3%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 0.4%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 3.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 8.0%CBS News: 0.3%Special Pleading8.0%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 1.9%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBS News: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

891 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker51%attributed speech440writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageMike • 75 words • 0.0% coverageMike • 87 words • 0.0% coverageMike • 71 words • 0.0% coverageMike • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 84 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 129 words • 0.0% coverageMike • 86 words • 0.0% coverageMike • 78 words • 0.0% coverageMike • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mike

100%flagged-word coverage
451 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.