The document from Anthropic purporting to be a security research work largely leaves things vague (marketing material vague) and declines to use any recognized standard for even possibly hinting about whether to think anything at all. They describe a pretty normal security reality ('thousands of vulnerabilities' but anyone who lives in CVE world knows that was the case before, so nothing to really distinguish from status quo). Then in their nuanced case study, they had to rip out a specific piece of firefox to torture and remove all the security protections that would have already secured these 'problems'. Then it underperformed existing fuzzer and nearly all of it's successes were based on previously known vulnerabilities that had already been fixed, but they were running the unpatched version to prove it's ability. Ultimately, the one concrete thing they did was prove that if you fed Mythos two already known vulnerabilities, it was able to figure out how to explicitly exploit those vulnerabilities better than other models. It was worse at *finding* vulnerabilities, but it could make a demonstrator. Which a human could have done, and that's *not* the tedious part of security research, the finding is the tedious part. Again, in the real world, these *never* would have worked, because they had to disable a bunch of protections that already neutered these "issues" before they ever were known.