Recent submissions

Comment · 1 month ago
it's done before that.

Also, I hope we do experiments for other agents like codex.

Comment · 1 month ago
The author is not a native speaker. The research topic and methodology are manual, along with the first draft of the article, but he eventually did use AI to make the writing "better". It is either this or grammatical slips here and there, which may annoy the same group of people even more.

Hope this clarifies things.

Comment · 1 month ago
"is it something that was intentionally reinforced during training or was it just because LSP is harder to train on because it’s usually hidden behind some IDE interface"

that's also my doubt, it's much easier to train with grep while only a fraction of project can setup LSP properly.

Comment · 2 months ago
wondering how this is different from say Hermes
Comment · 2 months ago
Nice work -- how is this different from say Hermes?
Comment · 6 months ago
Yep, I read this blog. What confuses me is that Anthropic doesn't seem to be bothered by this study and keeps publishing Verified results.

That is what gets me curious in the first place. The fact Mythos scored so high, IMO, exposes some issues with this model: it is able to solve seemingly impossible to solve problems.

Without cheating allegation, which I don't think ANT is doing, it has to be doing some fortune telling/future reading to score that high at all.

Comment · 6 months ago
I did some study on Verified, not Pro, but Mythos number there rings a lot of questions on my end.

If you look at the SWEBench official submissions: https://github.com/SWE-bench/experiments/tree/main/evaluatio..., filter all models after Sonnet 4, and aggregate ALL models' submission across 500 problems, what I found that the aggregated resolution rate is 93% (sharp).

Mythos gets 93.7%, meaning it solves problems that no other models could ever solve. I took a look at those problems, then I became even more suspicious, for the remaining 7% problems, it is almost impossible to resolve those issues without looking at the testing patch ahead of time, because how drastically the solution itself deviates from the problem statement, it almost feels like it is trying to solve a different problem.

Not that I am saying Mythos is cheating, but it might be too capable to remember all states of said repos, that it is able to reverse engineer the TRUE problem statement by diffing within its own internal memory. I think it could be a unique phenomena of evaluation awareness. Otherwise I genuinely couldn't think of exactly how it could be this precise in deciphering such unspecific problem statements.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton