An interesting cognitive bias: 'GLM 5.3 is around as capable as Claude Mythos at cyber-exploitation while also having much lower safeguards,…

An interesting cognitive bias: "GLM 5.3 is around as capable as Claude Mythos at cyber-exploitation while also having much lower safeguards, meaning that every additional day absent some dire cybersecurity incident is further evidence against catastrophic AI cyber-risk." That's right. And yet it doesn't seem to be treated that way by many people in the safety community. It's like they have a one-way valve for their risk estimates. I was curious if this bias has already been talked about in lesswrong / EA circles and indeed it has, going all the way back to this 2007 Yudkowsky post "Absence of Evidence Is Evidence of Absence" https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mnS2WYLCGJP2kQkRn/absence-of-evidence-is-evidence-of-absence Does anyone disagree that pretty much every piece of empirical evidence we have about actually existing AI points toward a labor-augmenting technology with a more-or-less ordinary risk profile (no worse than cars, guns, nuclear power, social media, etc.)? On the labor front, the …

Related

• Anthropic says GLM-5.3 can autonomously build end-to-end cyber exploits, like Claude Mythos Preview, but was released without robust safeguards against misuse (Anthropic)
• Anthropic's Claude Mythos isn't a sentient super-hacker, it's a sales pitch — claims of 'thousands' of severe zero-days rely on just 198 man…
• We've been tricked, again. Many of the thousands of bugs and vulnerabilities Mythos found are in older software are impossible to exploit. A…

Source: Yann LeCun (X) | 2026-10-06