> Importantly, journalists in media, classically inept at any economic analysis, implied that 10% tariff = 10% RRP rise. They never corrected themselves, nor for the economists who falsely claimed the economy would collapse.
This is irrelevant to the discussion in the article, which is specifically about refunding a portion of whatever amount a company receives back from the government to customers.
It's also pretty vague without any examples of what specifically deserves corrections.
Isn't Mythos limited to a selected group of companies/organizations Anthropic chose themselves? If the OpenAI announcement for GPT-5.5 is accurate the "trusted cyber access" just requires an open, seemingly straightforward identity verification step.
> We are expanding access to accelerate cyber defense at every level. We are making our cyber-permissive models available through Trusted Access for Cyber , starting with Codex, which includes expanded access to the advanced cybersecurity capabilities of GPT‑5.5 with fewer restrictions for verified users meeting certain trust signals (opens in a new window) at launch.
> Broad access is made possible through our investments in model safety, authenticated usage, and monitoring for impermissible use. We have been working with external experts for months to develop, test and iterate on the robustness of these safeguards. With GPT‑5.5, we are ensuring developers can secure their code with ease, while putting stronger controls around the cyber workflows most likely to cause harm by malicious actors.
> Organizations who are responsible for defending critical infrastructure can apply to access cyber-permissive models like GPT‑5.4‑Cyber, while meeting strict security requirements to use these models for securing their internal systems.
"GPT‑5.4‑Cyber" is something else and apparently needs some kind of special access, but that CyberGym benchmark result seems to apply to the more or less open GPT-5.5 model that was just released.
Are the allegations described here what you're referring to?
From cursory reading it sounds like satanic panic bullshit with some good old "gay men are pedophiles" thrown in, and basically just character assasination using debunked or non-existent sources.
I live near a middle school in the suburbs and it may come as a surprise but kids are frequently crossing a busy street using a regular, unprotected crosswalk.
No amount of child deaths and dismemberments are enough to deny me the right to get to where I'm going 30 seconds faster. Don't you know how important I am?
It is an engineering problem. Almost all pedestrian concerns are engineering problems. If kids are doing this, they should be instructed repeatedly to use the painted crosswalk instead. If there are no painted crosswalks, ideally with a walk button to press, there should be more, potentially also with traffic lights. If this is insufficient, a well thought out and maintained stair-free bridge could be better.
I had a tab on nuclear reactors open and so typed in "Pressurized Water Reactor" and the result while very visually appealing is completely nonsensical (connected the high/low pressure coolant loops together) and would definitely explode.
The "default" light-mode look of most popular UI frameworks wouldn't have that same issue unless you put a lot of time into customizing your own styling, which most side projects wouldn't bother with (unless that look and feel was the point of the project). There certainly would be poor UI decisions but more likely in layout/placement/navigation, which could still be problematic for accessibility but probably not in a "is this color scheme even readable" kind of way.
Plus given time constraints, they generally wouldn't try to cram huge amounts of tiny text into every visible inch of the page without some intentional reason to do so (using that somewhat hard to read console-ish font Claude seems to love as a default).
Maybe the dark mode/terminal font/high text density look presents as "cool looking" at first glance for one-shotting evals so they've all converged on it. But to OP's point, this seems like a solvable (or at least mitigable) issue if models or harnesses were concerned about it.
I thought the same for a long time, borderline unusable with loops/bizarre decisions compared to Claude Code and later Codex.
But I picked it up again about a month ago and I have been quite impressed. Haven’t hit any of those frustrating QoL issues yet it was famous for and I’ve been using it a few hours a day.
Maybe it will let me down sooner or later but so far it has been working really well for me and is pretty snappy with the auto model selection.
After cancelling my Claude Pro plan months ago due to Anthropic enshittification I’ve been nervous relying solely on Codex in case they do the same, so I’ve been glad to have it available on my Google One plan.
It was for about the first 6 months after I subscribed, then the rate limits were tightened to the point of uselessness and pushed me to cancel and go for the Codex plan instead.
It's also pretty vague without any examples of what specifically deserves corrections.
reply