site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

2
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If that's the biggest red flag you can find?

Well, I mentally include you in the list of skeptics too, so I've already wished you luck.

(And I suppose I should thank you for listening to others when they asked you to try repeating your recent experiment with Opus instead of Sonnet. That makes you a better skeptic than many I have the displeasure of knowing on this forum.)

More substantively:

Anthropic takes misalignment seriously, though concerns were raised after the loosened their RSP. You can't really evaluate the safety of the latest and greatest models while being maximally restrictive, at least not if you don't want to be scooped by your competitors with fewer scruples. Anthropic acknowledges this tension explicitly, and asks for forgiveness for moving with haste even they aren't quite comfortable with. I can only assume that reasonable care was taken to minimize the scope for danger even when they did a wider internal rollout.

Plus, they've already said they're not going to make Mythos public, even if some of the benefits will trickle down to the next Opus. That is not something a company that is desperate for money or willing to ignore safety would do.

Plus, they've already said they're not going to make Mythos public, even if some of the benefits will trickle down to the next Opus. That is not something a company that is desperate for money or willing to ignore safety would do.

Oh, Boo. You can bet your ass the military and big corpo will have access to Mythos, why can't the ordinary man get it too (even for the appropriate fee including a fair margin rate on top of their development + running costs).

Oh, Boo. You can bet your ass the military and big corpo will have access to Mythos, why can't the ordinary man get it too (even for the appropriate fee including a fair margin rate on top of their development + running costs).

The same reason why you're not allowed to own a machine gun.

@ChickenOverlord is correct to point out that Anthropic has only said they won't release Mythos Preview, but that they're planning to release "Mythos-tier" models eventually, when they deem it safe.

We do not plan to make Claude Mythos Preview generally available, but our eventual goal is to enable our users to safely deploy Mythos-class models at scale—for cybersecurity purposes, but also for the myriad other benefits that such highly capable models will bring. To do so, we need to make progress in developing cybersecurity (and other) safeguards that detect and block the model’s most dangerous outputs. We plan to launch new safeguards with an upcoming Claude Opus model, allowing us to improve and refine them with a model that does not pose the same level of risk as Mythos Preview3.

This is a little bit of a hijack, but it's topical. About six weeks ago, you offered to run some coding tasks on a frontier model. Did that ever go anywhere?

Unfortunately, not yet. My collaborator (who would, let's be honest, be doing the heavy lifting that isn't handled by Opus, and certainly more than me) was disappointed by the general quality of the submissions. Not all of them, of course, but many of them seemed too demanding or out of scope. Both of us have also become far more busy, and I have no intention of chasing him regarding it. I did nudge him a few weeks or two back, and that's what he told me.

This doesn't necessarily mean that it won't happen, but you shouldn't get your hopes up. I can't really do it by myself, I have no reason to pay for Claude Max, leaving aside technical capabilities.

There were a few ones, now that I think about it, that I could handle by myself, but they're not the most impressive examples. And I do genuinely have a lot on my plate.

If that's the biggest red flag you can find?

I mean I'm sure I could find others if I tried.

(And I suppose I should thank you for listening to others when they asked you to try repeating your recent experiment with Opus instead of Sonnet. That makes you a better skeptic than many I have the displeasure of knowing on this forum.)

Thanks, I try.

Plus, they've already said they're not going to make Mythos public, even if some of the benefits will trickle down to the next Opus. That is not something a company that is desperate for money or willing to ignore safety would do.

They've only said the preview of Mythos won't be public, the final release will be.

They've only said the preview of Mythos won't be public, the final release will be.

A little ambiguous, but the following makes it sound like a limited release for certain partner companies.

We do not plan to make Claude Mythos Preview generally available, but our eventual goal is to enable our users to safely deploy Mythos-class models at scale—for cybersecurity purposes, but also for the myriad other benefits that such highly capable models will bring. To do so, we need to make progress in developing cybersecurity (and other) safeguards that detect and block the model’s most dangerous outputs. We plan to launch new safeguards with an upcoming Claude Opus model, allowing us to improve and refine them with a model that does not pose the same level of risk as Mythos Preview3.