24MAY

Tom's Hardware challenges Mythos zero-day claims

2 min read

15:19UTC

A technical review found Anthropic's marketing relied on 198 manual reviews to support claims of thousands of severe vulnerabilities.

← Back to Rival studies split on AI's hit to jobs Jump to analysis ↓

EconomicDeveloping

Key takeaway

Only 198 manual reviews support Anthropic's claim of thousands of zero-day discoveries.

Tom's Hardware published a critical review of Anthropic's Mythos claims on 9 April, noting that the "thousands of zero-days" assertion rested on only 198 manual reviews ¹. Many of the flagged vulnerabilities were in outdated software no longer in active use. The gap between Anthropic's marketing language and the verified sample is wide enough to warrant caution.

The Bessent-Powell emergency meeting at Treasury headquarters proceeded regardless of this scrutiny. Challenger data confirmed AI-attributed cuts crossed 107,094 the same month , suggesting federal regulators assessed the systemic risk of AI broadly, beyond Mythos's specific claims. Whether Mythos found hundreds or thousands of exploitable flaws, the CyberGym benchmark score of 83.1% versus 66.6% for its predecessor represents a measurable capability jump that the twelve Glasswing partners will deploy in production environments.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

When Anthropic announced that Claude Mythos had found 'thousands' of serious security flaws in software, it was a dramatic claim. Tom's Hardware, a technology publication, looked at how Anthropic had actually counted those flaws. The answer was: 198 human reviewers manually checked the model's outputs. Many of the flaws it identified were in old software that organisations had already stopped using. The gap between 'thousands of vulnerabilities' and 198 verified reviews is significant. The US Treasury and Federal Reserve held their emergency meeting with bank CEOs regardless of this critique, which suggests the regulators assessed the risk from the model's overall capability trajectory, not just the specific zero-day count.

Source Landscape

This story draws on neutral-leaning sources

Primary parallel: The 2016 controversy over DeepMind's AlphaGo claims, in which Google's marketing described the system as defeating the world champion 'under official match conditions' when several conditions differed from tournament rules. Independent verification eventually confirmed the underlying capability while correcting specific claim framing. The Mythos methodology question follows the same pattern: contested marketing language around a genuine capability advance.

Counter-parallel: IBM's 1997 Deep Blue versus Kasparov match produced verified, independently adjudicated results that settled the capability claim definitively. Cybersecurity benchmarks lack equivalent independent adjudication, making the gap between Anthropic's 198-review sample and its 'thousands' headline durable in ways that chess results were not.

Consensus view: Trail of Bits co-founder Dan Guido and Veracode's Chris Wysopal assess the 198-review gap as a credibility problem for Anthropic's marketing rather than a refutation of the underlying capability: the CyberGym benchmark improvement from 66.6% to 83.1% is independently verifiable, and that gap is operationally significant regardless of zero-day count methodology.

Counter-view: Recorded Future's intelligence analysts note that threat actors routinely inflate capability claims to generate deterrence value, and that AI vendors have structural incentives to do the same. Overstated AI security capabilities may cause organisations to misallocate defensive resources toward theoretical AI attack vectors while under-investing in conventional vulnerability management.

Key tension: Whether the verified CyberGym benchmark gain represents a genuine operational security threat or a marketing projection requiring independent validation before driving regulatory and corporate resource allocation.

Sources:Tom's Hardware

Mentions:Google →US Treasury →CyberGym →Federal Reserve →Prima →Anthropic →Claude Mythos Preview →

First Reported In

Update #5 · The model they won't release

Tom's Hardware· 10 Apr 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

This Event

Tom's Hardware challenges Mythos zero-day claims

Independent scrutiny of Mythos's capability claims introduces uncertainty about the model's actual security impact, even as regulators acted on the headline numbers.

Led to

AISI confirms Mythos 20-hour attack chain

AISI partly vindicates Tom's Hardware's critique of single-task superiority claims while confirming a distinct attack-chaining capability the Hardware review did not assess.

Occurred 15 Apr 2026

Read story →

Different Perspectives

Office for National Statistics

Deferred its Transformed Labour Force Survey beyond November 2027 and disclosed a May 2026 telephone-collection failure. The ONS carries no AI-attribution layer at all, so Britain sits outside this month's cohort of measuring states by its own admission.

Uber India, Swiggy, Zomato and Urban Company

Named as respondents after the Karnataka High Court extended the interim welfare-fee deposit arrangement under the state's gig-worker welfare law to Uber India on 28 July, joining the other platforms already under the same order. The companies are contesting the underlying law while complying with the interim deposit terms.

Kenya State Department for ICT and the Digital Economy

Its draft AI policy, open for consultation to 4 August, proposes a pay floor for data-annotation work, where Kenyan annotators earn $1.46 to $3.74 an hour against $21 to $27 in the US, on figures relayed by the trade outlet WeeTracker. Kenya is legislating on AI labour even though the World Bank rates it among the least exposed economies.

ARAN and Italian public-sector unions

Signed the CCNL Funzioni Centrali 2025-2027 on 6 August, the first Italian national contract with a dedicated AI Title, barring fully automated employment decisions without meaningful human intervention and requiring advance union notice of AI deployment. The unions secured this through bargaining rather than waiting for legislation.

US employers reporting to Challenger, Gray & Christmas

Named artificial intelligence as the leading stated cause of job cuts for a fifth consecutive month in July, at 33% of that month's total, even as the overall cut count fell 27%. Employers kept citing AI as the reason even as scrutiny of the attribution rose.

Bank for International Settlements

Bulletin 130 reports a 0.75 percentage point average unemployment rise across high-AIPI countries between 2023 and 2025, while its own footnote 2 states the index is strongly correlated with employment shares in AI-exposed sectors it is used to predict. The bulletin calls the productivity payoff uncertain and uneven.