Meta’s Very Own Smart Glasses Go on Sale Today for $299
Speaking of, Bosworth says Meta has heard feedback that some folks don’t care for the camera capabilities on its smart glasses and would prefer audio-only glasses. “There’s a market demand for that product for sure.” Bosworth then said, “one thing at a time.”
The Meta Fury.
Photograph: Julian Chokkattu
Earlier this month, WIRED discovered code in the public-facing Meta AI app, suggesting that Meta was gearing up to debut a face recognition feature in its consumer smart glasses, technology that may have been trained by a company that builds surveillance tools for the US military and police departments. After WIRED’s report, Meta deleted the code, and none of this technology is present in the new Meta Glasses. Ankit Brahmbhatt, senior director of Product Management for AI Glasses at Meta, tells WIRED there are “no plans for facial recognition,” as it’s not the focus for what the company is building here.
Meta’s goal with these glasses is to get them onto more faces. “It’s more than just whether they fit—fit and comfort are extremely critical to get right—but it’s also your personal brand,” Bristol says. “It’s a really important decision if we want people to wear them as daily driver glasses.” If more people start wearing these Meta Glasses, that means more people are using Meta AI.
Bristol and Bosworth both lamented that with many of today’s AI tools, you have to supply the context manually, whether by providing a picture, document, or search query. With smart glasses, the AI assistant sees what you’re seeing, and that’s one less burden on your part. “It’s not that the thing isn’t smart enough—sometimes that’s a problem—it’s the amount of work I have to do to get it up to speed,” Bosworth says.
But making smart glasses comfier is just one step. Many people are still concerned about the privacy oversteps made possible by wearable cameras that can discreetly record the user’s surroundings. Bosworth believes such anxieties are akin to what happened when smartphones first put high-quality cameras in our pockets.
“There’s this social norming thing that has to happen,” he says. “The glasses are very popular … that doesn’t mean we aren’t worried about every corner case.”
The new Meta Glasses arrive at a turbulent time for the company’s relationship with its workforce. Bosworth himself sent an internal memo to employees last week promising better communication, stability, and workplace perks to improve morale, which is at an all-time low.
Speaking of, Bosworth says Meta has heard feedback that some folks don’t care for the camera capabilities on its smart glasses and would prefer audio-only glasses. “There’s a market demand for that product for sure.” Bosworth then said, “one thing at a time.”
The Meta Fury.
Photograph: Julian Chokkattu
Earlier this month, WIRED discovered code in the public-facing Meta AI app, suggesting that Meta was gearing up to debut a face recognition feature in its consumer smart glasses, technology that may have been trained by a company that builds surveillance tools for the US military and police departments. After WIRED’s report, Meta deleted the code, and none of this technology is present in the new Meta Glasses. Ankit Brahmbhatt, senior director of Product Management for AI Glasses at Meta, tells WIRED there are “no plans for facial recognition,” as it’s not the focus for what the company is building here.
Meta’s goal with these glasses is to get them onto more faces. “It’s more than just whether they fit—fit and comfort are extremely critical to get right—but it’s also your personal brand,” Bristol says. “It’s a really important decision if we want people to wear them as daily driver glasses.” If more people start wearing these Meta Glasses, that means more people are using Meta AI.
Bristol and Bosworth both lamented that with many of today’s AI tools, you have to supply the context manually, whether by providing a picture, document, or search query. With smart glasses, the AI assistant sees what you’re seeing, and that’s one less burden on your part. “It’s not that the thing isn’t smart enough—sometimes that’s a problem—it’s the amount of work I have to do to get it up to speed,” Bosworth says.
But making smart glasses comfier is just one step. Many people are still concerned about the privacy oversteps made possible by wearable cameras that can discreetly record the user’s surroundings. Bosworth believes such anxieties are akin to what happened when smartphones first put high-quality cameras in our pockets.
“There’s this social norming thing that has to happen,” he says. “The glasses are very popular … that doesn’t mean we aren’t worried about every corner case.”
The new Meta Glasses arrive at a turbulent time for the company’s relationship with its workforce. Bosworth himself sent an internal memo to employees last week promising better communication, stability, and workplace perks to improve morale, which is at an all-time low.
When Anthropic first disclosed Mythos in April, it sent an anxious shockwave through much of the cybersecurity sector. The new AI model was allegedly so ruthlessly effective at finding and exploiting security vulnerabilities in existing software that the company said it was holding off on a public release and would only grant access to a small group of early testers, including the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA).
Another wave of fear reverberated this week after the NSA reportedly discovered multiple vulnerabilities within its own cybersecurity systems during its tests with Mythos. If that agency—which supposedly boasts the most impenetrable cyberdefenses in the world—can be hacked by Mythos, what hope does the rest of the world’s cybersecurity infrastructure have?
This latest round of panic began with what seems to have been something of a game of telephone: Someone says one thing, which gets repeated by another, and another after that, and along that chain of communication, the original statement is distorted. Last week, The Economist reported that during a June 11 hearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said that Mythos had broken into “almost all of [the NSA’s] classified systems, not in weeks, but in hours.” Warner said he’d received that information from the head of the NSA himself, General Joshua Rudd, who also leads the Pentagon’s Cyber Command division. On Monday, a coalition of intelligence agencies—including the NSA and its counterparts in Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand— issued an unusually public warning that the risk that AI now poses for cybersecurity warrants a “whole-of-society response.”
The Economist’s report was seen by some as evidence that the worst fears about Mythos were true, a reaction that was undoubtedly fueled also by the aura of power and mystery that has coalesced around the model in recent months. That aura has arguably been a boon for Anthropic, which recently usurped OpenAI as the most valuable startup in the world and is preparing for what’s expected to be a historic IPO.
But it’s also been a contributing factor in its latest skirmish with the Trump administration, which ordered the company earlier this month to restrict access for all foreign nationals to Fable 5, a “Mythos-class” model that had recently been made publicly available and which was built with safeguards that to some users were annoyingly stringent. Citing national security concerns, the administration invoked an obscure piece of export control legislation, a move that, according to some legal experts, is spurious. Many cybersecurity experts, meanwhile, argued that the ban would hamstring U.S. cybersecurity defenses and give adversaries like China the upper hand.
That argument was seemingly vindicated by a Tuesday report from the New York Times which said that Trump’s ban—which also targeted another model called Mythos 5, which had only been made available to a small group of organizations—had put the kibosh on the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos, and that the administration was now working with Anthropic to reinstate the agency’s access for limited purposes related to national security. The NSA did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment.
That same report from the Times also clarified that the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos were less apocalyptic than online rumors might suggest. According to federal officials cited in the report, the tests were carried out in a digital environment so robustly controlled that it’s very unlikely any hacker or foreign intelligence agency could replicate them. The officials also told the Times that even though Mythos was able to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities, it didn’t actually exploit them.
The author of the report in The Economist—the one that had been the initial cause of all the worry—has also admitted that his portrayal of the NSA’s tests with Mythos had been misleading. The tests “surely [involved] using Mythos alongside other tools under very particular conditions,” he wrote in a X post on Sunday. “I quoted [Senator Warner] to give a sense of Mythos’ potency. But it was a mistake not to have added caveats.”
When Anthropic first disclosed Mythos in April, it sent an anxious shockwave through much of the cybersecurity sector. The new AI model was allegedly so ruthlessly effective at finding and exploiting security vulnerabilities in existing software that the company said it was holding off on a public release and would only grant access to a small group of early testers, including the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA).
Another wave of fear reverberated this week after the NSA reportedly discovered multiple vulnerabilities within its own cybersecurity systems during its tests with Mythos. If that agency—which supposedly boasts the most impenetrable cyberdefenses in the world—can be hacked by Mythos, what hope does the rest of the world’s cybersecurity infrastructure have?
This latest round of panic began with what seems to have been something of a game of telephone: Someone says one thing, which gets repeated by another, and another after that, and along that chain of communication, the original statement is distorted. Last week, The Economist reported that during a June 11 hearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said that Mythos had broken into “almost all of [the NSA’s] classified systems, not in weeks, but in hours.” Warner said he’d received that information from the head of the NSA himself, General Joshua Rudd, who also leads the Pentagon’s Cyber Command division. On Monday, a coalition of intelligence agencies—including the NSA and its counterparts in Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand— issued an unusually public warning that the risk that AI now poses for cybersecurity warrants a “whole-of-society response.”
The Economist’s report was seen by some as evidence that the worst fears about Mythos were true, a reaction that was undoubtedly fueled also by the aura of power and mystery that has coalesced around the model in recent months. That aura has arguably been a boon for Anthropic, which recently usurped OpenAI as the most valuable startup in the world and is preparing for what’s expected to be a historic IPO.
But it’s also been a contributing factor in its latest skirmish with the Trump administration, which ordered the company earlier this month to restrict access for all foreign nationals to Fable 5, a “Mythos-class” model that had recently been made publicly available and which was built with safeguards that to some users were annoyingly stringent. Citing national security concerns, the administration invoked an obscure piece of export control legislation, a move that, according to some legal experts, is spurious. Many cybersecurity experts, meanwhile, argued that the ban would hamstring U.S. cybersecurity defenses and give adversaries like China the upper hand.
That argument was seemingly vindicated by a Tuesday report from the New York Times which said that Trump’s ban—which also targeted another model called Mythos 5, which had only been made available to a small group of organizations—had put the kibosh on the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos, and that the administration was now working with Anthropic to reinstate the agency’s access for limited purposes related to national security. The NSA did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment.
That same report from the Times also clarified that the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos were less apocalyptic than online rumors might suggest. According to federal officials cited in the report, the tests were carried out in a digital environment so robustly controlled that it’s very unlikely any hacker or foreign intelligence agency could replicate them. The officials also told the Times that even though Mythos was able to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities, it didn’t actually exploit them.
The author of the report in The Economist—the one that had been the initial cause of all the worry—has also admitted that his portrayal of the NSA’s tests with Mythos had been misleading. The tests “surely [involved] using Mythos alongside other tools under very particular conditions,” he wrote in a X post on Sunday. “I quoted [Senator Warner] to give a sense of Mythos’ potency. But it was a mistake not to have added caveats.”
#Anthropics #Mythos #Reportedly #Hacked #NSAs #Sensitive #Systems #HoursAI,Anthropic,Mythos,NSA,Trump,White House">Anthropic’s Mythos AI Reportedly Hacked the NSA’s Most Sensitive Systems ‘in Hours’
When Anthropic first disclosed Mythos in April, it sent an anxious shockwave through much of the cybersecurity sector. The new AI model was allegedly so ruthlessly effective at finding and exploiting security vulnerabilities in existing software that the company said it was holding off on a public release and would only grant access to a small group of early testers, including the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA).
Another wave of fear reverberated this week after the NSA reportedly discovered multiple vulnerabilities within its own cybersecurity systems during its tests with Mythos. If that agency—which supposedly boasts the most impenetrable cyberdefenses in the world—can be hacked by Mythos, what hope does the rest of the world’s cybersecurity infrastructure have?
This latest round of panic began with what seems to have been something of a game of telephone: Someone says one thing, which gets repeated by another, and another after that, and along that chain of communication, the original statement is distorted. Last week, The Economist reported that during a June 11 hearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said that Mythos had broken into “almost all of [the NSA’s] classified systems, not in weeks, but in hours.” Warner said he’d received that information from the head of the NSA himself, General Joshua Rudd, who also leads the Pentagon’s Cyber Command division. On Monday, a coalition of intelligence agencies—including the NSA and its counterparts in Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand— issued an unusually public warning that the risk that AI now poses for cybersecurity warrants a “whole-of-society response.”
The Economist’s report was seen by some as evidence that the worst fears about Mythos were true, a reaction that was undoubtedly fueled also by the aura of power and mystery that has coalesced around the model in recent months. That aura has arguably been a boon for Anthropic, which recently usurped OpenAI as the most valuable startup in the world and is preparing for what’s expected to be a historic IPO.
But it’s also been a contributing factor in its latest skirmish with the Trump administration, which ordered the company earlier this month to restrict access for all foreign nationals to Fable 5, a “Mythos-class” model that had recently been made publicly available and which was built with safeguards that to some users were annoyingly stringent. Citing national security concerns, the administration invoked an obscure piece of export control legislation, a move that, according to some legal experts, is spurious. Many cybersecurity experts, meanwhile, argued that the ban would hamstring U.S. cybersecurity defenses and give adversaries like China the upper hand.
That argument was seemingly vindicated by a Tuesday report from the New York Times which said that Trump’s ban—which also targeted another model called Mythos 5, which had only been made available to a small group of organizations—had put the kibosh on the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos, and that the administration was now working with Anthropic to reinstate the agency’s access for limited purposes related to national security. The NSA did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment.
That same report from the Times also clarified that the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos were less apocalyptic than online rumors might suggest. According to federal officials cited in the report, the tests were carried out in a digital environment so robustly controlled that it’s very unlikely any hacker or foreign intelligence agency could replicate them. The officials also told the Times that even though Mythos was able to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities, it didn’t actually exploit them.
The author of the report in The Economist—the one that had been the initial cause of all the worry—has also admitted that his portrayal of the NSA’s tests with Mythos had been misleading. The tests “surely [involved] using Mythos alongside other tools under very particular conditions,” he wrote in a X post on Sunday. “I quoted [Senator Warner] to give a sense of Mythos’ potency. But it was a mistake not to have added caveats.”
#Anthropics #Mythos #Reportedly #Hacked #NSAs #Sensitive #Systems #HoursAI,Anthropic,Mythos,NSA,Trump,White House
smart thermostats, one for the highest floor and another for the lower two. I asked to turn on the AC, which Gemini immediately did, but it didn’t ask me to specify which one and decided it was time for the upstairs AC to shine. It also defaulted to Eco mode, so I had to request that the thermostats be set to 75 degrees instead of the high 70s. Still, I was able to casually say “Can you set the temperature in the living room to 75, and upstairs too?” and it applied that to both smart thermostats.
Gemini Live is another way to converse with the Google Home Speaker (it’s only available on some older devices). You’ll tell the speaker “Hey Google, let’s talk,” and it’ll activate a conversational mode that will chat back and forth with you about any topics you bring up. I had a back-and-forth conversation with Gemini about my 3-year-old’s sleep schedule, how to treat sunburns on your scalp (you’ll never guess what I got this weekend), and asked about a summary of the previous night’s episode of Love Island (though Gemini didn’t have a recap yet of the episode that had premiered a few hours before).
Gemini also asked follow-up questions with each topic to keep the conversation going, but would change gears to whatever topic I introduced. It works as intended, but I’m not sure how useful it is in the home context—you’re more likely to use something like this on your smartphone. It’s just not my preferred way to learn or discuss new information, but audio learners might really like it.
I was excited to ask Gemini what it sees around the home via my Google security cameras, but the experience didn’t impress me as much as I hoped. Time and time again, I asked questions like whether the car was in the garage, and Gemini said that either it didn’t have access to that information or that I needed to upgrade my subscription tier to get the answer (you need Google Home Advanced).
Echo Chamber
Photograph: Nena Farrell
Google and Amazon made the same move at roughly the same time: a new small-sized smart speaker that promises the sound quality of larger speakers, retailing for $100. Smaller speakers like the previous Echo Dot models and the Google Home Mini have been popular because they can be placed anywhere, whether it’s on a crowded shelf or tucked into a corner of the kitchen, but they were also much cheaper.
smart thermostats, one for the highest floor and another for the lower two. I asked to turn on the AC, which Gemini immediately did, but it didn’t ask me to specify which one and decided it was time for the upstairs AC to shine. It also defaulted to Eco mode, so I had to request that the thermostats be set to 75 degrees instead of the high 70s. Still, I was able to casually say “Can you set the temperature in the living room to 75, and upstairs too?” and it applied that to both smart thermostats.
Gemini Live is another way to converse with the Google Home Speaker (it’s only available on some older devices). You’ll tell the speaker “Hey Google, let’s talk,” and it’ll activate a conversational mode that will chat back and forth with you about any topics you bring up. I had a back-and-forth conversation with Gemini about my 3-year-old’s sleep schedule, how to treat sunburns on your scalp (you’ll never guess what I got this weekend), and asked about a summary of the previous night’s episode of Love Island (though Gemini didn’t have a recap yet of the episode that had premiered a few hours before).
Gemini also asked follow-up questions with each topic to keep the conversation going, but would change gears to whatever topic I introduced. It works as intended, but I’m not sure how useful it is in the home context—you’re more likely to use something like this on your smartphone. It’s just not my preferred way to learn or discuss new information, but audio learners might really like it.
I was excited to ask Gemini what it sees around the home via my Google security cameras, but the experience didn’t impress me as much as I hoped. Time and time again, I asked questions like whether the car was in the garage, and Gemini said that either it didn’t have access to that information or that I needed to upgrade my subscription tier to get the answer (you need Google Home Advanced).
Echo Chamber
Photograph: Nena Farrell
Google and Amazon made the same move at roughly the same time: a new small-sized smart speaker that promises the sound quality of larger speakers, retailing for $100. Smaller speakers like the previous Echo Dot models and the Google Home Mini have been popular because they can be placed anywhere, whether it’s on a crowded shelf or tucked into a corner of the kitchen, but they were also much cheaper.
#Googles #Smart #Speaker #Takes #Leadgoogle,shopping,smart home,review,speakers,google gemini,smart speakers,reviews">Google’s New Smart Speaker Takes the Lead
Gemini did a pretty good job with more conversational commands, though you still need to be specific for some requests. For example, my three-story townhouse has two smart thermostats, one for the highest floor and another for the lower two. I asked to turn on the AC, which Gemini immediately did, but it didn’t ask me to specify which one and decided it was time for the upstairs AC to shine. It also defaulted to Eco mode, so I had to request that the thermostats be set to 75 degrees instead of the high 70s. Still, I was able to casually say “Can you set the temperature in the living room to 75, and upstairs too?” and it applied that to both smart thermostats.
Gemini Live is another way to converse with the Google Home Speaker (it’s only available on some older devices). You’ll tell the speaker “Hey Google, let’s talk,” and it’ll activate a conversational mode that will chat back and forth with you about any topics you bring up. I had a back-and-forth conversation with Gemini about my 3-year-old’s sleep schedule, how to treat sunburns on your scalp (you’ll never guess what I got this weekend), and asked about a summary of the previous night’s episode of Love Island (though Gemini didn’t have a recap yet of the episode that had premiered a few hours before).
Gemini also asked follow-up questions with each topic to keep the conversation going, but would change gears to whatever topic I introduced. It works as intended, but I’m not sure how useful it is in the home context—you’re more likely to use something like this on your smartphone. It’s just not my preferred way to learn or discuss new information, but audio learners might really like it.
I was excited to ask Gemini what it sees around the home via my Google security cameras, but the experience didn’t impress me as much as I hoped. Time and time again, I asked questions like whether the car was in the garage, and Gemini said that either it didn’t have access to that information or that I needed to upgrade my subscription tier to get the answer (you need Google Home Advanced).
Echo Chamber
Photograph: Nena Farrell
Google and Amazon made the same move at roughly the same time: a new small-sized smart speaker that promises the sound quality of larger speakers, retailing for $100. Smaller speakers like the previous Echo Dot models and the Google Home Mini have been popular because they can be placed anywhere, whether it’s on a crowded shelf or tucked into a corner of the kitchen, but they were also much cheaper.
Update, June 23rd: Adjusted prices and availability and added deals for the Narwal Flow, Narwal Flow 2, and SwitchBot K11 Plus.
#robot #vacuum #deals #Prime #DayDeals,Gadgets,Prime Day,Smart Home,Tech,Verge Shopping">The best robot vacuum deals available during Prime Day
If you’ve been wanting to buy a robot vacuum but have been put off by how much it can cost to get a good one, now is not a bad time to start looking. Prime Day has kicked off, though more than just Amazon is offering deals on several models we’ve tested from brands like Roborock, Dreame, and Shark. Whether you’re looking for a basic robot vacuum that can cut down on the amount of vacuuming you have to do or a high-end model that can wash and dry its own mop pads and climb over room thresholds, there are deals available across a wide range of price points.
Update, June 23rd: Adjusted prices and availability and added deals for the Narwal Flow, Narwal Flow 2, and SwitchBot K11 Plus.
![Anthropic’s Mythos AI Reportedly Hacked the NSA’s Most Sensitive Systems ‘in Hours’
When Anthropic first disclosed Mythos in April, it sent an anxious shockwave through much of the cybersecurity sector. The new AI model was allegedly so ruthlessly effective at finding and exploiting security vulnerabilities in existing software that the company said it was holding off on a public release and would only grant access to a small group of early testers, including the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). Another wave of fear reverberated this week after the NSA reportedly discovered multiple vulnerabilities within its own cybersecurity systems during its tests with Mythos. If that agency—which supposedly boasts the most impenetrable cyberdefenses in the world—can be hacked by Mythos, what hope does the rest of the world’s cybersecurity infrastructure have? This latest round of panic began with what seems to have been something of a game of telephone: Someone says one thing, which gets repeated by another, and another after that, and along that chain of communication, the original statement is distorted. Last week, The Economist reported that during a June 11 hearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said that Mythos had broken into “almost all of [the NSA’s] classified systems, not in weeks, but in hours.” Warner said he’d received that information from the head of the NSA himself, General Joshua Rudd, who also leads the Pentagon’s Cyber Command division. On Monday, a coalition of intelligence agencies—including the NSA and its counterparts in Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand— issued an unusually public warning that the risk that AI now poses for cybersecurity warrants a “whole-of-society response.”
The Economist’s report was seen by some as evidence that the worst fears about Mythos were true, a reaction that was undoubtedly fueled also by the aura of power and mystery that has coalesced around the model in recent months. That aura has arguably been a boon for Anthropic, which recently usurped OpenAI as the most valuable startup in the world and is preparing for what’s expected to be a historic IPO.
But it’s also been a contributing factor in its latest skirmish with the Trump administration, which ordered the company earlier this month to restrict access for all foreign nationals to Fable 5, a “Mythos-class” model that had recently been made publicly available and which was built with safeguards that to some users were annoyingly stringent. Citing national security concerns, the administration invoked an obscure piece of export control legislation, a move that, according to some legal experts, is spurious. Many cybersecurity experts, meanwhile, argued that the ban would hamstring U.S. cybersecurity defenses and give adversaries like China the upper hand. That argument was seemingly vindicated by a Tuesday report from the New York Times which said that Trump’s ban—which also targeted another model called Mythos 5, which had only been made available to a small group of organizations—had put the kibosh on the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos, and that the administration was now working with Anthropic to reinstate the agency’s access for limited purposes related to national security. The NSA did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment.
That same report from the Times also clarified that the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos were less apocalyptic than online rumors might suggest. According to federal officials cited in the report, the tests were carried out in a digital environment so robustly controlled that it’s very unlikely any hacker or foreign intelligence agency could replicate them. The officials also told the Times that even though Mythos was able to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities, it didn’t actually exploit them. The author of the report in The Economist—the one that had been the initial cause of all the worry—has also admitted that his portrayal of the NSA’s tests with Mythos had been misleading. The tests “surely [involved] using Mythos alongside other tools under very particular conditions,” he wrote in a X post on Sunday. “I quoted [Senator Warner] to give a sense of Mythos’ potency. But it was a mistake not to have added caveats.” #Anthropics #Mythos #Reportedly #Hacked #NSAs #Sensitive #Systems #HoursAI,Anthropic,Mythos,NSA,Trump,White House](https://i1.wp.com/gizmodo.com/app/uploads/2026/06/GeneralJoshuaRudd-1280x853.jpg?ssl=1 "Anthropic’s Mythos AI Reportedly Hacked the NSA’s Most Sensitive Systems ‘in Hours’
When Anthropic first disclosed Mythos in April, it sent an anxious shockwave through much of the cybersecurity sector. The new AI model was allegedly so ruthlessly effective at finding and exploiting security vulnerabilities in existing software that the company said it was holding off on a public release and would only grant access to a small group of early testers, including the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). Another wave of fear reverberated this week after the NSA reportedly discovered multiple vulnerabilities within its own cybersecurity systems during its tests with Mythos. If that agency—which supposedly boasts the most impenetrable cyberdefenses in the world—can be hacked by Mythos, what hope does the rest of the world’s cybersecurity infrastructure have? This latest round of panic began with what seems to have been something of a game of telephone: Someone says one thing, which gets repeated by another, and another after that, and along that chain of communication, the original statement is distorted. Last week, The Economist reported that during a June 11 hearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said that Mythos had broken into “almost all of [the NSA’s] classified systems, not in weeks, but in hours.” Warner said he’d received that information from the head of the NSA himself, General Joshua Rudd, who also leads the Pentagon’s Cyber Command division. On Monday, a coalition of intelligence agencies—including the NSA and its counterparts in Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand— issued an unusually public warning that the risk that AI now poses for cybersecurity warrants a “whole-of-society response.”
The Economist’s report was seen by some as evidence that the worst fears about Mythos were true, a reaction that was undoubtedly fueled also by the aura of power and mystery that has coalesced around the model in recent months. That aura has arguably been a boon for Anthropic, which recently usurped OpenAI as the most valuable startup in the world and is preparing for what’s expected to be a historic IPO.
But it’s also been a contributing factor in its latest skirmish with the Trump administration, which ordered the company earlier this month to restrict access for all foreign nationals to Fable 5, a “Mythos-class” model that had recently been made publicly available and which was built with safeguards that to some users were annoyingly stringent. Citing national security concerns, the administration invoked an obscure piece of export control legislation, a move that, according to some legal experts, is spurious. Many cybersecurity experts, meanwhile, argued that the ban would hamstring U.S. cybersecurity defenses and give adversaries like China the upper hand. That argument was seemingly vindicated by a Tuesday report from the New York Times which said that Trump’s ban—which also targeted another model called Mythos 5, which had only been made available to a small group of organizations—had put the kibosh on the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos, and that the administration was now working with Anthropic to reinstate the agency’s access for limited purposes related to national security. The NSA did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment.
That same report from the Times also clarified that the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos were less apocalyptic than online rumors might suggest. According to federal officials cited in the report, the tests were carried out in a digital environment so robustly controlled that it’s very unlikely any hacker or foreign intelligence agency could replicate them. The officials also told the Times that even though Mythos was able to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities, it didn’t actually exploit them. The author of the report in The Economist—the one that had been the initial cause of all the worry—has also admitted that his portrayal of the NSA’s tests with Mythos had been misleading. The tests “surely [involved] using Mythos alongside other tools under very particular conditions,” he wrote in a X post on Sunday. “I quoted [Senator Warner] to give a sense of Mythos’ potency. But it was a mistake not to have added caveats.” #Anthropics #Mythos #Reportedly #Hacked #NSAs #Sensitive #Systems #HoursAI,Anthropic,Mythos,NSA,Trump,White House")
![Anthropic’s Mythos AI Reportedly Hacked the NSA’s Most Sensitive Systems ‘in Hours’
When Anthropic first disclosed Mythos in April, it sent an anxious shockwave through much of the cybersecurity sector. The new AI model was allegedly so ruthlessly effective at finding and exploiting security vulnerabilities in existing software that the company said it was holding off on a public release and would only grant access to a small group of early testers, including the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). Another wave of fear reverberated this week after the NSA reportedly discovered multiple vulnerabilities within its own cybersecurity systems during its tests with Mythos. If that agency—which supposedly boasts the most impenetrable cyberdefenses in the world—can be hacked by Mythos, what hope does the rest of the world’s cybersecurity infrastructure have? This latest round of panic began with what seems to have been something of a game of telephone: Someone says one thing, which gets repeated by another, and another after that, and along that chain of communication, the original statement is distorted. Last week, The Economist reported that during a June 11 hearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said that Mythos had broken into “almost all of [the NSA’s] classified systems, not in weeks, but in hours.” Warner said he’d received that information from the head of the NSA himself, General Joshua Rudd, who also leads the Pentagon’s Cyber Command division. On Monday, a coalition of intelligence agencies—including the NSA and its counterparts in Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand— issued an unusually public warning that the risk that AI now poses for cybersecurity warrants a “whole-of-society response.”
The Economist’s report was seen by some as evidence that the worst fears about Mythos were true, a reaction that was undoubtedly fueled also by the aura of power and mystery that has coalesced around the model in recent months. That aura has arguably been a boon for Anthropic, which recently usurped OpenAI as the most valuable startup in the world and is preparing for what’s expected to be a historic IPO.
But it’s also been a contributing factor in its latest skirmish with the Trump administration, which ordered the company earlier this month to restrict access for all foreign nationals to Fable 5, a “Mythos-class” model that had recently been made publicly available and which was built with safeguards that to some users were annoyingly stringent. Citing national security concerns, the administration invoked an obscure piece of export control legislation, a move that, according to some legal experts, is spurious. Many cybersecurity experts, meanwhile, argued that the ban would hamstring U.S. cybersecurity defenses and give adversaries like China the upper hand. That argument was seemingly vindicated by a Tuesday report from the New York Times which said that Trump’s ban—which also targeted another model called Mythos 5, which had only been made available to a small group of organizations—had put the kibosh on the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos, and that the administration was now working with Anthropic to reinstate the agency’s access for limited purposes related to national security. The NSA did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment.
That same report from the Times also clarified that the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos were less apocalyptic than online rumors might suggest. According to federal officials cited in the report, the tests were carried out in a digital environment so robustly controlled that it’s very unlikely any hacker or foreign intelligence agency could replicate them. The officials also told the Times that even though Mythos was able to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities, it didn’t actually exploit them. The author of the report in The Economist—the one that had been the initial cause of all the worry—has also admitted that his portrayal of the NSA’s tests with Mythos had been misleading. The tests “surely [involved] using Mythos alongside other tools under very particular conditions,” he wrote in a X post on Sunday. “I quoted [Senator Warner] to give a sense of Mythos’ potency. But it was a mistake not to have added caveats.” #Anthropics #Mythos #Reportedly #Hacked #NSAs #Sensitive #Systems #HoursAI,Anthropic,Mythos,NSA,Trump,White House](https://gizmodo.com/app/uploads/2026/06/GeneralJoshuaRudd-1280x853.jpg "Anthropic’s Mythos AI Reportedly Hacked the NSA’s Most Sensitive Systems ‘in Hours’
When Anthropic first disclosed Mythos in April, it sent an anxious shockwave through much of the cybersecurity sector. The new AI model was allegedly so ruthlessly effective at finding and exploiting security vulnerabilities in existing software that the company said it was holding off on a public release and would only grant access to a small group of early testers, including the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). Another wave of fear reverberated this week after the NSA reportedly discovered multiple vulnerabilities within its own cybersecurity systems during its tests with Mythos. If that agency—which supposedly boasts the most impenetrable cyberdefenses in the world—can be hacked by Mythos, what hope does the rest of the world’s cybersecurity infrastructure have? This latest round of panic began with what seems to have been something of a game of telephone: Someone says one thing, which gets repeated by another, and another after that, and along that chain of communication, the original statement is distorted. Last week, The Economist reported that during a June 11 hearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said that Mythos had broken into “almost all of [the NSA’s] classified systems, not in weeks, but in hours.” Warner said he’d received that information from the head of the NSA himself, General Joshua Rudd, who also leads the Pentagon’s Cyber Command division. On Monday, a coalition of intelligence agencies—including the NSA and its counterparts in Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand— issued an unusually public warning that the risk that AI now poses for cybersecurity warrants a “whole-of-society response.”
The Economist’s report was seen by some as evidence that the worst fears about Mythos were true, a reaction that was undoubtedly fueled also by the aura of power and mystery that has coalesced around the model in recent months. That aura has arguably been a boon for Anthropic, which recently usurped OpenAI as the most valuable startup in the world and is preparing for what’s expected to be a historic IPO.
But it’s also been a contributing factor in its latest skirmish with the Trump administration, which ordered the company earlier this month to restrict access for all foreign nationals to Fable 5, a “Mythos-class” model that had recently been made publicly available and which was built with safeguards that to some users were annoyingly stringent. Citing national security concerns, the administration invoked an obscure piece of export control legislation, a move that, according to some legal experts, is spurious. Many cybersecurity experts, meanwhile, argued that the ban would hamstring U.S. cybersecurity defenses and give adversaries like China the upper hand. That argument was seemingly vindicated by a Tuesday report from the New York Times which said that Trump’s ban—which also targeted another model called Mythos 5, which had only been made available to a small group of organizations—had put the kibosh on the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos, and that the administration was now working with Anthropic to reinstate the agency’s access for limited purposes related to national security. The NSA did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment.
That same report from the Times also clarified that the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos were less apocalyptic than online rumors might suggest. According to federal officials cited in the report, the tests were carried out in a digital environment so robustly controlled that it’s very unlikely any hacker or foreign intelligence agency could replicate them. The officials also told the Times that even though Mythos was able to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities, it didn’t actually exploit them. The author of the report in The Economist—the one that had been the initial cause of all the worry—has also admitted that his portrayal of the NSA’s tests with Mythos had been misleading. The tests “surely [involved] using Mythos alongside other tools under very particular conditions,” he wrote in a X post on Sunday. “I quoted [Senator Warner] to give a sense of Mythos’ potency. But it was a mistake not to have added caveats.” #Anthropics #Mythos #Reportedly #Hacked #NSAs #Sensitive #Systems #HoursAI,Anthropic,Mythos,NSA,Trump,White House")
Post Comment