The statements can stand for themselves, evaluated on the merits of the claims, regardless of authorship.
Sure but where is the practicality of that? According to your POV here, companies can claim whatever and it's my job now to figure out if they are lying or to what extent. I have already lived through that and decided their output is completely untrustworthy so I rather wait for a trustworthy source before giving them any credit. I am not claiming 100% of what Anthropic says is a complete lie, I am saying I cannot trust it at face value.
On the flip side, the corollary to the adage that a broken clock is still right twice a day is that you can’t just say “oh the broken clock said this so I can ignore it.”
Funny you use this saying because a broken clock is never right, reality momentarily aligns with it, which is a completely different thing... and even then, for every minute of the day, a clock is still wrong 1438 times a day... I would rather not use suck broken clock as a reference AT ALL
The blog post literally describes exactly that, for ffmpeg. And several of the other described vulnerabilities sound like they’re in that category of “here’s a bug but we didn’t find an exploit.”
Case in point, they do not claim that in the title or intro. Their entire intro (in the blog you posted) is all about how amazing Mythos is
…who cares?
People like me who rather not keep feeding the Ai hype. Assuming these vulnerabilities are real and could have been exploited, yes I am happy they get fixed. But I am never giving credit to "Ai" unless it is an absolute certainty Ai did it and did it better than humans would