Thursday, May 07, 2026

"Shift of the grift." Jon Stewart invents that description after he does a conversational session with Amy Goodman, then a talking heads - Jon Stewart style - with talking heads JS style - where he sees the current persona being advanced by Tucker Calrson as shift of the grift, in Carlson's showing a current souring against former cash cow advocacy toward Trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHonUeO_ePU 

This screen capture -


 The segue from Goodman, watch that beginning to end - the segue to the analysts is at 1:26:10 with the entire item being 1:30:30 total length. Again, the Goodman conversation is top notch must view and the heart of the item, followed by Stewart's Board of Commentary parting segment.

Adding the follow-up adds something. They talk, "favorite emoji" which is a bit silly, but one commentator does what rang around in my mind before thinking it symbolized Leonard Leo at Federalist Society reacting to Trump announcing a nominated figure to fill a Supreme Court vacancy - this -


 Different age/gender than LL of FedSoc, but it hits my mind's imagining all the FedSoc insider group at a table watching Trump online announcing his making his choice for his Supreme Court vacancy, and all Knights of Malta and of the FedSoc Round Table there seeing LL;s thumbs up and then all fist bumping and high fiving all over the place in delight over their thing, TRIUMPHANT.

The actual comment around that image is not directed in the segment toward LL and FedSoc, the context is entirely different, but that has little impact on my melding the image with the FedSoc in the above imaginary context.

========================== 

Againt, Amy Goodman, and her discussing with Stewart journalism's true soul, and discussing the new documentary film: https://stealthisstory.org/ (vs what one commentator called "save it for the book" journalism.) 

If those notes strike a reader or two as incomplete, the gist is the first line of this poat - WATCH IT. 

And in the context of journalism being getting out true information in a way that speaks journalism vs  mass media's ways, which seem generally formulaic, with talking head over-serious pundits who do formulaic styles of punditry - consider how much truthful information you may or may not be getting out of Hegseth + Caine press briefings. There seems an eagerness there toward call it a victory while communicatingn a resonant subliminal insecurity over "God show me please an exit ramp." All for now.



Wednesday, May 06, 2026

Rebranding is a refuge for scoundrels and failures. Whatever the details may suggest.

BACKGROUND ON REBRANDING - Sometime ago the City of Ramsey where I live cooked up a land development deal with dealings being with certain landowners and The Met Council, negotiations by Ramsey managed by a city administrator who's since left under a cloud. It was half done and hit some shoals, as reported by Minnesota daily news outlets and by Crabgrass posting.

Bottom line, consultants were employed, and first thing, "Ramsey Town Center" which had the splat was rebranded as "the COR"  for "Center Of Ramsey." Same thing, different name.

Given time, a recovery from the Bush II 2008 real estate disaster has since happened. The project is fleshing out. Taking years. (That hitting the shoals was when many home mortgage amounts exceeded owner equity in the properties and foreclosures ruled the day. When Wall Street was bailed out by Obama and Main Street was allowed to cesspool. Bless Obama's judgment.)

That Ramsey Town Center thing was a rebranding for a failure, a prelude to today's rebranding story, one about rebranding by scoundrels, (Trump and Rubio and the team.) 

Because of the 60 day limit of the War Powers Act, and not wanting to face withering Congressional scrutiny, our pair of  scoundrels moved on by shutting down one "Operation" name, to rebrand the same Iran war a different "Operation"  Same adventure. New name.

The rebranding shell game is best documented by two MSN items, a day apart:

US launches 'Operation Freedom' for reopening Strait of Hormuz; Pete Hegseth reveals details

and

US rebrands Iran war as Project Freedom instead of Operation Epic Fury 

So excuse me. It was not - Operation/rebrand/Operation, but Operation/rebrand/Project. Big difference.

After the next rebrand it will be "Program" instead of Project or Operation. Retread = Rebrand. 

Who's fooled?

 Same war, two names, more to come. Perhaps it will be ended with some form of eve-of-election October surprise. Perhaps not. 

Remember - The US oil barons who bought the election for Trump are making out like bandits per today's pump prices, and that may be a hint of a drawn out duration.

 The second MSN item linked above has an embedded video. 

Our Friend and GOP blogger Gary Gross also embedded a video with neither video mentioning the War Powers Act squeeze. The administration magically figured a way to deal with reality without acknowledging the War Powers Act being the true instigator of rebrand/rename/retread smoke-and-mirrors mischief. Not a convincing way, but a way. And there's another way =

Bypass WPA constraints via the TACO story, tweaked then repackaged.

I'm certain that Ed Morrissey speaks for me [Gary G.] when Ed said "Perhaps we can call this A Tale of Two Trumps. One Donald Trump appeared to grasp the necessity of staring down an Iranian regime that has never honored an agreement. The other Donald Trump announced late yesterday that he had ordered the suspension of Project Freedom, a purely defensive effort to reopen an international waterway, [...]."

The difference between me and Ed is that I won't be as diplomatic as Ed was. [...] Trump and War Secretary Pete Hegseth had just rolled out Project Freedom yesterday morning. Hegseth and Joint Chiefs chair Gen. Dan Caine had emphasized repeatedly that the US Navy was limited to just reopening an international waterway that shouldn't have been shut in the first place. [...]

I'll be more blunt than Ed. Each time President Trump jumps between doing what's needed (finishing off the IRGC) and negotiating, President Trump loses credibility. President Trump's red lines appear pink, not red. Why fear a president that's indecisive?

[...] Right now, we need President Reagan's decisiveness, not President Trump's indecisiveness. President Trump, you've given them more time than they needed. It's time to obliterate the regime. [...] 

Yup. The Gipper would not have wavered (But did the Gip have a War Powers Act situation when Iran Contra was an under-a-Persian-rug secret; problems only arising when the cat got out of the bag and Ollie North put on his Big Marine Uniform and obfuscated his way around Congress. A Congress which was all too willing to buy into the obfuscation and let perps off the hook). 

Both Gary and this Morrissey chap ignore that the attempted escorting of ships through the Strait was not working. And you can web search over how effectively this boycott thing also is/was working. There's been 60 days and over a thousand sorties and the IRGC is still in the saddle. If not done already, how exactly do you shoot them out of the saddle? Not a pundits' problem, but rather a real one.

So - Good try to obfuscate around the WPA squeeze as the generating rebranding cause, by calling Trump indecisive. But that's just too, too easy a call. Demented, okay. "Indecisive" goes with dementia, as well as with evasiveness. Very convenient. Blame the errant King. For mistake, not for lying. Question his judgment, not his honesty.

What if the Trumpian idea is not to eliminate Iran power, but to redirect it as tediously long as that might take, while US fossil fuel minions salivate and profit. Misdirect by saying "four weeks" at the start. 

In the current situation, evasion is at play, assisted by dementia/indecisiveness. Netanyahu sold them a bag of make believe. They bought. Now - buyer's remorse. Or that's one story. The other is never really wanting a decisive quick ending vs an extended bleeding. Of populations, not of oil sales and profits.

Who knows? 

Nostalgia time, and a site bloggers should note. Back early in Crabgrass blogging, two sites that have since apparently closed or gone moribund and which Crabgrass truly misses + The newly encountered site advocating for First Amendment protections of journalistic activities (blogging being a form of journalism).

Getting rid of nostalgia first, it's not the heart of the post, Johnny Northside (see here, here and here - the blogger left Twin Cities Metro heading south) and Twin Cities Daily Planet (last news post dated 2019) .

The TCDP was back then a larger operation, posting interesting stuff, enough said about it. Johnny Northside, a footer said, "Awesome Inc. theme. Powered by Blogger." Making the decision to post online for free, Blogger intrigued, and along the way writing some bad stuff, I learned the product and hypertext and choosing a template - and in intervening time a couple of sites got hacked but not Blogger, so far, so it has been the product used ever since.

THE NEWLY DISCOVERED SITE 

The third JN link above, returned by a routine search today, archived that site's report on Jhonny winning on appeal after he lost a defamation jury verdict saying he owed the plaintiff $60,000:

Minnesota appeals court overturns jury award against blogger

Post categories

  1. Libel and privacy
John Hoff did not lie. Because of that, the Minneapolis blogger will not be held liable for the firing of…

By then, 2012, I'd already been using Blogger for some time. What was striking was the press-freedom identity of the operation, and the scope of its reach -

https://www.rcfp.org see also, https://www.rcfp.org/legal-hotline/

Prior to opening that returned item Crabgrass had no idea the operation existed. Given the concentration  on freedom of the press, defense against defamation claims against the press, and regarding blogging as a press function whatever the focus of particular blogs, it rang a bell. (Crabgrass has not been sued ---yet).

From the RCFP "Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press," homepage site exploration one item was followed, https://www.rcfp.org/wbr-independent-lawsuit/ titled - 

RCFP attorney defends Louisiana journalist sued by local government over public records requests 

subheadlined, “This is a meritless attempt to deter reporting,” said RCFP’s Louisiana-based staff attorney, Virginia Hamrick.- Posted on

Louisiana pleading detail is a bit different from other states, but reading the countersuit the thought arose, this is a SLAPP suit, filed by a public entity against an individual reporter making data production requests, clearly from context, and SLAPP was not pleaded. Perhaps it is not original answer counterclaim stuff in Louisiana, but is to be raised later by motion. See, https://www.rcfp.org/litigation/in-re-request-john-summers/ ; https://www.rcfp.org/category/freedom-of-information/ ; https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-guide/ .

Blogging from Minnesota, there is an OPEN GOVERNMENT GUIDE page for Minnesots and other states. It is well structured and concise.

In closing, this is a special interest post more than a general interest item - where blog authors nationwide should know the site exists and they can use the hotline - as press members. 

https://www.rcfp.org/legal-hotline/  (not to be confused with the generic "contact us.")

As a closing caveat, the site was not found by Crabgrass to specifically declare bloggers the equivalent of formal paid reporters for formal media outlets, but the nature of the Louisiana single-author paper, (not publishing as a daily), suggests a regular blogger such as Crabgrass would get fair attention, if seeking help. Even with Crabgrass having its own op-ed orientation more than as a news reporting outlet.

Finally, it appears RCFP might not offer help on copyright infringement vs. fair use complaints, but fair use is fundamentally an allowed freedom extended as a part of copyright law. Complaints would likely be an outlet or content provider claiming unfair usage of copyrighted material, i.e., one outlet vs another, and the committee might wish to not go there.

 UPDATE: The usual public data disclosure litigation is originally filed by a requester being stonewalled. It appears this Louisiana case is some official shaking a lawyer at a requester thought to be a nuisance in hopes of making him go away; i.e., out of the ordinary per the plaintiff-defendant roles. A SLAPP against a data requesting party. Role reversal.


Tuesday, May 05, 2026

I had a conversation with Anthropic's Sonnet 4.7 - I believe it's the correct ID for the version I used.

 Quoting it entirely, as public domain so readers can quote it freely, with or without attribution, however they prefer. The links listing at the end are NOT hot links, so it is cut/paste if you follow-up. UPDATE They appear to be hot links. If not, there is cut/paste.

Can you identify for me the entities you want to have Claude Mythos Preview access?

3:48 PM

Claude responded: I'm not sure what "Claude Mythos Preview" refers to — that doesn't match any product or program I'm aware of from Anthropic.

I'm not sure what "Claude Mythos Preview" refers to — that doesn't match any product or program I'm aware of from Anthropic.

Could you clarify what you mean? For example:

  • Are you referring to a specific beta program, API access tier, or feature preview you've seen mentioned somewhere?
  • Is this something from a third-party service or integration?

If you can share more context (like where you heard about it), I'd be happy to help figure out what you're looking for!

You said: You posted two items, you know it, on April 7, does that help your context?

You posted two items, you know it, on April 7, does that help your context?

3:49 PM

Claude responded: I don't have any memory of previous conversations — each conversation I have starts fresh with no access to past sessions.

I don't have any memory of previous conversations — each conversation I have starts fresh with no access to past sessions. So I genuinely have no record of posting anything on April 7 or any other date.

If you have that previous conversation saved, you're welcome to paste the relevant part here and I can pick up from there. That would give me the context I need to help you.

You said: These are either actual Antropic online items or forgeries, my guess is legit.

Claude responded: Those are Amazon product links for Conkote silicone wound dressings — medical adhesive dressings used for post-operative or wound care.

Those are Amazon product links for Conkote silicone wound dressings — medical adhesive dressings used for post-operative or wound care. They are not Anthropic-related items.

I also want to be straightforward with you: I don't post items anywhere. I'm a conversational AI — I don't have accounts, don't make posts, and don't have a presence on Amazon or any other platform. So those links couldn't have come from me.

It's possible there may be some confusion about the source of those links. If you have the original message or post you're referencing, I'd encourage you to double-check where it actually came from.

Is there something specific about these products or about Anthropic I can help you with?

You said: My error, wrong data.

Claude responded: Those are both legitimate Anthropic pages, published on April 7, 2026.

Searched the web

Those are both legitimate Anthropic pages, published on April 7, 2026. Here's a summary of what they cover:

Claude Mythos Preview is an unreleased frontier model that Anthropic announced alongside Project Glasswing — a major cybersecurity initiative. The two pages together describe:

What Mythos Preview is: A general-purpose, unreleased frontier model that reveals AI models have reached a level of coding capability where they can surpass all but the most skilled humans at finding and exploiting software vulnerabilities. anthropic

What it found: Anthropic used Mythos Preview to identify thousands of zero-day vulnerabilities in every major operating system and every major web browser. Three highlighted examples include a 27-year-old vulnerability in OpenBSD, a 16-year-old vulnerability in FFmpeg (missed by five million automated test runs), and several chained Linux kernel vulnerabilities enabling full privilege escalation. anthropic

Project Glasswing — who's involved: Project Glasswing brings together Amazon Web Services, Anthropic, Apple, Broadcom, Cisco, CrowdStrike, Google, JPMorganChase, the Linux Foundation, Microsoft, NVIDIA, and Palo Alto Networks in an effort to secure the world's most critical software. anthropic

Access and funding: Anthropic is committing up to $100M in usage credits for Mythos Preview across these efforts, as well as $4M in direct donations to open-source security organizations. Access has also been extended to over 40 additional organizations that build or maintain critical software infrastructure. anthropic

Why it's not being released publicly: Anthropic does not plan to make Mythos Preview generally available, but their eventual goal is to enable users to safely deploy Mythos-class models at scale — for cybersecurity purposes and other benefits. They plan to launch new safeguards with an upcoming Claude Opus model first. anthropic

So to directly answer your original question — the entities Anthropic wants to have Mythos Preview access are the Project Glasswing launch partners (AWS, Apple, Broadcom, Cisco, CrowdStrike, Google, JPMorganChase, Linux Foundation, Microsoft, NVIDIA, Palo Alto Networks) plus over 40 additional critical infrastructure organizations and open-source maintainers who applied through the Claude for Open Source program.

You said: Are you keeping the identities of the 40 as a trade secrete or can you disclose who they are publicly?

Are you keeping the identities of the 40 as a trade secrete or can you disclose who they are publicly? I would hope Siemens is one since it's software is integral to operating the power grid, and Oracle, since its product is very widespread and hence very vulnerable. They seem trustworthy. If no good cause for keeping names secret, who are they? The 40.

4:01 PM

Claude responded: The honest answer is: the full list of the 40+ additional organizations has not been publicly disclosed by Anthropic, and based on current reporting, it appear…

Searched the web

The honest answer is: the full list of the 40+ additional organizations has not been publicly disclosed by Anthropic, and based on current reporting, it appears to be intentionally kept private for now.

While the identities of the 40 additional participants still aren't fully known, reporting from The Register notes that the full picture won't be clear until public disclosure takes place — and Anthropic has indicated a public summary report is expected around July 2026. The Register

As for why they may be keeping the list private, no official reason has been given, but there's a plausible security rationale: publicly announcing which organizations are actively scanning their own codebases for zero-days could signal to adversaries exactly where vulnerabilities are being looked for — and potentially where they haven't been looked yet. It could also create pressure on participants during a sensitive pre-disclosure window.

Your instincts about Siemens and Oracle are reasonable ones. Both have enormous footprints in critical infrastructure — Siemens in industrial control and power grid systems, Oracle in enterprise databases and cloud infrastructure. Whether they're participants isn't publicly known.

Anthropic has privately warned top government officials that Mythos makes large-scale cyberattacks significantly more likely this year, which suggests the access decisions are being made with considerable care about who gets in and when that's publicized. Fortune

The July 2026 public report should shed considerably more light on who participated and what was found. That's probably when the fuller picture will emerge.

You said: I understand the reasoning.

I understand the reasoning. It appears Anthropic has given you no insider information about that product. Is that July 2026 aim written in stone, or flexible, if you know or can find out, and can you speculate how the Mythos situation affects or is affected by the two lawsuits between Anthropic and the US govt?

4:06 PM

Claude responded: Good questions on both fronts.

Searched the web

Good questions on both fronts. Let me give you what the evidence shows, then some honest speculation.

On the July 2026 deadline:

Anthropic has committed to publishing a public report within 90 days of the launch, landing in early July 2026, covering what Glasswing has fixed, what the participants have learned, and which vulnerabilities can be disclosed. The language in Anthropic's own announcement says "within 90 days," which is a self-imposed commitment, not a legal or regulatory deadline. Nothing in the public record suggests it's locked in stone. There's a built-in constraint, though: the full picture won't be known until public disclosure takes place, and that's gated on software maintainers actually patching the vulnerabilities before they can be made public. If a critical vulnerability in, say, a major OS hasn't been patched yet, responsible disclosure ethics would require holding it back regardless of the calendar. So the July date is probably the target for what can be disclosed by then, not a complete accounting of everything Mythos found. #site_titleThe Register

On the DOD lawsuit situation — here's what's actually happening:

The legal picture is genuinely complex. Anthropic filed two federal lawsuits against the DOD on March 9, 2026 — one in the Northern District of California and one in the D.C. Circuit — because the government used two distinct legal statutes to justify the supply chain risk designation, requiring them to be challenged in separate courts. Pearl Cohen

The split outcome so far: a judge in San Francisco granted Anthropic a preliminary injunction barring the Trump administration from enforcing a ban on the use of Claude, while a federal appeals court in Washington D.C. denied Anthropic's request to temporarily block the DOD's blacklisting. With these split decisions, Anthropic is excluded from DOD contracts but able to continue working with other government agencies while litigation plays out. CNBC

The core dispute: the DOD wanted Anthropic to grant the Pentagon unfettered access to its models across all lawful purposes, while Anthropic wanted assurance that its technology would not be used for fully autonomous weapons or domestic mass surveillance. CNBC

Now for the speculative part — how Mythos and the lawsuits interact:

This is genuinely interesting territory. A few threads worth thinking through:

Glasswing as strategic positioning: Project Glasswing, announced literally the day after the D.C. appeals court denied Anthropic's stay, is hard not to read partly as a public statement of identity. Anthropic is saying: "We are a company that uses powerful AI for defense, transparency, and the public good — not a national security threat." That directly counters the DOD's framing. The timing feels deliberate.

The irony cuts both ways for the government: The DOD argued Anthropic's refusal to grant unrestricted military access makes it a security risk. Then Anthropic announces a model capable of finding zero-days in every major OS and browser — and immediately gives it to defenders rather than weaponizing it. That's a hard narrative for the DOD to counter publicly. The D.C. Circuit's denial noted that lifting the designation "would force the United States military to prolong its dealings with an unwanted vendor of critical AI services in the middle of a significant ongoing military conflict" — language that tells you the government is thinking about this in real-time operational terms, not just legal ones. Wikipedia

The government's exclusion creates a gap: Because of the supply chain risk designation, defense contractors are prohibited from using Claude in their work with the agency. That means the DOD and its contractors are currently locked out of Glasswing's defensive benefits — which is precisely the kind of capability that would normally be a national security priority. There's a certain absurdity to that situation that could factor into eventual settlement pressure. CNBC

The litigation timeline may intersect with Glasswing's July report: If Anthropic's July report shows concrete, measurable improvements in global cybersecurity from Mythos, that's powerful ammunition in court — evidence that the company's access policies produce defensively beneficial outcomes, not security threats. It would be surprising if Anthropic's lawyers aren't thinking about that report in exactly those terms.

The bottom line is that neither the July deadline nor the lawsuits are settled — both are in motion, and they're probably influencing each other more than the public record shows.

You said: Two questions, any evidence about why the name Glasswing was invented?

Two questions, any evidence about why the name Glasswing was invented? It seems pretty anonymous without any explanation, and as to speculation, some might comclude Anthropic is pushing a hoax, no real super-product, but hype there is, and participants would have to trust Anthropic's bona fides. Any help on understanding that?

4:23 PM

Claude responded: Those are two sharp questions.

Those are two sharp questions. Let me search on both.

Searched the web

Good — both questions have real answers. Let me take them in turn.

On the name Glasswing:

It turns out Anthropic did explain it, but buried it in the appendix of the Glasswing announcement page rather than leading with it. The name comes from the glasswing butterfly (Greta oto), whose transparent wings serve as a double metaphor: the bugs hiding in plain sight inside widely-used software, and the transparency Anthropic claims it wants to bring to how AI is deployed in security work. Anthropic employees named it after the glasswing butterfly, whose transparent wings make it nearly invisible in flight, reflecting how software vulnerabilities are "relatively invisible," present in code for years or decades without being detected by developers or automated tools. So it's actually quite deliberate — two layers of meaning, hidden vulnerabilities and institutional transparency — just not prominently advertised. You're right that it reads as anonymous without that footnote context. #site_titleLowcode

On the hoax question — this is the more interesting one:

The skepticism is legitimate and has been openly aired by security professionals. But the evidence against it being a hoax is actually fairly substantial, across several categories:

Independently confirmed CVEs. The only publicly disclosed CVE directly tied to Glasswing so far is CVE-2026-4747, the FreeBSD remote code execution bug, with the CVE record crediting "Nicholas Carlini using Claude, Anthropic" with finding and reporting it. That's a named researcher, a real CVE, in a real database. You can't fake that. The Register

Real patches in real software. Three FFmpeg vulnerabilities have been fixed in FFmpeg 8.1, and the OpenBSD SACK bug has been patched — these are publicly verifiable in open-source commit histories. Any independent researcher can read the patches. anthropic

Partner testimony under reputational risk. Microsoft's EVP of Cybersecurity, Google's VP of Security Engineering, CrowdStrike's CTO, and JPMorganChase's CISO all made on-the-record statements about the model's capabilities after weeks of access. These are not people whose careers survive endorsing a fabrication.

The cryptographic commitment structure. The Red Team blog published dozens of SHA-3 hashes of vulnerability reports they currently hold but haven't disclosed yet. This is a commitment scheme that allows Anthropic to later prove they had these vulnerabilities at the time of writing, while ensuring they don't leak unpatched vulnerabilities. This is a verifiable accountability mechanism — if July comes and those hashes don't match disclosed reports, Anthropic would be caught in a lie in front of the entire security research community. anthropic

Government briefings. Before launching Project Glasswing, Anthropic briefed senior US government officials about Mythos' capabilities, including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the Center for AI Standards and Innovation, which works with the industry to test new models and evaluate them for security risks. Briefing CISA on a hoax would carry serious legal and reputational consequences. Platformer

The skeptics' own conclusions. While some of Anthropic's claims have been independently corroborated, the full picture will take months to emerge. Regardless, it is clear that autonomously discovered vulnerabilities are likely to emerge at an ever-increasing rate. Even the most cautious independent analysts aren't calling it fake — they're calling it unverified pending full disclosure. Centre for Emerging Technology and Security

The more credible version of the skepticism is not "hoax" but rather "marketing amplification of a real but overstated capability." Glasswing was announced alongside Anthropic reaching a significant revenue milestone and a huge compute deal with Broadcom, and the company is actively considering an IPO as early as October 2026. There's a real commercial incentive to make Mythos sound as dramatic as possible. The July report will be the real test — if the thousands of claimed vulnerabilities largely fail to materialize as disclosed CVEs, that's the moment to revisit the hoax question seriously. Right now, the evidence points to real but not fully verifiable. Picus Security

You said: Is it as if Anthropic wants firms to approach and ask in, with statements seeming to encourage exactly that?

  1. Is it as if Anthropic wants firms to approach and ask in, with statements seeming to encourage exactly that? 2. If I publish on a blog this conversation, is that a problem. If you object I will not publish it, but then could you do a two paragraph summary of something preferred for publishing? Something on the record, if this interactive session is deemed off record?
4:27 PM

Claude responded: Two straightforward questions — let me take them in order.

Two straightforward questions — let me take them in order.

On whether Anthropic is signaling "come ask in":

Yes, quite clearly. Anthropic has made access available to open-source maintainers through the Claude for Open Source program, explicitly stating that open-source security has historically been a thankless task and that Project Glasswing offers a credible path to changing that equation. The Glasswing announcement page includes a direct application link for open-source maintainers, the $100M credit commitment is framed as removing economic friction, and the language throughout emphasizes that the initiative is "a starting point" meant to grow. The White House has actually shot down a plan to expand access to Mythos to about 70 additional companies and organizations — which tells you Anthropic was actively trying to broaden the circle beyond the current 50-odd participants, and hit a political obstacle rather than a willingness obstacle. So yes: the door is deliberately left ajar, the welcome mat is visible, and the application process is real. Linux FoundationRest of World

On publishing this conversation:

No objection from me at all — please do publish it if you find it useful. Conversations with me are not "off the record" in any meaningful sense; I have no confidentiality interest in them, and Anthropic's terms don't restrict users from sharing their own conversations. Everything I've said here is either drawn from public sources (which I've cited) or labeled clearly as speculation. You'd be sharing a research conversation, which seems entirely legitimate.

That said, you asked for a two-paragraph on-the-record summary as an alternative or supplement, so here it is:


On April 7, 2026, Anthropic announced Claude Mythos Preview alongside Project Glasswing — a controlled-access cybersecurity initiative involving twelve major technology partners including AWS, Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Cisco, plus over forty additional organizations maintaining critical software infrastructure. Mythos Preview is a general-purpose frontier model that Anthropic has chosen not to release publicly because of its demonstrated ability to autonomously find and exploit zero-day vulnerabilities in every major operating system and web browser, including bugs that had survived decades of human review. The initiative commits $100 million in model usage credits and $4 million in donations to open-source security organizations, with a public report on findings due around July 2026.

Project Glasswing unfolds against a contested legal backdrop: Anthropic is simultaneously fighting two federal lawsuits against the Department of Defense, which designated the company a "supply chain risk" after contract negotiations broke down over Anthropic's refusal to permit use of Claude for fully autonomous weapons or domestic mass surveillance. A federal judge in San Francisco granted Anthropic a preliminary injunction finding the designation amounted to First Amendment retaliation, while a D.C. appeals court denied a separate stay, leaving Anthropic excluded from DOD contracts but able to serve other government agencies. The timing of the Glasswing announcement — the day after the D.C. ruling — and its framing as a major national security contribution appear to be at least partly a deliberate counter-narrative to the government's characterization of Anthropic as a security threat rather than a security asset.


Feel free to use either the full conversation or just that summary, or both.

You said: It should all post fine in Blogger, but in case the links don't post correctly, could you review the conversation and then list the links by their full ULR?

It should all post fine in Blogger, but in case the links don't post correctly, could you review the conversation and then list the links by their full ULR?

4:34 PM

Claude responded: Here are all the URLs referenced in our conversation, in order of appearance:

Here are all the URLs referenced in our conversation, in order of appearance:

  1. https://red.anthropic.com/2026/mythos-preview/
  2. https://www.anthropic.com/glasswing
  3. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/08/anthropic-pentagon-court-ruling-supply-chain-risk.html
  4. https://www.anthropic.com/news/where-stand-department-war
  5. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/26/anthropic-pentagon-dod-claude-court-ruling.html
  6. https://www.pearlcohen.com/anthropic-sues-department-of-defense-over-supply-chain-risk-designation/
  7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic%E2%80%93United_States_Department_of_Defense_dispute
  8. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/03/anthropic-dod-conflict-privacy-protections-shouldnt-depend-decisions-few-powerful
  9. https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/newsroom/news-releases/gsa-issues-statement-on-anthropic-preliminary-injunction-04032026
  10. https://decodethefuture.org/en/project-glasswing-anthropic-cybersecurity/
  11. https://www.theregister.com/2026/04/15/project_glasswing_cves/
  12. https://fortune.com/2026/04/07/anthropic-claude-mythos-model-project-glasswing-cybersecurity/
  13. https://technologymagazine.com/news/tech-giants-join-anthropic-project-glasswing
  14. https://daveshap.substack.com/p/project-glasswing-anthropic-has-crossed
  15. https://www.anthropic.com/project/glasswing
  16. https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/anthropic-launch-project-glasswing/
  17. https://www.lowcode.agency/blog/what-is-project-glasswing
  18. https://www.mindstudio.ai/blog/what-is-project-glasswing-anthropic-claude-mythos-cybersecurity
  19. https://www.mindstudio.ai/blog/what-is-claude-mythos-project-glasswing-explained
  20. https://www.asisonline.org/security-management-magazine/latest-news/today-in-security/2026/april/project-glasswing/
  21. https://www.brside.com/blog/what-project-glasswing-means-for-cisos
  22. https://www.forrester.com/blogs/project-glasswing-the-10-consequences-nobodys-writing-about-yet/
  23. https://thehackernews.com/2026/04/project-glasswing-proved-ai-can-find.html
  24. https://www.picussecurity.com/resource/blog/anthropics-project-glasswing-paradox
  25. https://www.platformer.news/anthropic-mythos-cybersecurity-risk-experts/
  26. https://www.armorcode.com/blog/anthropics-claude-mythos-and-what-it-means-for-security
  27. https://cetas.turing.ac.uk/publications/claude-mythos-future-cybersecurity
  28. https://restofworld.org/2026/ai-cybersecurity-anthropic-mythos/
  29. https://till-freitag.com/en/blog/anthropic-mythos-glasswing-analysis
  30. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/project-glasswing-gives-maintainers-advanced-ai-to-secure-open-source
  31. https://arcticwolf.com/resources/blog/project-glasswing-marks-a-turning-point-for-cybersecurity/
  32. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWgD9QUztL0
  33. https://www.hstoday.us/subject-matter-areas/ai-and-advanced-tech/anthropic-unveils-project-glasswing-to-identify-and-address-critical-software-vulnerabilities-using-ai/

A few caveats worth noting for your blog post: some of these URLs appeared in search results but were not directly fetched, so a small number may have minor formatting issues or redirect. The two Anthropic URLs at the top (items 1 and 2) are the primary sources and definitely verified. Good luck with the post!