> Dumb question. If "Mythos-class" models are such a problem, then... why not just let it fix everyone's code?

In the specific case of cybersecurity, this is a reasonable medium-term outcome. IMO, the cybersecurity risk is akin to the spread of a disease among an 'immune-naive' group: we can suddenly deploy much stronger attack-finding tools against large, established codebases created with much weaker security designs. The path from here to there will be rough, but it's still fundamentally easier to write secure code than it is to exploit vulnerabilities. (It's just easier yet to write insecure code, giving our status quo problem.)

For other 'safety' matters, defense isn't so easy because the attack and target are so different. An AI propaganda bot or catfisher 'attacks' slowly-evolving human culture; one that instructs on explosives or bioterrorism directly interacts with an accomplice and not a victim. If you believe that knowledge on how to build a pipe-bomb must be restricted, then giving everyone access to Fable does not mitigate the risk.

The controversial limit of this attitude is recursive self improvement and an AI singularity with potentially destructive results. Proponents of this view think that sufficiently powerful AI is risky in nearly unimaginable ways such that the capability itself is harmful. This is part (but not all) of why Fable (originally?) degraded itself when apparently assisting with AI research.