Anthropic's Project Glasswing may have uncovered tens of thousands of potential security flaws, but new research suggests AI-assisted vulnerability discovery has yet to produce the wave of real-world attacks many expected.

In research shared with The Register, VulnCheck analyzed 1,061 publicly attributed AI-assisted vulnerability discoveries from Anthropic's Project Glasswing and the Berkeley Vulnerability Research Initiative, then cross-referenced them against its Known Exploited Vulnerability (KEV) database. 

The result: just 14 vulnerabilities, or 1.3 percent, have been confirmed as exploited in the wild, almost identical to the rate across all vulnerabilities in VulnCheck's dataset.

That's a far cry from the narrative that frontier AI is dramatically tilting the balance in attackers' favor by churning out instantly weaponizable bugs. Instead, the data suggests that AI is currently better at increasing the volume of vulnerabilities researchers can uncover than at increasing the proportion that attackers actually exploit.

The report takes particular aim at Anthropic's much-publicized Project Glasswing, unveiled in April with warnings that AI-assisted vulnerability discovery could allow attackers to hijack systems, disrupt operations, or steal data. 

Claude Mythos may have identified 23,019 vulnerability candidates, but there's remarkably little public evidence showing what became of most of them. VulnCheck notes that only 126 have been published as CVEs, that just one has been confirmed exploited in the wild, and that Anthropic's public disclosure record has seen little movement since Project Glasswing launched.

But that doesn't mean AI-assisted vulnerability research has failed, according to Patrick Garrity, security researcher at VulnCheck.

"AI-assisted vulnerability discovery clearly has value for both attackers and defenders," Garrity wrote. "The data does not suggest that AI-discovered vulnerabilities are inherently more likely to be exploited than those found through traditional methods." Instead, he argues, AI is simply helping researchers discover more flaws, giving defenders an opportunity to patch them before criminals get there.

Garrity stopped well short of declaring the threat overblown forever, but he did suggest some of the rhetoric has outpaced reality.

"The data so far, including Anthropic's own stalled disclosure ledger, suggests that AI-assisted vulnerability discovery and frontier capabilities have been overhyped relative to the evidence available today," he wrote. "That doesn't mean the risk is imaginary. It means the impact has been real but modest."

Meanwhile, attackers haven't exactly been sitting idle. VulnCheck identified 495 known exploited vulnerabilities during the first half of 2026, with content management systems accounting for roughly one-third of them and network edge devices remaining a firm favorite. AI products themselves are also becoming an increasingly attractive target, as attackers look beyond using AI and start hunting for weaknesses in the rapidly expanding AI software stack.

In other words, AI may be changing vulnerability research, but it hasn't yet produced the exploitation apocalypse some predicted. ®