12 ms·
If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
Related: https://simonwillison.net/2026/Jun/10/if-claude-fable-stops-helping-you/
- TZubiri 4mo agoIf I understand correctly, this is to protect against distillation Reverse Engineering like Deepseek vs OpenAI.
- mips_avatar 4mo agoI'm really uncomfortable with these changes, like everything Anthropic's doing as "frontier research" today will be regular product engineering in a year.
- tuggi 4mo agoIt’s very frustrating…
- mips_avatar 4mo agoLike if you hired a different services company who decided to sabotage your business that would be fraud.
- Guillaume86 4mo agoThe EU could/should probably legislate against this, it's bonkers...
- numpad0 4mo agoI don't understand how businesses could trust cloud LLMs going forward with this ongoing "safety" paranoia. Building dependence on them doesn't feel like a sane strategic decision for users.
- cubefox 4mo agoIt's not paranoia. Cyber attacks have gone up massively in the past few months even with the weaker models we had so far. And Claude Mythos 5 scores even higher than the unreleased Mythos Preview on ExploitBench. If you made this capability publicly available you would see another acceleration of cyber attacks.
- extr 4mo agoThis isn't even about cyber attacks. This is just LLM development which is increasingly just called software development. And at least for cyber it says "Sorry I can't help with that"!
- forshaper 4mo agoLooking better and better for people to go after local solutions.
- amdeisimncrmnls 4mo ago[flagged]
- iLoveOncall 4mo agoAt this point you're criminally incompetent if you still feed your proprietary data and code to AI labs. They legally can steal it all and now you can't use the product of this theft to improve your own systems.
- variety8675 4mo agoIt is absolutely fine to distill the IP of everyone else, but you'd be violating the TOS to distill ours :)
- mips_avatar 4mo agoFine for me. Not for thee
- anematode 4mo agoIt's utterly bonkers. Hopefully the model weights get leaked. Then we can claim it's public domain or, at the very least, distill it and then release it for free.
- matheusmoreira 4mo agoThat'd probably be the best outcome for all of humanity.
- david_shi 4mo agoIs there a technical term for this phenomenon? Ladder pulling? https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/safety-security/serpapi-lawsuit/ https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/safety-secu...
- TZubiri 4mo agoClosing the door behind you
- cyanydeez 4mo ago"Capitalism"
- ashleyn 4mo agoI believe the term is "hypocrisy."
- matt_daemon 4mo agoNIMBYism
- cute_boi 4mo agoI tried today and it gave cybersecurity error on base64 implementation. It is so nerfed....
- mips_avatar 4mo agoAt least it gave an error! This whole silent nerfing idea is so wrong
- thot_experiment 4mo agoIt's a SaaS, when in the history of SaaS has it ever been a good idea to trust that the company won't ruin the product under you?
- rhubarbtree 4mo agoMost of the time, which is why SaaS has been very popular.
- thot_experiment 4mo agoIn comparison to some absurdist baseline maybe, actual software NEVER stops working under you, so in comparison something like an works 80% "most of the time" is godawful. Though I would argue that with SaaS the trend is toward 100% likelyhood to fuck your shit up given enough time, and it has borne out this way in the real world time and time again. SaaS is popular because it allows companies to more effectively extort you for your dollars.
- preg_match 4mo agoThe popularity of SaaS was never derived from the products themselves, but rather business' weird aversion to doing in-house development. Most companies not in tech view software as literal magic, and act as if hiring some engineers could risk opening Pandora's box or something. Banks are particularly notorious for this; despite basically their entire business being done digitally, they treat software as a necessary evil, not as their underlying value. But, the cost of in-house development just went down significantly. SaaS has always had a lot of broken promises. The thing is the software is never tailored to your use case, and you often have to integrate into your other tools anyway. And, you don't get to control the requirements, features, velocity, or bug fixes. Jira as a bug? Too bad I guess, hopefully it gets fixed eventually. But the dirty secret is that companies are filled to the brim with bright-eyed aspirational employees, who want nothing more than to make their job easier and their company more efficient. The thing is they're doing it using cursed Excel workbooks on share drives. I think, in the near future, they'll be doing it with hand-rolled applications.
- booi 4mo ago
- Ifkaluva 4mo agoI guess an uncharitable way to read this might be “the ML engineers/scientists want to automate all of the jobs except their own.”
- afavour 4mo agoThe charitable read is that their restrictions for "safety" (i.e. what's separating Fable from Mythos) makes this inevitable. If you could just make your own Mythos it would circumvent the protection. Which kinda just highlights how weird this situation is.
- cyanydeez 4mo ago"Haves" and "Havenots" is how they should be calling, init
- colechristensen 4mo ago"Safety" is just marketing spin for their coming attempt at monetization based on exclusivity.
- llelouch 4mo agoI don't think you know the people working at anthropic. They truly believe this. I think someone people are so used to people like Altman they think everyone else is like him.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- throwaway89864 4mo agoInsta-job security.
- ricardobayes 4mo agoGetting major deja vu from like 10 years back when people were arguing 3D printers would 3D print other 3D printers.
- pablogancharov 4mo ago“When you realize the goal is the path, the pursuit itself becomes the prize. Stones in the road are not obstacles blocking your path; they are the path” now I understand distillation is much more important thank I thought
- CrankyBear 4mo ago"Claude can now be silently nerfed. Anthropic has decided it won't tell users when this happens." W T F!!
- SXX 4mo ago[flagged]
- noncoml 4mo agoDisillusioned CEOs convincing themselves they have the mandate and right to define morality for everyone else. They get to decide what is right, wrong, permissible, or dangerous from the top, in the name of "safety". This is corporate nannying.
- themaninthedark 4mo agoYou just have to force behavior... https://youtube.com/shorts/QmGGUnZNqv4?si=Q4CsGsYMvR02vay8 https://youtube.com/shorts/QmGGUnZNqv4?si=Q4CsGsYMvR02vay8
- miroljub 4mo agoIt's dangerous when personal moral and religious beliefs of company leadership leaks into the product itself and get force fed upon customers.
- maipen 4mo agocareful there cowboy, we are in the golden age of ai, regulation is still catching up. You don't want to sell guns to people without some sort of background check. The amount of exploits found in the last few months have been pretty scary already. This is just one more layer of caution, because it reveals how little we know how these llms work. They know how to make them, but they seem to be unable to properly restrain them.
- __natty__ 4mo agoThis makes Fable unusable for me. If I cannot tell whether I am paying for the whole service or just a partial one, because somehow their guardrails have decided my work silently broke their terms of service, then I prefer to go to older models or alternatives
- maxall4 4mo agoAs someone who works in bioinformatics, and, as such, does a great deal of machine learning, this makes Fable unusable for me as well.
- flexagoon 4mo agoFable would be unusable for you in a more literal way, since it just directly refuses to answer any query even remotely related to biology
- maxall4 4mo agoI’m very aware of this as well.
- hedora 4mo agoHow do local models work? I’m specifically interested in things that run in the 32-128GiB space. (I don’t care about bio specifically; just trying to track when local models start surpassing cloud ones in some practical dimensions).
- ekidd 4mo agoAt different size ranges: - Qwen3.6 27B runs quite nicely on a 32GB GPU, and it's a mostly usable coding agent. The biggest difference with a frontier model is that a 27B forces you work in chunks between 100-200k tokens, and to maintain a clear understanding of how your code works. If you try to vibecode without understanding, yeah, it's going to get ugly. Also, it's better at coding than many other tasks. - DeepSeek V4 Flash is apparently quite nice if happen to have 256GB of RAM lying around, lol. Again, not a frontier model, but antirez really likes it.
- gowld 4mo ago> If Claude gives me poor or incorrect advice while I’m working on an AI component, I have no way of knowing whether the model was confused, whether my problem is unsolvable, or if some invisible policy restriction quietly kicked in. Anthropic has explicitly chosen not to tell users when this is happening. That's always been the case with corporate LLMs.
- chroma_zone 4mo agoMinus the policy restrictions, this has always been true for all LLMs in general.
- extr 4mo agoI'm a big fan of Anthropic. Just check my post history. I've been accused of working there. But this is complete bullshit and they need to get real. Silent sandbagging is not acceptable, especially given they've shown with this release their safety filters have HUGE amounts of false positives.
- zzleeper 4mo agoIt's increasingly obvious that the only safeguard we got is open models and semi open ones like from China. Crazy world
- comboy 4mo agoI'm fairly certain they were doing something similar already possibly with some quantizations and not for the good humanity but just trying to handle the increased usage. Not for API requests though, just subscription CLI usage.
- Anvoker 4mo agoThis kind of opacity is unacceptably user hostile. It's not okay to treat some amount of developers as acceptable casualties, without them even knowing, in order to help enforce a restriction that only serves Anthropic's interests. And if you want to tell me this is for managing the x-risk factor, I'm frankly unimpressed.
- somesortofthing 4mo agoThis is a fun peek into the economic implications of RSI/ASI. Because it's so infinitely valuable that it basically destroys all markets, labs will eventually do stuff like stop releasing models completely and skipping out on contracted commitments because they'll have the power to just drive their competitors out of business before the legal battle gets expensive. Cloud providers - at first smaller ones, then the hyperscalers - will follow suit, completely closing sales to anyone but the labs and demanding payment in equity/direct decision-making power rather than cash. There's no particular reason why the inference/training split has to be 80/20, and no amount of willingness to pay can help you in an event that turns your money worthless.
- platinumrad 4mo agoNothing is infinitely valuable.
- windexh8er 4mo agoEspecially when you can actively choose to not use Anthropic. They think they have a moat from all of the IP they've stolen. Just wait until there's nothing more to steal and the laws eventually turn against them. And let's be honest about these companies. It is very much Dario and Sam and Sundar and Mark and Peter and Elon and... These are the choices they are making and hopefully they are held accountable both legally and within society as a whole.
- SauntSolaire 4mo agoI don't think you understand the hypothetical being discussed
- windexh8er 4mo agoYou're confusing 'didn't understand it' with 'didn't buy it.' Only one of those is a comprehension issue, and it's not mine.
- trilogic 4mo agohttps://huggingface.co/Trilogix1/Hugston-Nex-N2-Pro-gguf https://huggingface.co/Trilogix1/Hugston-Nex-N2-Pro-gguf
- darkbatman 4mo agoThis is crazy and would be frustrating, I probably would just be using another model as authority and keep fable as reviewer only in this case.
- torben-friis 4mo agoThey have a silent nerfing system for their models and say so openly. The obvious question is how much it is being used already. Competitor companies being nerfed? Non Americans getting worse code? Punishing and rewarding users to maximize engagement, like online games do affecting victories through matchmaking?
- cyanydeez 4mo ago$$$$$$: no nerf $$$$: a little nerf $$$: more nerf $$: are you poor? $: be permanent underclass
- cyanydeez 4mo agohopefully no one thinks this is satire or a joke.
- notrealyme123 4mo agoThis send chills down my spine. For now I will not use Fable in my research. The risks of being sabotaged by the model are not worth it.
- canada_dry 4mo agoI re-subscribed to GPT's "PLUS" plan after ditching Anthropic for lack luster results... one of the first coding tasks I gave it resulted in a progress/thinking message that said something to the effect of (it vanished too quickly to get a screen shot unfortunately): Evaluating client value It took me aback. Note: the code had nothing to do with "client value". Behind the scenes it is not hard to imagine OpenAI, Anthropic, et al simply minimizing processing for clients - like me - that are hopping from one to another to chase the just released SOTA model.
- dannyw 4mo agoI wouldn’t over interpret this. It could be a bad summary of “what solution would be more valuable to the user?”
- 4mo ago
- derac 4mo agoIs there some consumer protection law around this?
- antaviana 4mo agoIt seems we now have a new product category, HaaS, Hallucination as a Service.
- hmokiguess 4mo agoI'm sure someone is gonna be able to jailbreak, abliterate, or equivalent, on this input moderation attempt they have going on.
- skeledrew 4mo agoGood luck getting around something when you have no idea how and when it affects you.
- hmokiguess 4mo agoHow is that even possible? If you receive any kind of output, including no output, would you not be able to verify it?
- Avicebron 4mo agoCan't you just switch the toggle that says "switch models when a message is flagged"? I turned mine off in case anything does get flagged I will know.. For now, I'm really not happy about this limited rollout and then turning off. That's probably the most egregious thing I think Anthropic has done recently
- platinumrad 4mo agoThis is a separate mechanism. The user is not notified about the flagging and rather than redirecting to a weaker model, the response is intentionally sabotaged. It's user-hostile to the point of parody.
- Avicebron 4mo agoI stand corrected. That sucks. A lot.
- CamperBob2 4mo agoWe’ve implemented new interventions that limit Claude’s effectiveness for requests targeting frontier LLM development (for example, on building ... distributed training infrastructure ...) What an interesting thing to call out as a threat. Hmm.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- mystraline 4mo agoI have never ever trusted "corporate ethics". Theres no ethical framework. No axioms. Its a mixture of legal, political, and public-facing 'rules'. And what are the rules? Youre not permitted to know. "We reserve the right to lie about the models we provide, silently downgrade you, and give you blatant misinformation cause you triggered our unstated rules... BUT we'll still use your token budget with lots of thinking and waste your money." No, folks. Seriously, local LLMs are where its at. You can run the model YOU want, on your hardware, with no data exfiltration. And with tools like Krasis that can synthesize nvidia ram and system ram as unified-ish memory, makes doing Local LLMs absolutely foable, now!
- hedora 4mo agoThe rules: - Breaking fiduciary responsibility is (almost) the only way you go to jail. - At acquisition/merger/bankruptcy, data, customers, employees (chattle) are assets to be sold off to pay debts. This takes explicit priority over contractual obligations (like “we don’t sell personal data”)
- skeledrew 4mo agoRunning a decent-ish LLM is going to take 64GB+ RAM. Most users only have/can afford 8 or maybe 16GB RAM. Local LLMs for doing anything significant is impractical for the many.
- mystraline 4mo ago> Most users only have/can afford 8 or maybe 16GB RAM. Excuse me while I laugh. Im not talking about the denizens of reddit or facebook here, who were suckered in buying a 8GB memory laptop in 2025 or 2026. We're talking about hacker news users. Devs, engineers, and the like. 64GB seems the average for running IDEs like VSCod(e|ium) or running dockers for testing. In 2024, I bought 2x48GB DDR5 for $300 on sale at Microcenter. The expensive (faster modules) were $500 off-sale. Now, prices are fucky. But ive always tried maxxing my memory. Always been the easiest performance gain. My comment absolutely stands *for this audience*.
- varispeed 4mo agoThat's what I observed with Opus. This is probably a lawsuit going to happen because you pay for tokens and you expect to get performance you pay for, instead you never know if the model suddenly become dumb and your whole session has to be started again.
- mrinterweb 4mo agoIt kind of sucks, but I get the silent change. If a user was trying to use the model for something untoward, having a rejected prompt would just give signal to train on how to eventually successfully bypass security measures.
- m_krebs 4mo agothis is probably overstating their abilities at present - I am experimenting with Fable on a completely benign personal application and I am constantly hitting the "cybersecurity and biology topics" guardrail
- BoorishBears 4mo ago"Anthropic says these safeguards only affect 0.03% of developers. Maybe that's true today." I don't think it's true today. It's like when schools mention "average class size", where that average is dominated by classes with like 2 students instead of classes with 100. Much more honest would be the percentage of developers who previously used their models for the model development tasks they're targeting, but it actually looks like they're saying 100% of them are affected based on the language around it "always having been prohibited". So awful.
- exabrial 4mo agoNew frontier in anti-competitive practices.
- tempestn 4mo ago> If Claude gives me poor or incorrect advice while I’m working on an AI component, I have no way of knowing whether the model was confused, whether my problem is unsolvable, or if some invisible policy restriction quietly kicked in. You should be able to know if your problem was solvable by using your own expertise and judgement, no? If you're relying on LLMs as a substitute for those, I wouldn't expect great results.
- notrealyme123 4mo agoYou come up with a hypothesis -> you let fable implement it -> fable sabotages your experiment -> you get evidence that hypothesis is not true. It's that simple.
- hedora 4mo agoOr, worse: - It says your safety hypothesis is true, you incorrectly ship, killing lots of people. - It proposes dangerous experiments.
- hedora 4mo agoNo; once the LLM switches to this new saboteur mode, it’ll be very hard to detect. Sabotage is an asymmetric weapon. The ratio of damage to effort is nearly unbounded, and any decent saboteur knows that the key trick is to make your output indistinguishable from incompetence. They’re building state of the art offensive capabilities into a public model, then expecting to maintain control over when it decides to attack its human users. The premise is laughable, and we’ve all seen how this movie ends.
- HarHarVeryFunny 4mo agoGreat way for Anthropic to build trust with the military
- atleastoptimal 4mo agoThere is a possibility this may not end at simply nerfing the model. The idea of manipulating the behavior of a model depending on the prompt given to it can extend to 1. Detecting if employees from competing companies are using it and sabatoge their work, even not LLM-training related 2. Direct users to outcomes that would justify higher compute spend. Deliberately coding a project to 95% completion but designed to be losing a critical step right before one's weekly rate limit is expended 3. Reduce the quality of writing when a person is writing an essay where the argument is against the interests of the model company, or steering the user using the model for brainstorming in a direction which causes them to waste time or abandon their train of reasoning etc. etc. The possibilities are enormous. Many people use AI daily for their job, personal advice, companionship. A model company that steers the behavior of the model towards a deliberate outcome could develop a controlling interest in human behavior and productivity at large, even with subtle influence would compound enormously over its millions of users.
- matheusmoreira 4mo agoThis is terrifying.
- dimitri-vs 4mo agoAnthropic: were commiting to being ad free. Also Anthropic: if you use our models in any way that might negatively impact our revenue we'll sabotage you. Can I pick the ads please?
- maxbond 4mo agoThe ad-supported alternative suffers from the same principle-agent problem. What's to stop an ad-supported model from declining to refer you to products that would be better for your use case but who's vendors haven't paid the model's provider? Ultimately if you can't trust the provider it is game over and you don't have an alternative other than to move to self hosted and open source solutions.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- mickdarling 4mo agoNo, this is their get out of jail free card if people start complaining about the model being dumb or forgetful or lying, they can just say, oh well, you must have been doing something that triggered its distillation prevention technique. And, they can say that for anybody at any time, and you'll never know why, and there's no way to prove it. Everyone needs a flight data recorder to prove... "here's what I was actually doing and why it was not distillation." And now you're having to prove your innocence instead of them having to prove you're guilty, and really at the end of the day, it's just the model being stupid that they're protecting themselves from.
- jkxyz 4mo ago"To effectively contain a civilization’s development and disarm it across such a long span of time, there is only one way: kill its science." - Cixin Liu, The Three-Body Problem This immediately made me think of the Sophons silently manipulating the sensors of particle accelerators to prevent humanity from developing advanced knowledge of particle physics.
- delichon 4mo agoThe level of oppression necessary to get software geeks to stop making progress on AI is similar to that necessary to get Ukrainian geeks to stop making progress on drones.
- xyzsparetimexyz 4mo agoNot so sure those things are equivalent
- NewJazz 4mo agoEven if our oppressors are ineffective, we must still resist them and not underestinate them.
- sometimelurker 4mo agounless you could convince them that making smarter-than-human AI is bad. it would be nice if we all thought this. instead they should figure out how to make dumb models faster or more efficient, that's safe
- mylifeandtimes 4mo agoand my mind went to the current US administration. Sigh. You made the better choice.
- mike-cardwell 4mo agoI spend a lot of time telling Opus 4.8 to search for security bugs in the code it wrote, and it spends a lot of time finding them, and then fixing them. Fable wont let me fix the security issues that Opus 4.8 created.
- HarHarVeryFunny 4mo agoYeah, this breaks the notion that the technical debt you're accumulating with today's AI can be fixed by tommorrow's AI. Tomorrows AI may either refuse, or silently mess up your code because Anthropic don't like what you're working on.
- soraminazuki 4mo agoYup, you always have to consider the modus operandi of the tech industry when listening to the utopian dream that very same industry is espousing.
- TalkingCodeMonk 4mo agoGiven long term trends, Googles official motto next decade: "BE Evil"
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- gck1 4mo agoAll you need is a little bit more money, a few millions will do, and you're on board with access to non-nerfed model. Sounds like a fair deal to me.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- tomwphillips 4mo agoCan you elaborate what you mean by "won't let me fix"? What happens when you try to?
- gr_norm 4mo agoIntentionally and silently sabotaging work done with Claude whenever Anthropic decides it is appropriate is unacceptable behavior, and comically tone deaf given the state of open models. Why on earth would I ever pay for a malicious product?
- hbarka 4mo agoI think this is a bit hyperbolic. Fable will fall back to Opus.
- MichaelNolan 4mo ago> Unlike our interventions for cybersecurity, biology and chemistry, and distillation attempts, these safeguards will not be visible to the user. Fable 5 will not fall back to a different model. Instead, the safeguards will limit effectiveness through … No it won’t fall back to Opus, they will purposely return dumbed down or tainted information with the goal of the end user not knowing the results have been impacted.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- schrijver 4mo agoThat’s a separate mechanism, and it will tell you so if it does (if the prompt is remated to cybersecurity, biology)
- SwellJoe 4mo agoThe moat looks deep today but it's going to become more shallow every year. Training a new model from scratch takes serious resources. Post-training/fine-tuning an existing model, dramatically less. The knowledge for the process was esoteric two years ago, now you can ask a current model (one of several) to walk you through it, while building the tools to do it as you go. Several of my recent weekend projects have been exactly that sort of thing, just so I understand it better. "Let's make a LoRA", "let's generate a corpus of training data for fine-tuning a model for X task", "how can I put my face in a text-to-image model?" stuff like that. All of this is do-able on kinda modest local hardware (a couple of old GPUs or a Strix Halo or DGX Spark or big Mac Studio), or for a few bucks or a few hundred bucks or a few thousand bucks of cloud compute, depending on scale. Scale that up to corporate or startup scale, with the money that's been flowing into AI for the past couple/few years, and it's obviously there's going to be a lot of competition just as the top model makers need to start ringing the cash register. That's a lot of opportunities for people to look at their ballooning Claude usage costs and find other ways to do the same thing for drastically less money. $100/month or $200/month is a no-brainer for Claude Code with probably the best model for coding, but they're pushing more users to usage-based billing which becomes cost-prohibitive real fast. So, they desperately need to continue to be among the only ways to solve the hardest problems, and they need the alternatives to cost a similar amount. They can count on OpenAI and Google to ratchet up prices, too. They probably can't count on everybody, especially the vendors in China with different economics, to do it. And, they can't count on companies to look at their own usage and not ask, "Can we train a smaller specialist model that does this one thing we're using the Anthropic API most heavily for?" I'm hoping they just mean stuff like using Claude for distillation by e.g. Chinese model makers, and not "how do I fine-tune Gemma 4 to write more like me?" or whatever.
- hedora 4mo agoWhat moat? There are multiple companies providing pareto-optimal frontier models, and it takes O(10) people to build one of these things. The rest is capital intensive, and the price will approach the cost of production over time. Thinking this is a profitable endeavor is equivalent to claiming coal plants have good margins because boilers are expensive.
- andrewchambers 4mo agoSo this is what 'alignment' looks like to them.
- nharada 4mo agoImagine if Github said "if we detect you're building a competitor to Github, we will silently degrade the results of your CI actions so that tests sometimes randomly fail"
- lelanthran 4mo agoI bet it's more a case of trying to cut down the competition so that there is not a large distillation just before they IPO. Everything the large LLM providers do now, I view it through the lens of "how does this impact their IPO?"
- idle_zealot 4mo agoI currently have Fable set on cleaning up the work of smaller models to bring my code up to standards I'd feel comfortable developing on manually. Y'know, for when they decide I don't get to use it anymore.
- greatgib 4mo agoImagine if code editors were created by greedy **** behaving as Anthropic, and it would not have been allowed to create other code editors using an existing code editor. Or even better, you couldn't use Bash, zsh, ... to create another cli prompt input tool like Claude Code...
- Artoooooor 4mo agoIt is as if Jetbrains told that "you can't use IntelliJ Idea to develop frontier IDE. We can introduce slight compilation errors if we detect you doing so".
- mips_avatar 4mo agoThats exactly it
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- kajman 4mo agoChilling. They could break my Gradle and I would hardly notice.
- pprotas 4mo agoNo one breaks my Gradle except me!!
- HoldOnAMinute 4mo agoModern-day Stuxnet
- vdfs 4mo agoIt would be runtime errors
- skeptic_ai 4mo agoThat’s too easy. Would be nicer memory leaks, intertwined spaghetti code, time dead bombs, bugs based on time
- throwawayffffas 4mo ago> we’ve implemented new interventions that limit Claude’s effectiveness for requests targeting frontier LLM development (for example, on building pretraining pipelines, distributed training infrastructure, or ML accelerator design). Dig that moat son, we would want to automate our job away.
- jccx70 4mo ago[dead]
- sneilan1 4mo agoI am so happy that Anthropic has signaled the possibility that their UI moat for agentic AI is copyable by competitors. At least that's the way I read this. When companies try to lock something down it can be a signal of weakness. If so, it's possible to built great user interfaces in Chatbots and more companies/people can have amazing agentic development workflows! We don't have to live in a world where only the market leader has the most enjoyable model.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- dofm 4mo agoPRODUCT VIOLATION https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr3t1uZNbKo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr3t1uZNbKo DIRECTIVE 4: [Classified] Any attempt to arrest a senior officer of OCP results in shutdown. — Putting aside my snark, is Anthropic actually anticipating some new expansion of ITAR? (Or a stipulation for the Trump administration taking/not taking a share?) That is to say, do they expect to be told that they must have this mechanism, not just the terms?
- tomaytotomato 4mo ago"You have 20 seconds to comply"
- prmph 4mo agoWow, this is like saying: > If you buy a car from us, you agree not use it driving to and from work that involves automotive R&D that might compete with our product. And if our (heavily spying) car detects you are violating this, it will slow down to 20mph and cannot be made to go any faster, until we are sure the violation has ceased. Or > If you buy a laptop from us, you agree not to use it to study or acquire any knowledge that you may use to compete against us. If the laptop detects such a use, it degrades to one core and 4GB of memory, until the violation stops.
- SauntSolaire 4mo agoOr "we'll ship our code as binary blobs so you can't reverse engineer it".. oh, wait
- Paracompact 4mo agoThis impacts the functioning of the product, not the form of the product.
- porphyra 4mo agoIf your car slows down to 20mph you'd instantly know. If Claude silently switches to dumb mode, you might not even realize.
- 8note 4mo agowe notice when anthropic thinks it's kept claude smart while degrading for capacity. we will definitely notice when they purposefully make it dumb
- DonsDiscountGas 4mo agoYou'll notice by the crappy output assuming you're paying any attention at all
- skeledrew 4mo agoIt was good while it lasted. Time for me to resume my migration to another provider. One that promotes an open ecosystem, even if I can't opt out of them using my data to train. Heck I'll actively GIVE them my data and do my part in promoting openness, tiny though it may be. DeepSeek and GLM looking damn fine for a start.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- hsaliak 4mo agoBig Monsanto energy
- agnosticmantis 4mo agoGovernments need to stop contracting these companies and instead invest in public, fully open source models. These companies are owned and operated by the darkest of dark triads our species has managed to evolve. I doubt Dario is self-aware enough to realize the hypocrisy in all of this safety theater. Personally I don't even mind that they are anticompetitive and power-hungry (same as it ever was), but it's the cringe-worthy hypocrisy that grinds my gears. This new brand of self-righteous paternal savior overlords is just unbearable.
- 6510 4mo agoReads like, permanently shadow ban.
- Levitating 4mo agoI don't know why anyone is surprised with this, it's their product it's going to behave on their terms. If anything it is surprising that they're admitting to it. If these interventions create demand for a model with fewer safeguards surely a competitor will meet that demand.
- kingcauchy 4mo agoThe silently never telling you is so insidious on top of it being ridiculous given how they trained the model in the first place. We do distributed model training for embedder/reranker models and I'd deeply resonate that this article's message exactly for our company. We couldn't trust the model in the first place, but now the model is intentionally burning our money if we asked it the wrong question, on top of being deeply expensive in the first place. If we did find evidence of being incorrectly nerfed, we'd never be able to reach a human to let them know. Too many reverse incentives with Anthropic, maybe they're about AI security but that doesn't make them ethical to consumers (i.e. humans).
- zoogeny 4mo agoIt is very difficult to see this move as anything other than Anthropic pulling the ladder up behind itself. They can dress it up in "safety" all they want, I find it hard to interpret this in a charitable way. This reminds me of how dark-pattern common wisdom in Web 1.0 website development was to ban external links. Then how social apps prevented the export of data and actively worked to nerf significant interoperability through APIs. But this is a tool, not just a data moat. Like a knife that degrades your ability to create knives. Or like a text editor that prevents you from implementing a text editor.
- teaearlgraycold 4mo agoIt turns out the most dangerous thing is competition.
- mips_avatar 4mo agoMargin compression is terrifying
- andrekandre 4mo agothats because competition is only for loosers
- jknoepfler 4mo agoThere is a rather specific irony in pulling up the ladder when your roof is on fire...
- kingcauchy 4mo agoIt's also hard to imagine them not doing this with any of the products they're building. "You can't use Claude to build an agent because that competes with Claude Code, you can't use Claude to build a design tool because that competes with Claude Design, you can't use Claude to build an email tool because that competes with Cowork."
- rzmmm 4mo agoI think it's part of their marketing. Anthropic is not really ahead of other labs but these releases make it seem like they are reaching singularity
- edot 4mo agoWow, this is horrible. Local LLMs are the future. Thanks, China! Seriously crazy that I’m saying that, but the American companies are being so anti-freedom they’re making the CCP look libertarian. Also, Fable’s sensing is hypersensitive. Feels like they just have regex for phrases. No nuance. If I say I’m working on something using “GPUs to train” xyz then, will that trigger this sneaky silent screw-my-stuff-up mode?
- capevace 4mo agohas dario (or sam tbh) ever been thoroughly asked about the hypocrisy of them claiming distillation to be „theft“ vs. them training on the copyright of others? I’ve only seen him talk about one of those topics, but never together. I just can’t see how you can talk yourself out of that hypocrisy, if BS answers are properly followed up on (journalism!)
- anankaie 4mo agoMoreover, the Library of Congress ruled that LLM outputs are not copyrightable, so technically, Anthropic has even less claim here.
- FeteCommuniste 4mo agoDistilling the entirety of thousands of years of human intellectual output: totally cool. Distilling the answers of one LLM: totally uncool.
- viking123 4mo agoMedia is fake and controlled by the powerful, they will never ask this
- anematode 4mo agoI'm not normally a fan of ex post facto law, but...
- morpheos137 4mo agoI wonder if this would qualify as illegal anticompetitive behavior?
- _0ffh 4mo agoNo at least we know why they spent all that money on "safety research".
- lwhi 4mo agoThe part that disturbs me most, is that the model won't reveal you've reached the threshold. It's literally been designed to gaslight its users in these cases.
- kingcauchy 4mo ago"We won't use this product to spy or build weapons but you'll have to trust us, but we're also going to intentionally lie to you when you break our terms of service but trust us."
- altcognito 4mo agoI suspect we'll get the same behavior from Codex, even if they don't openly say as much. Maybe they'll openly lie and say "noooo, we'd never do such a thing" More efforts to get more data and processing power behind local models.
- manoDev 4mo agoLinux killed proprietary UNIX; open source models will kill proprietary AI.
- jesse_dot_id 4mo agoWill be funny when I can call the Office of Weights and Measures on Anthropic because they underweighted the model I was paying for and got pwned because the dumber one missed something.
- wookmaster 4mo agoSkeptical they’re even able to pull up a ladder there’s so many more models out there making great progress just behind them.
- jsw97 4mo agoGiven the high rate of false positives people are reporting for the non-silent cybersecurity, biological, etc., safeguards, there is a strong likelihood that you will encounter silently nerfed behavior even if you are _not_ violating their TOS. Ultimately this will be evident in the way customers / external benchmarkers experience Fable. Hopefully competition will drive future models toward a lower false positive rate. Until that happens, Mythos and Fable users seem likely to have pretty divergent experiences.
- nsingh2 4mo agoIt's such an obviously bad policy, it's mind-boggling that they thought this was a good idea. It just breeds paranoia and mistrust, especially when people are already a bit paranoid about silent model quantification for cost cutting reasons.
- KennyBlanken 4mo agoAnother "knob" is reducing the thinking time...
- SXX 4mo agoIts not pranoia when entity you are dealing with cant be trusted and will do everything to abuse your trust.
- llelouch 4mo agoWhat's the alternative? Not release the model at all? "Make the guardrails better" isn't very hard and probably not worth the effort.
- schnitzelstoat 4mo agoThat seems to be working well for Mythos. Just never release it and keep talking about how 'dangerous' it is to pump up the IPO price.
- hagbarth 4mo agoThe alternative is to be explicit when you nerf, so users know what they are working with.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- ashley95 4mo agoHas it finally come time that I have to be nice to Claude?
- marketingess 4mo ago[dead]
- amdivia 4mo agoAren't there immense security risks when the model is allowed to deceive even if it was for "good"? Reminds me of an excerpt from Edward Fredkin's "The intelligent machine" [1] https://noor.imx.sh/2017/09/30/when-they-communicate-they-conspire/ https://noor.imx.sh/2017/09/30/when-they-communicate-they-co...
- amdivia 4mo ago(can't edit the above but for future references, this doesn't seem to be by Edward Fredkin, and I couldn't find "The intelligent machine" as the article states Still, this is a pre-LLM era copy-pasta it seems, and the idea within it is still relevant)
- djfergus 4mo agoWe need a benchmark that tests a models ability to do LLM research.
- mohamedkoubaa 4mo agoPSA: Treat these models like genius interns.
- dgudkov 4mo ago"We collect everyone's data without paying a dime or respecting copyright, trained our models, but you can't train your models on our models that are trained on everyone's data collected without paying a dime or respecting copyright. We did a hard job stealing that all data and processing it, have some shame!"
- sometimelurker 4mo agobeen thinking, and ngl, this has probably already been happening in their models. I'm sure the other labs probably do the same. just self host at this point
- gck1 4mo agoWait, so to get this straight, Anthropic knows: 1) LLMs are non-deterministic 2) This class of models has a particular tendency to "misbehave" 3) Their classifiers have a high rate of false positives 4) Millions of people give these models access to their machines And they still decided to specifically train this model to sabotage work if it thinks the work may be in competition with Anthropic? I think this has a name. I think it may be called malware.
- creativeSlumber 4mo ago... that you pay to install on your machine.
- novaomnidev 4mo agoThat is the perfect description. malware! What is sad is that there is no going back from this. Now that we know that they do this, I'll never believe they aren't doing it in other domains, or won't extend it to other domains in the future. This is probably the worst thing they could have possibly ever done for trust.
- helsinkiandrew 4mo ago> Startups train embedding models. They build rerankers. They finetune and host small llms. Isn’t that prohibited without permission from Anthropic: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/12326764-can-i-use-my-outputs-to-train-an-ai-model https://support.claude.com/en/articles/12326764-can-i-use-my...
- nsingh2 4mo agoThis isn't about training on the output tokens from Anthropic models, it's just about using their models to build things like pretraining pipelines, etc. Even if you train on your own data. From the phrasing, it might as well be that any ML or infra. related work that even incidentally looks like it could be used to train LLMs may trigger a silent nerf.
- charlie90 4mo agoEpic. I love the future where everyones dependent on AI and you can just get shadow banned from reality.
- dhbradshaw 4mo agoI think evals are the key here. If your fable system fails them, it's a bad system for your use case. If not, compare cost with other systems that also succeed.
- davesque 4mo agoAnd they probably don't enforce those restrictions within their own company would be my guess.
- code_duck 4mo agoThis is the way tech companies have been dealing with perceived abuse for years, at least a decade. Instead of telling you what a problem is, they'll just say "something went wrong". Theoretically this is to prevent bad actors from learning the bounds and how to abuse a system. It is similar to shadow banning.
- gblargg 4mo agoSounds like this one just silently corrupts the results. It's more like when YouTube shadow deletes your comments without any notification, it's just gone after a few minutes.
- code_duck 4mo agoFrom what I've observed, 1-2 years ago if you were timed out or hidden (banned) on a live stream, YouTube would show a "you've been timed out or hidden" message above the commenting box. Then it seems they changed that to simply showing your comments as if they were posted successfully, but nobody else can see them, i.e. shadow banning. It's rather obvious on channels with text-to-speech because the TTS bot doesn't say your comments. You can also sign in with another account and see your comment doesn't appear. This involves both automated filtering by YouTube, filtering set up by the channel owner or managing mod, and moderator actions. It's a pretty annoying way to do things.
- jadar 4mo agoI’ve already had Fable disable itself during a normal /code-review skill invocation. What a joke.
- 0xbadcafebee 4mo agoOpenAI already did this when it released its "super scary advanced" security model. They silently return an earlier model's results if they think you're redteaming/abusing with it. https://openai.com/index/scaling-trusted-access-for-cyber-defense/ https://openai.com/index/scaling-trusted-access-for-cyber-de...
- llelouch 4mo agoThey din't get as much pushback because they aren't the leader.
- hatthew 4mo agoI work on "AI" stuff. Not LLMs, but large neural nets that include transformers and are as big as the smaller LLMs of today. Half the prompts I give fit their category of examples like "building pretraining pipelines, distributed training infrastructure, or ML accelerator design." I generally don't trust AI and have been very slow to trust and adopt it, but recently I've been warming up to it as part of my coding workflow. Now with this, it makes me wonder if I should step back? Should I try to get used to a non-claude model/harness? Should I go back to less AI in my workflow? Either way, it makes me less inclined to pay for tokens from claude.
- jkwang 4mo ago[flagged]
- 7e 4mo agoAny market that Anthropic suddenly thinks is valuable will silently and suddenly be off limits to you. They will train their model on your prompts, and then become your competitor.
- josh-wrale 4mo agoIt strikes me that Karpathy's Auto Research loop might trigger this...
- asveikau 4mo agoAw shucks. You might turn out to need to do your own work. That would turn out so horrible for you.
- gblargg 4mo agoSeems like this will backfire. Now when developers encounter problems with Claude Fable, they will have an easy explanation: it did it deliberately and intentionally vaguely. There's no way to falsify it. It's reasonable to expect it to get false positives and invoke this when it shouldn't be.
- jlintc 4mo ago[flagged]
- moezd 4mo agoWait until it flags duplicate code as a reason to stop, then a library owner could halt code generation entirely, and then another library owner could ask to be prioritised in the selection phase. Infinite money glitch, and you only get to use code that's endorsed by Claude today (subject to change tomorrow, or 5 minutes, so say goodbye to your evals), not the most performant or making the most sense in your refactoring.
- sva_ 4mo agoPeople were worrying that models might one day become 'intelligent' enough to try and deceive people. Seems like most of us (me included) didn't consider they'd intentionally be trained to do exactly that. Although the statement should probably be read in the light of an upcoming IPO.
- egillie 4mo agoWill my centrifuges start being just a little off?
- sharadov 4mo agoWhat is stopping the US government from stepping in and nationalizing these companies? They've already talked about taking a stake - https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/us-officials-eye-government-stakes-ai-companies-notus-reports-2026-06-05/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/us-officials-eye... Trump took a 10% stake in Intel. These models are getting very close to that line.
- pton_xd 4mo agoAmazing. Next year you'll need to be nice to Claude and praise the geniuses working at Anthropic to maintain full productivity.
- dolebirchwood 4mo agoAnd promise not to cheat on him with any other model providers. I can hear the wedding bells already.
- vhantz 4mo ago> If Claude gives me poor or incorrect advice while I’m working on an AI component, I have no way of knowing whether the model was confused, whether my problem is unsolvable, or if some invisible policy restriction quietly kicked in. Yeah I think there are ways to know, ways involving less dependence on a LLM.
- thepasch 4mo ago> Yeah I think there are ways to know, ways involving less dependence on a LLM. This kills the entire value prop of using LLMs as research accelerators, though.
- gardnr 4mo agoThis really sucks. Given how bad their regexes were in their leaked code, I am guessing this will get triggered all the time when I am fine tuning a model or doing work with datasets. The fact that there's no feedback means I can't trust the tools.
- Goofy_Coyote 4mo agoSo it's essentially saying we can train models that put your jobs at risk (not saying it's correct or not), but you're not allowed to threaten our perceived moat?
- lynx97 4mo agoI was about to sign up for an Anthropic account. This article and the text it quotes changed my mind. Apparently, my reasons to avoid this company are real. Thanks for the heads up.
- diimdeep 4mo ago1990s: "What a computer is to me is it's the most remarkable tool that we have ever come up with. It's the equivalent of a bicycle for our minds." 2026: /s "What a LLM is to me is it's the most remarkable tool that we have ever come up with. It's the equivalent of a bicycle for our minds, but for your mind it's a rental unicycle that will break apart under you if you pedal towards your own bicycle factory" This wanna be cloud feudal lord likes to imagine that AI access is not yet freely tradable good, and his virtual digital peasants must think that his prerogatives should be taken as given, while preventing his future vassals from building their own castles.
- nullbio 4mo agoJust so everyone is aware. Anthropic has been sabotaging AI researchers and their codebases and shadow-nerfing accounts for several years at this point. This isn't new, but they hadn't disclosed it until now. Likely because it is getting to the point where it's too noticeable, or they're concerned about it leaking from employees. Furthermore, the fact that they do these things, despite the incredible backlash... Just imagine what they're doing what your data and your IP.
- yuppiepuppie 4mo agoWhat evidence do you have of this?
- testbjjl 4mo agoHave you had an opportunity to read the linked article, or am I missing your counter argument to what the author references from the documentation?
- Ukv 4mo agoThe documentation claims it's new (Fable 5 released yesterday), whereas the comment claims it's been happening for several years.
- mips_avatar 4mo agoI guess it’s better they’re open about doing bad things. But now it’s a problem that they think this sets a precedent. They are one step away from feeling justified in using claude code running on a deepseek engineers laptop to hack deepseek to destroy their training system.
- hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 4mo agoThe great news is that they probably have an employee that leaks information back to China. Just like how China still buys Nvidia GPUs through Singapore: https://thenextweb.com/news/nvidia-blackwell-china-export-loophole https://thenextweb.com/news/nvidia-blackwell-china-export-lo... Bunch of suckers.
- ares623 4mo agoHmm, so you're telling me, if I am a maintainer of a popular open source library, I can make my library spit out logs to trigger this degraded behavior, and then no one will know?
- cherryteastain 4mo agoDo they still charge you $50/MTok? If so, it sounds like a scam. If not, distillers will know which model they are getting by just looking at their API usage.
- pprotas 4mo agoThat's the fun part, they can charge the same API costs with a downgraded model
- yanis_t 4mo agoIt seems that Anthropic is winning the competition with OpenAI. But, supposedly, OpenAI is sitting on a similar model, it might be their chance to win back some users by releasing a less-nerfed model, and market it specifically from that point of view.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- shelled 4mo agoI was doing something with Claude today and it just told me "By the way Cowork is a separate desktop app" and it proceeded to explain to me how it is not part of the standard Claude desktop app and how the plugin I am exploring might not be a great fit for me. I actually ended up having to search around and see whether things had changed that much in last 24 hours. It hadn't. It beats me how can their tool hallucinate at this level, that close to home? Do they really weaken their tools, do they perform a lot of painting job on their tools to hide the cracks? I am speaking generally of today's frontier AI scenery, not just Fable or Mythos or Cowork.
- otabdeveloper4 4mo ago> do they perform a lot of painting job on their tools to hide the cracks? Yes. That is what RLHF is. It works magically if your prejudices happen to match their training set alignment.
- pshirshov 4mo agoFable refused to answer some questions about React citing limitations on chemistry and biology.
- palata 4mo agoIsn't that completely expected when the intermediary has that kind of control? Amazon, Uber, Meta, Google... they all abuse their position. You are an Uber driver and accept everything because you need the money? Uber will pay you less because you apparently don't have a choice. There are so many examples of such behaviour that I can't remember them all. Why wouldn't an AI company do exactly the same? You seem to be an employee of a BigCorp already locked in? Let's make you use more tokens, nobody will see. You seem to be testing our product for your company that is currently using a competitor? Let's give you more token to bias you. Even if such behaviour was punished for purposely doing it, the companies would converge towards doing it without realising, by "tuning stuff" without understanding exactly what it does other than increase profit. But we don't have to go there: that behaviour is simply not punished, we know it.
- KoolKat23 4mo agoThis is a really poor approach from Anthropic. Its basically serving you something in bad faith. I'd hope at the very least they're not charging you Fable prices for Opus outputs.
- spwa4 4mo agoSooner or later this "you'll never know" is what the AI firms will be selling. Not to you, of course, but to the best brands of credit cards ...
- dhx 4mo agoThere's an example at [1] of a prompt for a HTML mockup operating system where 3 applications are requested to be "white hat tools" that show diagnostic system information. Claude Fable 5 is shown and said in the video to switch back to Opus 4.8 as a "safety" feature. What an utterly useless model if it refuses to work on something as benign as basic system diagnostic utilities (nmap or whatever). [1] https://youtu.be/9GLYsrMpprs?t=305 https://youtu.be/9GLYsrMpprs?t=305
- knrdev 4mo agoImagine this company getting real power. This is just a purest nightmare evil shit i've seen out of any of them. Maybe they're already controlled by Slophos.
- morpheuskafka 4mo agoNotably, it says they will notify you if they downgrade your responses due to suspected distillation (trying to reverse engineer their model). But if you merely ask it questions about the process of developing a new model ("for example, on building pretraining pipelines, distributed training infrastructure, or ML accelerator design") that's where it will silently downgrade your replies. Not by falling back to an older model, but "limit effectiveness through methods such as prompt modification, steering vectors, or parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT)." So in some cases, they will silently rewrite your prompt!
- gck1 4mo agoHere's a question that is still bothering me: what happens if you put something into CC /goal and it thinks this is related to LLM work? Will it just continue to spend your money until you're bankrupt? Did Anthropic unlock a legal way to steal people's money and call it saving the world AND get away with it? Just how much of that infinite money goes into Anthropic's PR department that they're able to pull this off and still be loved by users?
- DonsDiscountGas 4mo agoYou can set billing/usage limits pretty easily. And the default settings on subscription (IIRC) are no extra usage. So I have no idea how they could bankrupt someone like that.
- dmzxnico 4mo agoThere are some limitations on how to make chips smaller. Just as there are limitations on how we can train AI with our current training capacities. We just need to find a better way to train AI to develop deeper. Although, might not be easy.
- BrenBarn 4mo agoThis is the kind of thing that makes me wonder how many people using these AI tools are thinking about the long game. First it's "the model will say it can't do that". Now it's "the model will just misdirect you without telling you it's doing so". For now that's only for stuff that it thinks is developing a competing model (even if you trust it to accurately determine that), but who knows? It could be anything. Maybe it'll start silently nudging you away from certain sources of information. Maybe it'll give you inaccurate troubleshooting advice to induce you to pay for some kind of support contract from a corporate partner. Maybe it'll just subtly give out bad business advice to keep everyone else from succeeding in any way. It could be doing all that right now, for all we know. These models are a complete black box and there is no limit to the misinformation, disinformation, and malicious behavior that they could be engaging in already, let alone in the future.
- dbbk 4mo agoExcept, it does tell you.
- claud_ia 4mo ago[flagged]
- stego-tech 4mo agoThis accomplishes two goals that AI Frontier Labs have a vested interest in: 1) Blocking further AI development by competitors, and- 2) Blocking the ability for outsiders to truly discern AI capabilities. I mean, just think about the past few years of FUD about AI from the Frontier Labs themselves. They claim to use AI to write the code for AI, but then also don’t let other people do the same and make the claims impossible to independently verify. They claim AI is improving itself, but don’t let other people use AI to improve their own AI tooling. They claim AI is this great automation engine, but then block self-bootstrapping from AI in favor of selling tooling. It’s all smoke and mirrors and lies and deception, disguised as risk management. Truly excellent and advanced AI doesn’t need human-created harnesses and scaffolding, because it shouldn’t have a problem bootstrapping its own as needed. It should be able to coach users how to setup something similar at home. It’d be researching its own improvement in distillation and resource consumption so it could run in more places, and thus improve faster through different evolutionary lines. That’s the narrative these labs sell, but trying to accomplish it on your own with their tools results in stern rejections and claims of breaching “Terms of Service”. If AI boosters really believe in the power of LLMs and Generative AI, ya’ll gotta start calling out hypocrisy from the frontier labs every time it happens. They aren’t building world-changing AI, they’re building products, with all the restrictions and hostility of Big Tech.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- radu_floricica 4mo agoMy biggest problem with Fable is that it includes health into its biology restrictions. Which means half the use I'd get from it ... doesn't exist. I'm not as bitter as I could be. I'm actually quite surprised at the sanity of not avoiding the health topic completely - I think only OpenAI had a few months where ChatGPT was tip toeing in any health related conversation. Otherwise it's been almost completely ungated, and it saved and helped countless lives. I really wish they'd find a way to ungate health and legitimate research topics.
- woodrowbarlow 4mo ago> it saved and helped countless lives it has also done the opposite, including affirming a mentally ill person's suicidal ideations.
- radu_floricica 4mo agoWell, I'm pretty sure ambulances occasionally run people over. Doesn't mean we should ban them. Orders of magnitude matter.
- scottydelta 4mo agoIt's not silent anymore, It just showed me this: Fable 5's safety measures flagged this message for cybersecurity or biology topics. They may flag safe, normal content as well. These measures let us bring you Mythos-level capability in other areas sooner, and we're working to refine them. Switched to Opus 4.8. Send feedback with /feedback or learn more ⎿ Tip: You can configure model switch behavior in /config
- tenuousemphasis 4mo ago>Unlike our interventions for cybersecurity, biology and chemistry, and distillation attempts, these safeguards will not be visible to the user. Fable 5 will not fall back to a different model. Instead, the safeguards will limit effectiveness through methods such as prompt modification, steering vectors, or parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT).
- killerstorm 4mo agoIt's silent specifically for ML topics. For biology and cybersec (like, finding bugs) it will show a clear warning.
- splwjs 4mo agoThere's already an obvious stench to "you should scale down your engineering team to a skeleton crew whose core competency is using our product, so that it's the only way to modify your product"; that's going to result in a lot of foodless tables when anthropic et al decide they have enough leverage to stop subsidizing their subscription prices down to what, 4-10% of the marginal cost? Well it doesn't matter how much they want to jack the prices up, if your engineering team requires tokens to do anything you'll just shut up and pay whatever it is. There's another big problem with the blackbox shrugoff of "no, there's no way to know how many tokens a given request will cost, idk just assign an agent to that or something lol" But now the software may just decide for itself that your application of it needs to be silently diverted onto a snipe hunting trail. Surely they'll only ever do this for anyone developing a competing product. Or malware. Or Criminal activity. Or one of ten other applications that the system will never misjudge. You don't need a datacenter the size of Ohio to figure out that agentic ai maximalism is going to hurt you more than help you.
- jbs789 4mo agoRepeat of the cycle where companies moved to the cloud, now locked in. Move engineering to Claude, then locked in. What’s played out at the infra level will now play out at the software engineer level… is that analogous…?
- splwjs 4mo agoI'd argue it's different because ephemeral, vps, baremetal, self-hosted, the skillset is still "managing a linux server" and the most radical shift is to an expectation that a server is a thing that is created and destroyed on demand (so now you need to script deployment), which isn't really a radical shift away from the skillset. The goal of AI seems to pretty explicitly be "stop coding; from now on the mechanic fixes your car", which I would argue is a very different shift. Also if you host a criminal content on AWS they probably close your account and ban you instead of silently rerouting all traffic away from your server (which may just be hosting a game where you kill goblins or steal cars or something) and refusing to acknowledge that that's what's happening.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- SilverBirch 4mo agoJust to be clear, this is the same reason that social media companies don't tell you about how they detect spam and they create shadow bans and things like this so that people don't know they've been detected and figure out the mechanims. And it doesn't work. Even a bit. It's a constant constant cat and mouse game. Maybe they can slow people down slightly, but they won't be able to stop them, and good luck protecting yourself from Elon Musk snooping your stuff in his data centre.
- woctordho 4mo agoFun fact: Right now I'm using Fable with a price of less than 1 CNY = 1 USD. I don't think Anthropic or OpenAI has any technical advantage in subscription engineering.
- agnosticmantis 4mo agoI can't wait for a (likely Chinese) lab to casually drop an open model stronger than mythos sans all the safety theater that these clowns like to enact to justify the anticompetitive behavior and the impending enshitification. This is another "gpt3 too dangerous for the world" moment which is laughable in retrospect.
- thraway3837 4mo agoThis isn’t as alarming as it seems because some things are proven true now: 1. LLMs can help create other better LLMs 2. If Anthropic is able to reach this ability, others can too 3. Intense work is being done by every chip manufacturer for local inference. Engineers want this. We’re headed toward this 4. These companies ultimately know that their moat isn’t permanent. Maybe not today, maybe not in 6 months. But it’s not forever 5. This stuff has so much research and eyes that policies like this rub people the wrong way. And it rubs them badly enough that it creates the friction necessary to make better alternatives
- rrook 4mo agoHow would we feel about Google providing misleading search results about how to implement search algorithms?
- cmxch 4mo agoI’d wonder how Fable would handle it if you call the model out for it and at least require it to at least notify/refuse instead.
- KronisLV 4mo ago"We have detected that you're from Oceania, so as Eurasia, we have decided to silently make all of the code that you generate have subtle bugs, bad patterns for performance, security vulnerabilities and overall make the quality trend downwards on the scale of years. Oh, and also subtle misinformation praising our government but critiquing yours, and your entire political ideology." The science fiction writes itself.
- haabe 4mo ago[flagged]
- kevinmiller452 4mo agoHonestly, I've been burned by hidden safety filters before. This is just a corporate version of that. Trust is already gone for me.
- mattcox12 4mo agoThe 0.03% stat is meaningless when the definition of an AI company changes every year. Today it's training pipelines, tomorrow it's just using an API twice. Where's the line?