3 ms·
Presumably there are different levels of safety. I assumed Fable was a nerfed Mythos, and not just via safety harnesses but actual model degredation.
by colechristensen 4mo ago
Presumably there are different levels of safety. I assumed Fable was a nerfed Mythos, and not just via safety harnesses but actual model degredation.
- ls612 4mo agoAnthropic claims the only difference is the draconian bans on cybersecurity and biology queries.
- matheusmoreira 4mo agoThe Sol benchmarks show Fable has slightly lower performance compared to Mythos. https://openai.com/index/previewing-gpt-5-6-sol/ https://openai.com/index/previewing-gpt-5-6-sol/ I assume they did something to the model itself. Either way, I do hope they lift those draconian bans. Using the model was a terrible experience because of the constant downgrades. I didn't manage to harden my own projects before Fable got banned.
- adastra22 4mo agoThe session reverts to opus if it trips a limiter. Is the benchmark detecting and correcting for that?
- matheusmoreira 4mo agoOnly OpenAI would know that.
- s3p 4mo agoI don't think this is the case just because of the 'fallback' method they described, where suspicious requests are routed to Opus 4.8. If the model was degraded for certain categories of knowledge, then they'd probably be fine letting the model answer to it. IMO, of course
- nl 4mo ago"Fallback" is only for LLM-training related requests (ie, ones that would compete with Anthropic (!)) For cyber and bio related requests it just refuses.
- koolba 4mo agoWhen it was briefly available I had it fallback to Opus for security related tasks. It would only refuse if you explicitly told it not to fallback.