5 ms·

So fable will jump more often to Opus than it already did on original release? Working with fable felt like having to constantly fight against your work tool. F

by siva7 3mo ago

So fable will jump more often to Opus than it already did on original release? Working with fable felt like having to constantly fight against your work tool. Frustrating. Now they're making it even more frustrating.

sroussey 3mo ago
Donald Trump named David Sacks the White House AI and crypto czar. I guess you know whom to thank.
- SXX 3mo ago
  Wasnt it Anthropic marketing their models as very very smart and dangerous?
  - meowface 3mo ago
    I can't roll my eyes hard enough at all the people who say this shit about Anthropic every day. I know I'll get downvoted. I know it's lame to complain about future downvotes. I don't care anymore. Anthropic was correct in their assessment and early warning of Mythos's capabilities, and they did this rollout pretty well. They were not hype marketing. They were being genuinely cautious and honest. The Trump admin was largely unreasonable with the sudden export control. (Though not entirely unreasonable.) The export control also had not much to do with Anthropic's pre-release warnings. See: GPT-5.6 currently being held up by the federal government.
    - Matl 3mo ago
      > Anthropic was correct in their assessment and early warning of Mythos's capabilities, and they did this rollout pretty well. They were not hype marketing. They were being genuinely cautious and honest. So what prevented them from putting in the sort of safeguards they ended up putting in without hyping it for months prior as being so good, it's too dangerous?
      - meowface 3mo ago
        I'm not sure what you're saying. They spent ages adding guardrails to Mythos. Then they spent ages creating a whole new even more guardrailed version of Mythos called Fable. Then they added tons of classifiers so API requests to Fable would get rejected even if you ask a question like "what is a molecule". They put the thickest layer of bubble wrap around the model of any model in history. And then just today they made the classifiers even much more extreme than at the initial launch. If they were truly honest in their beliefs of the potential risks of this model, how would their behavior have differed? I would expect exactly the behavior we see, if they were being honest in their belief. Also note Dario here saying they shot themselves in the foot commercially with how they handled the rollout of the model - you can tell by his reflexive reaction how ridiculous he considers the accusation: https://youtu.be/v1wZwxY3CMg?t=2103 https://youtu.be/v1wZwxY3CMg?t=2103
        Matl 3mo ago
        I am saying they could have not said anything about it being too dangerous etc. and just released Fable as a new model once the safeguards were in place and Mythos to trusted orgs as they did. Instead they choose to hype for months about having a model that's simply 'too dangerous to release'. In other words, why hype it beforehand instead of just quietly add the safeguards they ended up with anyways and release then?
        meowface 3mo ago
        Because Dario is an ASI doomer and deeply fears the power and danger of hyperintelligent AI and it'd be extremely irresponsible to not warn people "hey, this thing can do things the past models couldn't, and the future models may do it even better". He was trying to be pro-social.
- jefftk 3mo ago
  Sacks has been out since March
matheusmoreira 3mo ago
For reference, here's what my experience with Fable turned out to be like: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48466313 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48466313 Just a code review of my own project. Downgraded to Opus 50% of the time while evaluating the critical I/O and memory safety parts, the exact thing I wanted it to do. And now it's gonna be even worse.
- solenoid0937 3mo ago
  I mean what do you expect when covering memory safety topics with a model that's not allowed to cover security topics? This seems totally expected. It'll be the same when 5.6 is released.
  - matheusmoreira 3mo ago
    > what do you expect I expect the strong cybersecurity model to help me strengthen the cybersecurity of my project. > not allowed to cover security topics They said it wouldn't be usable for offensive purposes. This is the opposite of that.
    - solenoid0937 3mo ago
      You don't have the strong cybersecurity model. That is not Fable. It never was, even at release. The cybersecurity model is Mythos, which was never made publicly available. It is only available to a list of US government approved companies. > They said it wouldn't be usable for offensive purposes No, they said Fable would refuse for cybersecurity and offensive purposes. You are conflating Fable with Mythos.
      - remus 3mo ago
        They're very similar models though, just with different safeguards and restrictions in placae around particular use cases. I guess the underlying issue is that there is this model that is very capable, but it's being hobbled because of a fear of abuse. It may well be justified, but for a legitimate user any restriction just makes it a worse product and after all the puffery around how good it is (and some practical experience of how good it is) it's a pretty shit experience. "Here's our best model, no you can't really use it".
dbbk 3mo ago
Oh come on Opus is perfectly good enough for any coding task. You will barely notice when it drops down from Fable.
- aqfamnzc 3mo ago
  Why use Fable at all then?
  - truthbe 3mo ago
    Still waiting for the answer.
  - dbbk 3mo ago
    You probably shouldn't unless you're doing hardcore cybersecurity
    - amanaplanacanal 3mo ago
      It kind of sounds like you aren't allowed to use it for that.
algoth1 3mo ago
It even refuses to do numerical time-series analysis (this on an empty project). This is something even a non-llm ML algorithm can do. It’s insane

by siva7 3mo ago

sroussey 3mo ago

Donald Trump named David Sacks the White House AI and crypto czar. I guess you know whom to thank.

SXX 3mo ago
Wasnt it Anthropic marketing their models as very very smart and dangerous?
- meowface 3mo ago
  I can't roll my eyes hard enough at all the people who say this shit about Anthropic every day. I know I'll get downvoted. I know it's lame to complain about future downvotes. I don't care anymore. Anthropic was correct in their assessment and early warning of Mythos's capabilities, and they did this rollout pretty well. They were not hype marketing. They were being genuinely cautious and honest. The Trump admin was largely unreasonable with the sudden export control. (Though not entirely unreasonable.) The export control also had not much to do with Anthropic's pre-release warnings. See: GPT-5.6 currently being held up by the federal government.
  - Matl 3mo ago
    > Anthropic was correct in their assessment and early warning of Mythos's capabilities, and they did this rollout pretty well. They were not hype marketing. They were being genuinely cautious and honest. So what prevented them from putting in the sort of safeguards they ended up putting in without hyping it for months prior as being so good, it's too dangerous?
    - meowface 3mo ago
      I'm not sure what you're saying. They spent ages adding guardrails to Mythos. Then they spent ages creating a whole new even more guardrailed version of Mythos called Fable. Then they added tons of classifiers so API requests to Fable would get rejected even if you ask a question like "what is a molecule". They put the thickest layer of bubble wrap around the model of any model in history. And then just today they made the classifiers even much more extreme than at the initial launch. If they were truly honest in their beliefs of the potential risks of this model, how would their behavior have differed? I would expect exactly the behavior we see, if they were being honest in their belief. Also note Dario here saying they shot themselves in the foot commercially with how they handled the rollout of the model - you can tell by his reflexive reaction how ridiculous he considers the accusation: https://youtu.be/v1wZwxY3CMg?t=2103 https://youtu.be/v1wZwxY3CMg?t=2103
      - Matl 3mo ago
        I am saying they could have not said anything about it being too dangerous etc. and just released Fable as a new model once the safeguards were in place and Mythos to trusted orgs as they did. Instead they choose to hype for months about having a model that's simply 'too dangerous to release'. In other words, why hype it beforehand instead of just quietly add the safeguards they ended up with anyways and release then?
        meowface 3mo ago
        Because Dario is an ASI doomer and deeply fears the power and danger of hyperintelligent AI and it'd be extremely irresponsible to not warn people "hey, this thing can do things the past models couldn't, and the future models may do it even better". He was trying to be pro-social.
jefftk 3mo ago
Sacks has been out since March

matheusmoreira 3mo ago

For reference, here's what my experience with Fable turned out to be like: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48466313 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48466313 Just a code review of my own project. Downgraded to Opus 50% of the time while evaluating the critical I/O and memory safety parts, the exact thing I wanted it to do. And now it's gonna be even worse.

solenoid0937 3mo ago
I mean what do you expect when covering memory safety topics with a model that's not allowed to cover security topics? This seems totally expected. It'll be the same when 5.6 is released.
- matheusmoreira 3mo ago
  > what do you expect I expect the strong cybersecurity model to help me strengthen the cybersecurity of my project. > not allowed to cover security topics They said it wouldn't be usable for offensive purposes. This is the opposite of that.
  - solenoid0937 3mo ago
    You don't have the strong cybersecurity model. That is not Fable. It never was, even at release. The cybersecurity model is Mythos, which was never made publicly available. It is only available to a list of US government approved companies. > They said it wouldn't be usable for offensive purposes No, they said Fable would refuse for cybersecurity and offensive purposes. You are conflating Fable with Mythos.
    - remus 3mo ago
      They're very similar models though, just with different safeguards and restrictions in placae around particular use cases. I guess the underlying issue is that there is this model that is very capable, but it's being hobbled because of a fear of abuse. It may well be justified, but for a legitimate user any restriction just makes it a worse product and after all the puffery around how good it is (and some practical experience of how good it is) it's a pretty shit experience. "Here's our best model, no you can't really use it".

dbbk 3mo ago

Oh come on Opus is perfectly good enough for any coding task. You will barely notice when it drops down from Fable.

aqfamnzc 3mo ago
Why use Fable at all then?
- truthbe 3mo ago
  Still waiting for the answer.
- dbbk 3mo ago
  You probably shouldn't unless you're doing hardcore cybersecurity
  - amanaplanacanal 3mo ago
    It kind of sounds like you aren't allowed to use it for that.

algoth1 3mo ago

It even refuses to do numerical time-series analysis (this on an empty project). This is something even a non-llm ML algorithm can do. It’s insane