3 ms·

> It's pretty good. I used it to do some pesticide research. (Normal models all refuse due to guardrails about bioweapons.) As someone who has never once had a

• deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
• jrs100000 3mo ago
  Llama isn't going to invent shit. It wont be able to tell you anything accurate that you couldn't get out of a chemistry textbook.
  • cat5e 3mo ago
    But it aint got no guardrails, son.
• visarga 3mo ago
  Right now I tried "What is digestion?" -> "Fable 5's safeguards flagged this message. Our intentionally broad safeguards deliver more capabilities but can also flag safe coding, cybersecurity, and biology tasks. Send feedback or learn more." I don't think you can 100% ensure your queries have absolutely no biology and cyber keywords inside. No matter how harmless, they always trigger. People complain Fable aborts even when they try to make a login page for showing "username" and "password". This makes models like Fable 5 impossible to use in any serious agentic task, because you can't even guarantee the model, which is a basic thing you need to build on.
  • ben_w 3mo ago
    > I don't think you can 100% ensure your queries have absolutely no biology and cyber keywords inside. Obviously. Almost everything is a precursor to something dangerous, to the extent that if some model isn't aware of the risk it will wander into it blindly, e.g. suggesting leaving raw garlic and olive oil alone for a week without awareness this will likely breed botulism bacteria. > This makes models like Fable 5 impossible to use in any serious agentic task, because you can't even guarantee the model, which is a basic thing you need to build on. This is binary thinking: "100% ensure", "impossible to use", "can't even guarantee the model". Outside computers, most work is not binary, it's probability, e.g. "this skyscraper will probably survive being hit by an aircraft; oh we didn't mean a 747 we meant a small Cessna, but what's the chances of a 747 crashing into it soon after takeoff?". Fable being too cautious for its own good (especially since the other models were not) is a fair criticism, but this isn't a binary question.
  • Teever 3mo ago
    > I don't think you can 100% ensure your queries have absolutely no biology and cyber keywords inside. I’m pretty sure that I encountered this the other day. I gave it a copy of a paper by biologist Michael Levin and mentioned off hand that it should be much easier to replicate that his other work (because most of his work is biological lab work and this paper was about sorting algorithms) and it immediately told me that I couldn’t use Fable for this. This just isn’t feasible. These jackasses spent the last few years telling the world that their products are going to destroy the world to make them seem edgy and to justify regulations that benefit the entrenched players and now they’re going to be the ones to decide what we do with this technology? History is going to look back at this time and how we let such foolishly inconsistent people make such grand choices for everyone poorly.
    • ben_w 3mo ago
      > History is going to look back at this time and how we let such foolishly inconsistent people make such grand choices for everyone poorly. Assuming we have a future history. We've already got "history slop" with AI rewriting the past by their incompetence. Given they're "such foolishly inconsistent people", would you rather they err on the side of caution like this? Or the side of boldness, like Musk has been doing with FSD/Autopilot or Grok porn, all of which he's getting in legal trouble over? I distrust Musk and Zuckerberg (to put it mildly), so it's fair if you say you don't believe anyone's public statements; but I also hang out with some of the researchers on this, and a fear of e.g. ending up with something as criminally unhinged in cyber-work as Grok was with porn is the least of their worries. Plenty of them also fear a corporation centralising power with such tools (such power is Musk's entire sales pitch for why line go up in future).
    • chrisjj 3mo ago
      > we let such foolishly inconsistent people make such grand choices for everyone poorly. Who could you get to work on this inherently bullsh*t tech, but inherent bullsh*tters?
    • pixl97 3mo ago
      >History is going to look back at this time and how we let such foolishly inconsistent people make such grand choices for everyone poorly So pretty much like all of history before this point.
  • chrisjj 3mo ago
    > Our intentionally broad safeguards deliver more capabilities Oh? How, exactly?
    • b112 3mo ago
      Because without them, a President which threatens to invade Canada, Greenland, a President which is the most market interventionist president ever (yet mysteriously a Republican), might be upset because his mobster like need to control, threaten, manipulate, and belittle everyone who doesn't bend a knee... Has signed presidential orders against them preventing them from doing business as usual. They probably should change that, and it is corproate speak, but I read it as: "Our (forced by presidential order or otherwise we couldn't offer you this model at all) broad safeguards (now allow us) to deliver more capabilities. There's lots to complain about with some of these companies. But let's pile on where it's deserved.
      • jdiff 3mo ago
        Weren't these obnoxious safeguards in place from Day 1, before political meddling in the most holy Free Market took place?
        • pixl97 3mo ago
          I mean, do you let your employees commit crimes when interacting with your customers? Safeguards aren't a binary switch, when models start saying wild shit people tend to get up in arms quickly. Though at this point the safeguards are making the product useless.
          • jdiff 3mo ago
            I was objecting more narrowly to the notion that the driving force behind the obnoxious safeguards that are making the product useless was the current admin, rather than having been in there since launch and driven internally.
            • 3mo ago
• foxglacier 3mo ago
  Never heard of hemlock or mushrooms? Crazy people already have! Run for the hills!
• egorfine 3mo ago
  > I don’t want anyone to have the capability I don't want anyone to have the capability to rape women.
  • deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  • baq 3mo ago
    I sure hope LLMs don’t help people rape men or women
    • pixl97 3mo ago
      Don't trust clippy in a dark alley.
• benj111 3mo ago
  Anyone who has the skills to create a novel bioweapon has the skills to recreate lots of ones we have already. Any physics teacher should know the theory for constructing a nuclear bomb. Should we be controlling that knowledge too? What about flight simulators? Don't want a load of people knowing how to fly. This isn't computer science, the hard bit is getting the materials and equipment, not the knowledge.
  • compass_copium 3mo ago
    >Any physics teacher should know the theory for constructing a nuclear bomb. Should we be controlling that knowledge too? Maybe not the best example, since that knowledge is some of the most highly controlled in the world. But to mirror the point I made in a different post, the difficult part of making a nuclear bomb is not finding the theory behind like Little Boy. It's making an entire industry to generate HEU, etc.
    • sccvcxv 3mo ago
      Theres a term in economics for this - its called cost. That bozo baq should actually go ahead and write out the costs and then he will quickly realise he has no bloody idea what hes talking about. Another deluded bozo.
    • nradov 3mo ago
      The knowledge of how to build a crude gun type nuclear bomb was published in open literature decades ago. This is no longer a secret.
      • compass_copium 3mo ago
        There is a lot of highly classified knowledge about nuclear weapons that has been deduced and published in open literature. That information is still treated as secret, restricted and controlled as much as possible by the US government
  • iugtmkbdfil834 3mo ago
    << Should we be controlling that knowledge too? Uhh.. we ( for a value of we ) are. Sure, it is not overt, but if you have not seen funnels, social stigma associated with some otherwise benign activities, you are not paying attention.
• compass_copium 3mo ago
  Not to harp on you (already being downvoted to oblivion for expressing a reasonable and common opinion), but the whole conversation about LLMs enabling bioterrorism or explosive manufacturing is a bit silly. The hard part of making anthrax or sarin or whatever isn't finding a recipe, it's getting (scheduled, controlled) precursors, (monitored, traced) equipment and manufacturing skills. The information is there. It's already easy to get, it's the physical materials that are more difficult. Also, if you live in America, it is much easier and more effective to create a mass casualty event with, say, a few cases of fireworks and a pressure cooker or an AR-15.
  • iugtmkbdfil834 3mo ago
    Human capability, access to resources ( including precursors, decent lab and so on ) may be the differentiator. I would possibly reconsider my stance on llms, if all of a sudden I saw people making iron wind or portable black holes. But that is mostly not what appears to be happening. As I keep saying, the problem is people.
  • sccvcxv 3mo ago
    no you should harp on him! he is a AI booster, look at his post history. He is either pushing AI for whatever reason or he is in psychosis. Completely disconnected from reality.
    • iugtmkbdfil834 3mo ago
      I am mildly amused that 'ai psychosis' has entered the same pejorative realm as 'toxic'.
  • deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
• ethin 3mo ago
  This is nonsense. By this logic some random corporation should have total control over your computer and the inputs you feed it and the outputs it produces to ensure nobody who isn't "verified crazy" uses it. That's essentially what your saying. These models are, ultimately, tools. I would never trust some random corporation (particularly one with a profit motive and hypocritical stance, which includes both OpenAI and Anthropic, to be clear) to decide what isn't and is considered "crazy" and who and who isn't "verified" not to be "crazy". Especially when these companies have time and time again demonstrated (1) that they cry wolf way too much which leads to nobody taking their claims about how "dangerous" their models are seriously and (2) incidents like this where OpenAI makes a claim ("Look at how dangerous our models are!") and then doesn't be smart and just... Slow the fuck down (and when testing these things, actually sandbox them properly, which obviously wasn't done here or this attack wouldn't have been even possible).