4 ms·
Anthropic Risk August 2026 [pdf]
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- 12ahGA 2mo agoAI companies are flooding the zone like Steve Bannon. Leave no one time to develop thoughts.
- esafak 2mo agoIf they leave Steve Bannon with no time to develop thoughts, I'll tip one out for them.
- visiondude 2mo agoa mystery “model 2” is mentioned alongside mythos/fable.
- merksittich 2mo ago> Model 2, which is somewhat more capable than Mythos 5. Our rough qualitative sense is that this model is a noticeable improvement on Mythos 5 for many tasks relevant to internal use but does not display a capability jump of the degree observed from Claude Opus 4.6 to Mythos Preview. We do not currently have plans to release this model externally, and have not run all of our typical suite of predeployment assessments, so we have somewhat lower confidence in our beliefs about its capabilities.
- andai 2mo ago"Yeah, you wouldn't know her, she goes to another school."
- flyinglizard 2mo agoMeanwhile I can't really tell the difference between Fable and Opus for my tasks. I kinda think Fable does a better UX work so I keep using it for that because I couldn't be bothered to A/B them, but otherwise it's all the same and the model and effort are just feel good knobs I twist to still remain a load-bearing element. At least that's my honest take.
- dataminded 2mo agoFable was amazing during the first preview. Once they added it back, the limits are too low to get anything done. I might use it in chat if I remember to select it once a month but don’t even bother to try and code with it.
- malexw 2mo agoFor the past 2 weeks or so I've been doing the A/B test, sending identical prompts to Fable 5 and Opus 5 to test their ability to produce design documents for new feature work. I've consistently found that Opus 5 produces more complete, accurate and "imaginative" designs than Fable, often finding design issues or nearby bugs that Fable 5 misses. However, that creativity means Opus seems to hallucinate more, while Fable's design is clearly based on the actual existing code. Or as Opus put it: "I hedged — [Fable] checked." By pitting them against each other I get much better design work, and then I've been happy to hand off the design file to Opus 5 for implementation. But some of the assumptions Opus 5 makes leaves me wary of relying on it too strongly. This might be fixable by prompting it to ground its answers.
- lwarfield 2mo ago> More capable than Mythos 5 in some areas, less capable in others; overall slightly more capable. This sounds like it might be a Mythos finetune for some specific task. EDIT: After reading some more reading, it looks like model 2 might be an AI research fine tune based off the section 3.4.3 CoBench
- datadrivenangel 2mo ago"We believe our internal AI R&D efforts are significantly faster than they would be without AI assistance, but not yet by a factor of 2 (though we are uncertain and measurement is difficult)" So Anthropic thinks their productivity is not even doubled by AI. Interesting data point.
- what 2mo ago>thinks They can’t measure even measure it, it’s just vibes. They may not even be more productive.
- scj 2mo agoTo be fair, there isn't a good method of measuring software development productivity in general. Maybe they should ask an AI to create one!
- bonoboTP 2mo agoWell, it is a data point but AI R&D at a frontier lab is not really a representative stand-in for a regular workplace.
- T0Bi 2mo agoAI R&D efforts != productivity. I think it's fairly obvious that SOTA research is less affected by AI than writing another boilerplate react frontend.
- furyofantares 2mo ago> So Anthropic thinks their productivity is not even doubled by AI. I find it hard to imagine launching this criticism at a new technology.
- jchw 2mo agoNow let's re-evaluate that based on how much it costs in both R&D and at runtime. This new technology has a lot of work to do to justify itself.
- bunkydoo 2mo ago[dead]
- _ache_ 2mo agoIt's crazy how Anthropic talks so much about their "AGI risk" and not enough about the risk of bankruptcy.
- s1artibartfast 2mo agoAre you surprised? Why would any private company spend time publicizing their financial risks? Seems like a strange expectation.
- _ache_ 2mo agoI actually expect them to explain me how they will manage to not go bankrupt soon.
- s1artibartfast 2mo agoWhy would you expect that? Expectations that fail to match reality are a sign of confusion or mental illness.
- _ache_ 2mo agoThey need to train a new model every month to keep at the top of most benchmarks. They don't own any DC, the price is insane. Most of people are aiming at smaller models because Claude one's are too expansive. Evolution of intelligence of bigger models start to stagnate, smaller models are catching up. 27B local model just dropped, it's 6/8-month old SOTA. General ROI of AI investment is expected on a baseline of >10y.
- s1artibartfast 2mo agoWhy are you telling me this? I didnt ask and you just ignored my question. Why would it be important to explain things to you? Are you one of their major stakeholders?
- aquarious_ 2mo agoMy friends and I, and the teams I'm a part of, just want to build and create fun, cool things. I am so tired of being preached to by Anthropic like they're some arbiter of 'ethics.' So, so tired.
- dgellow 2mo agoYou’re allowed to switch to the competition, including open models
- aquarious_ 2mo agodgellow -> 1st Stainless engineer, 2022-26 (bought by Anthropic). LOLOLOL
- dgellow 2mo agoOk? Im not working at anthropic and do not support the company in any ways
- aquarious_ 2mo agoif you don't understand how you might have a conflict of interest in this discussion you really should be working at anthropic :)
- dgellow 2mo agoPlease enlighten me
- int32_64 2mo agoDoes anybody have any good reading on how the Chinese labs approach risk vs. the American ones?
- andai 2mo agoIf US model hacks US government, that's Very Bad. (China did this last year with Claude Code.) If Chinese model hacks US government... free marketing?
- erwald 2mo agohttps://concordia-ai.com/research-topics/state-of-ai-safety-in-china/ https://concordia-ai.com/research-topics/state-of-ai-safety-...
- lwarfield 2mo ago> 6.2 [Appendix redacted] > This appendix describes the criteria for our blocking bioclassifier exemption policy, and has been redacted from the public version of this report for security reasons. >6.3 [Appendix redacted] > This appendix, redacted from the public version of this report, details the changes made to our constitution to expand classifier coverage to harmful uses in scope for the CB-2 threat model but not the CB-1 threat model, as described in Section 4.5.2.1. interesting... EDIT: After reading more I'd recommend looking at Transcript 2.20.A. Its a transcript of claude going over the redactions in the report. The section says its specifically for section 2, but the transcript also mentions other sections.
- modeless 2mo agoSo as of a month ago their best internal model was "somewhat more capable" than Mythos "but does not display a capability jump of the degree observed from Claude Opus 4.6 to Mythos Preview." I thought they would have a significantly more capable model by then, more than five months after Mythos finished training. They'd better have one by now, or the Chinese competitors are closer to catching up than I thought.
- andai 2mo agoYou thought they were gonna double the model size again? Also it occurs to me that they're somewhat incentivized to downplay cyber risks after what happened last time...
- lumost 2mo agoI'm still uncertain if mythos is real. Subsequent model releases have been lackluster, no one has claimed to verify mythos performance and it's silently vanished from most comparisons.
- internetter 2mo agoIs fable not just mythos with safeguards?
- lwarfield 2mo agoYes it is: > Same model weights as Mythos 5, deployed with higher-coverage safeguards (see Section 4.5.2.2)
- MP_1729 2mo ago> However, we are less confident in this assessment than we were in prior risk reports, since our most concrete task-based evaluations have “saturated”—i.e., no longer capture increases in models’ capabilities—and because we are seeing early signs of acceleration. I totally understand this is a subset of alignment-related evals, but if Anthropic of all is running out of evals, doesn't that also means we are running out of things to scale? I mean. I totally believe they have a model that is better at Kernel Optimization, creating new matrix multiplication algos, than Mythos. But it's clearly no generalizing, rightw What am I missing?
- tyttytyzl 2mo ago[dead]
- hartator 2mo ago> 5.3 Benefits from Anthropic’s operating as a frontier AI company It does feel they are trying to ask the government to lock the market for us.
- internetter 2mo ago"all traffic through our systems for collecting human feedback data from contractors evaluating our models ran without blocking biological classifiers" "totaled around 133M exchanges." While this wound up being relatively benign, I still find this concerning, amidst numerous sandbox escapes, and previously, unreleased models being accessible via a custom URL. I don't think these companies are giving the responsibility they possess enough weight. How many more issues like this exist?
- beyondscale-sha 2mo ago[flagged]