This 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
If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
21–30 of 534 posts
Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
#22> 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.
Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
#23I'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.
Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
#24I'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.
Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
#25This 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.
Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
#26I 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.
It'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.
This 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"!
Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
#27I guess an uncharitable way to read this might be “the ML engineers/scientists want to automate all of the jobs except their own.”
Insta-job security.
Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
#28I guess an uncharitable way to read this might be “the ML engineers/scientists want to automate all of the jobs except their own.”
The 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.
Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
#29This 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.