I think this is a bit hyperbolic. Fable will fall back to Opus.
That’s a separate mechanism, and it will tell you so if it does (if the prompt is remated to cybersecurity, biology)
If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
131–140 of 534 posts
Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
#132Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
#133I don't know why anyone is surprised with this, it's their product it's going to behave on their terms. If anything it is surprising that they're admitting to it.
If these interventions create demand for a model with fewer safeguards surely a competitor will meet that demand.
Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
#134The silently never telling you is so insidious on top of it being ridiculous given how they trained the model in the first place. We do distributed model training for embedder/reranker models and I'd deeply resonate that this article's message exactly for our company. We couldn't trust the model in the first place, but now the model is intentionally burning our money if we asked it the wrong question, on top of being deeply expensive in the first place. If we did find evidence of being incorrectly nerfed, we'd never be able to reach a human to let them know. Too many reverse incentives with Anthropic, maybe they're about AI security but that doesn't make them ethical to consumers (i.e. humans).
Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
#135Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
#136This 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
As someone who works in bioinformatics, and, as such, does a great deal of machine learning, this makes Fable unusable for me as well.
For sure Anthropic should be developing a model without these guardrails for your use case? Kinda like Mythos is only available to certain organizations.
Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
#137I 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.
Because this effectively hinders 0% of people. I understand why people don't like it but day to day this is nothing. If you're using it for coding, it won't stop you. The pearl clenching here and over reacting is predictable and sad. If you are working for a large organization and you were going through the vendor procurement process, questions like Can this produce pornography? Can this tell my employees how to brea…
This is software development, not sales. We rely on our tooling.
If I’m using a calculator to verify my math, I don’t want to use a second calculator to verify the first one.
Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
#138It is very difficult to see this move as anything other than Anthropic pulling the ladder up behind itself. They can dress it up in "safety" all they want, I find it hard to interpret this in a charitable way.
This reminds me of how dark-pattern common wisdom in Web 1.0 website development was to ban external links. Then how social apps prevented the export of data and actively worked to nerf significant interoperability through APIs.
But this is a tool, not just a data moat. Like a knife that degrades your ability to create knives. Or like a text editor that prevents you from implementing a text editor.
Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
#139Wow, this is horrible. Local LLMs are the future. Thanks, China! Seriously crazy that I’m saying that, but the American companies are being so anti-freedom they’re making the CCP look libertarian.
Also, Fable’s sensing is hypersensitive. Feels like they just have regex for phrases. No nuance. If I say I’m working on something using “GPUs to train” xyz then, will that trigger this sneaky silent screw-my-stuff-up mode?
Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
#140This 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 hy…
I don't think this scenario makes sense. It's one of a class of scenarios I've seen several of, that simultaneously assume: A) ASI is developed and massively overshadows the rest of the world economy B) the world still has rule of law, contracts, business, well-developed finance, etc You can get to a lot of weird conclusions if you assume both A and B, but I think the much more likely scenario is that if A happens, B…
There will be a brief(or, depending on the underlying rules of reality ASI uncovers, not-so-brief) period where A and B do overlap - we have superintelligence but still have to run experiments, manufacture robots, test new drugs in vivo, etc. That period is in and of itself dangerous for the labs, because many entities can just stop them by denying necessary inputs. For the labs to conquer the world, they'll need cooperation - from the state, from robotics companies, from compute companies, from the mining and energy and agriculture sectors.
There will be a period of time where markets attempt to run in a business-as-usual way while the transactions that matter happen as power-sharing arrangements - spots on the "AI Governance Board" or the "uploaded to von neumann probe" club. Markets will still matter in that the labs will need the state to overturn market obstacles to control of the world.
The existence of the A-B overlap also suggests to me that the US-China gap is less dire for China than it appears - they may be able to use their superior industrial, robotics, and scientific base to win the second leg of the race despite losing the first.