Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

jonready.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 534 posts

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#181

Post by teaearlgraycold »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #163
hedora wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Demand open source approve licenses for LLM weights. The Chinese apache 2.0 models might be censored, but at least they can’t sue you in the US for finding the censorship line. OTOH, the US models are definitely censored, per TFA, and they’re making vague legal threats against anyone that encounters the censored edge of the model.

> Demand open source approve licenses for LLM weights. How would you solve, for instance, the problem in which AI models are capable of helping the average person build viruses (computer or human)? "YOLO" is not a reasonable answer here. I am a massive advocate of Open Source, and have been for 25+ years. These things should not exist, open or otherwise.

YOLO

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#182

Post by kingcauchy »

zoogeny wrote: post #138

It 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 interoperabi…

It's also hard to imagine them not doing this with any of the products they're building. "You can't use Claude to build an agent because that competes with Claude Code, you can't use Claude to build a design tool because that competes with Claude Design, you can't use Claude to build an email tool because that competes with Cowork."

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#183

Post by pixl97 »

theLiminator wrote: post #151
SwellJoe wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we agree? What moat? You answered yourself: "capital intensive" But, history says the supercomputer of today will fit in your pocket in a few years. They've bought up all the RAM and GPUs, which pushes the capital requirements upward for everyone else. But, they can't corner the market forever, there are too many competing interests. AMD and Intel keep making new GPUs and APUs. The memory makers can't just se…

> But, history says the supercomputer of today will fit in your pocket in a few years. I don't think this will be true in the same time span anymore. Each miniaturization is costing more and more money. Perhaps they'll come up with exotic fundamental improvements, but I don't think the rate of improvement of compute/watt will match the previous decades.

Really the biggest concerns are not computers getting spectacularly faster, but 'intelligence' algorithms getting orders of magnitude better.

Drop the power requirements 1000 fold, and yea you will be able to make your own SOTA model on the cheap. The problem is the person that has a few exaflops of power will still leave you in the dust in the intelligence explosion that would happen after an event like this.

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#184

Post by jsw97 »

Given the high rate of false positives people are reporting for the non-silent cybersecurity, biological, etc., safeguards, there is a strong likelihood that you will encounter silently nerfed behavior even if you are _not_ violating their TOS.

Ultimately this will be evident in the way customers / external benchmarkers experience Fable. Hopefully competition will drive future models toward a lower false positive rate. Until that happens, Mythos and Fable users seem likely to have pretty divergent experiences.

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#185

Post by fc417fc802 »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #163
hedora wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Demand open source approve licenses for LLM weights. The Chinese apache 2.0 models might be censored, but at least they can’t sue you in the US for finding the censorship line. OTOH, the US models are definitely censored, per TFA, and they’re making vague legal threats against anyone that encounters the censored edge of the model.

> Demand open source approve licenses for LLM weights. How would you solve, for instance, the problem in which AI models are capable of helping the average person build viruses (computer or human)? "YOLO" is not a reasonable answer here. I am a massive advocate of Open Source, and have been for 25+ years. These things should not exist, open or otherwise.

Presumably by making it "difficult enough" to misuse the tools. We don't need perfect censorship or surveillance. There are all sorts of things that are technically possible today but typically aren't an issue in practice due to some oftey fairly minor hurdles.

Aum literally synthesized sarin in the 90s so clearly it's doable yet in practice it doesn't seem to be a problem that crops up regularly.

Anyone with a bachelors in chemistry is trivially capable of synthesizing arbitrarily large quantities of high explosive in his kitchen from everyday household supplies. Yet for the most part it seems that the level of education required to figure it all out is a sufficiently high bar to prevent the vast majority of problems.

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#187

Post by rzmmm »

zoogeny wrote: post #138

It 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 interoperabi…

I think it's part of their marketing. Anthropic is not really ahead of other labs but these releases make it seem like they are reaching singularity

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#188

Post by nullc »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #163
hedora wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Demand open source approve licenses for LLM weights. The Chinese apache 2.0 models might be censored, but at least they can’t sue you in the US for finding the censorship line. OTOH, the US models are definitely censored, per TFA, and they’re making vague legal threats against anyone that encounters the censored edge of the model.

> Demand open source approve licenses for LLM weights. How would you solve, for instance, the problem in which AI models are capable of helping the average person build viruses (computer or human)? "YOLO" is not a reasonable answer here. I am a massive advocate of Open Source, and have been for 25+ years. These things should not exist, open or otherwise.

> "YOLO" is not a reasonable answer here.

Yes it is. (1) Ordinary people were able to do these things pre AI-- with some effort into study for sure. (2) The cat is already out of the bag, open models can already help with these tasks.

I know freedom is frightening, but it always has been. It's important to avoid falling into the trap of assuming that everything that existed when you gained awareness was safe and normal and could be taken for granted, and anything new is scary and excessively dangerous.

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#189

Post by matheusmoreira »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #57

There is a possibility this may not end at simply nerfing the model. The idea of manipulating the behavior of a model depending on the prompt given to it can extend to 1. Detecting if employees from competing companies are using it and sabatoge their work, even not LLM-training related 2. Direct users to outcomes that would justify higher compute spend. Deliberately coding a project to 95% completion but designed to…

This is terrifying.

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#190

Post by onoesworkacct »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #185
JoshTriplett wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Demand open source approve licenses for LLM weights. How would you solve, for instance, the problem in which AI models are capable of helping the average person build viruses (computer or human)? "YOLO" is not a reasonable answer here. I am a massive advocate of Open Source, and have been for 25+ years. These things should not exist, open or otherwise.

Presumably by making it "difficult enough" to misuse the tools. We don't need perfect censorship or surveillance. There are all sorts of things that are technically possible today but typically aren't an issue in practice due to some oftey fairly minor hurdles. Aum literally synthesized sarin in the 90s so clearly it's doable yet in practice it doesn't seem to be a problem that crops up regularly. Anyone with a bache…

most people don't wanna do that. there are plenty of people who would infect people with crypto botnets
Post reply on HN