121–130 of 570 posts
These guardrails are solely a reason for using your data for training purposes. Every flagged message can be used for training.
Whatever problem we might have with them, they explicitly say that they do not do this in the launch post.
I make privacy tooling and Fable 5 rejects the vast majority of my prompts to analyze and improve the software that I've written. It's bleak.
Why is this surprising or a problem?! It's a model demo, & their reasoning is reasonable and fair. Why all this drama.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks, I thought maybe I missed something. That's an interesting way to interpret that.
Anthropic is trying to hide bad behavior by being vague, it's important to not be vague when calling it out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's from the model card: > unlike our interventions for cybersecurity, biology and chemistry, and distillation attempts, these safeguards will not be visible to the user. Fable 5 will not fall back to a different model. Instead, the safeguards will limit effectiveness through methods such as prompt modification, steering vectors, or parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT). https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/d00db56fa754a1…
That is for whatever it considers reverse-engineering the model to try to create a competing one.
The strangest part is that it won't just reject ML research, which I can understand, it will sabotage it silently by using a worse model without revealing it is doing so. It's just an insane level of deception and trust destruction for a company that at most is like 1 year ahead of its competition. Edit; to be clear they tell you when they degrade it for cybersecurity and bio
The strangest part is that it won't just reject ML research, which I can understand, it will sabotage it silently by using a worse model without revealing it is doing so. It's just an insane level of deception and trust destruction for a company that at most is like 1 year ahead of its competition. Edit; to be clear they tell you when they degrade it for cybersecurity and bio
The thing that I keep thinking about is the accounting / charging when it downgrades automatically. Do they adjust the price of the api request so that only the tokens that were utilized by fable get charged at that price and the remaining tokens that the cheaper / nerfed (fable) model utilizes get charged at that price? If the answer is no, could that be construed as fraud?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks, I thought maybe I missed something. That's an interesting way to interpret that.
PEFT is a library, one of its capabilities is to produce LoRAs. See: https://heidloff.net/article/efficient-fine-tuning-lora/