Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable

Post by stingraycharles » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 12:30 AM UTC

blahgeek wrote: post #125

daedrdev wrote: post #5

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

I’m a noob about laws but isn’t this abusing its dominant market position and violates some antitrust law?

Post by areoform » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 12:32 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #117

areoform wrote: post #111

So I suspect Anthropic started A/B testing or just plain testing this a while ago, Tell HN: Claude flags biology / biotech questions https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47929885 Today, it's flagging population research questions, Using only the dataset you constructed, assess two questions: 1. **Mortality:** do [GROUP] show mortality that differs from (a) your comparison groups and (b) era- and sex-matched US popula…

I was digging into some orbital mechanics questions and I assume it decided I was trying to backyard-science my way into an orbital-bombardment weapon. Kind of wild how this product's impression has gone from "wow, this is pretty neat" to "irreverent sack of dog shit you" in 24 hours almost solely on the back of a half-baked moderation system.

Post by kube-system » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 12:34 AM UTC

airstrike wrote: post #78

daedrdev wrote: post #5

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

> it won't just reject ML research, which I can understand I don't.

Post by MillionOClock » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 12:35 AM UTC

garciasn wrote: post #134

_boffin_ wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It royally pissed me off today by just continuing with credits without stopping to ask me if I was ok with it. Ran up $30 in extra charges while it was just flashing on the screen that it was doing that after I walked away to do something while it was humming along. It has always just told me I ran out of usage and had to wait before. Now? You’re just gonna pay extra because you left it unattended as you’ve done for…

Post by wahnfrieden » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 12:37 AM UTC

victor9000 wrote: post #136

Fable is a complete joke: what's the best way to run this mcp server against the OData API used in this project? Can you come up with a PoC in a docker container? https://github.com/oisee/odata_mcp_go ● I'll dig into two things in parallel: how this project talks to the OData API, and what the odata_mcp_go server needs to run. Let me start exploring. Searched for 1 pattern (ctrl+o to expand) ● Fable 5's safety measur…