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

Post by echelon » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 1:49 AM UTC

p-e-w wrote: post #98

HDBaseT wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Antrophic wants to stop training models and ride out Mythos / Fable for as long as possible. They are trying to expand the 6-18 month gap they have against China-based models. Could the gap widen to say 24 months behind?

Their gap over Chinese models like GLM-5.1 is nowhere near 18 months. In many areas, it’s less than 6 months. The best closed models 18 months ago were worse than Qwen3.6.

Post by daedrdev » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 1:51 AM UTC

jaredezz wrote: post #222

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

Yeah people are saying they don't tell you and yet when I got the pop-up on the app notifying me about Fable's release, there was a switch to just automatically downgrade you or whether to just stop when it hits safeguards. The toggle was defaulted to the former, which isn't great, but to say they'll just sabotage you silently is kind of a bad faith comment.

Post by mips_avatar » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 1:53 AM UTC

jaredezz wrote: post #222

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

Yeah people are saying they don't tell you and yet when I got the pop-up on the app notifying me about Fable's release, there was a switch to just automatically downgrade you or whether to just stop when it hits safeguards. The toggle was defaulted to the former, which isn't great, but to say they'll just sabotage you silently is kind of a bad faith comment.

Post by zmgsabst » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 1:55 AM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #180

cardy31 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because most people in tech never took a philosophy course or an ethics course and think that tech is obviously a good for the world and that there are no downsides to advancing tech. So any efforts that try to apply ethics to it are overreaching, ignorant, and futile in the face of the good that is tech!

I like this take. Especially because one of the sibling comments framed Anthropic's stance as "paternalism." Trying to be ethical and to minimize harm, even at great expense to one's finances and reputation, is paternalistic apparently.

Post by blurbleblurble » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 1:57 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…