The classifiers Anthropic puts in front of Fable are too zealous
combine-lab.github.io
The classifiers Anthropic puts in front of Fable are too zealous
1–10 of 203 posts
Re: The classifiers Anthropic puts in front of Fable are too zealous
#2I've had good luck getting it to debug (and patch) a tricky WebRTC issue that had all the other models stumped. Sorry it didn't work on your problem, I guess?
Re: The classifiers Anthropic puts in front of Fable are too zealous
#3Terrible title. Should be "Fable's guard rails are way too sensitive", which I don't think you can really blame Anthropic for. They likely had to whack them way up so it would block whatever trivial stuff got demoed to the government.
I would expect them to dial down the sensitivity in a few months when nobody is looking.
Re: The classifiers Anthropic puts in front of Fable are too zealous
#4> Nonetheless, that is not want I wanted to focus my thoughts on here.
Typo second paragraph, 4th line. I think you meant "what"
Re: The classifiers Anthropic puts in front of Fable are too zealous
#5This post can essentially be distilled down to: yes, Fable's classifier (which is meant to downgrade cybersecurity, biology, or jailbreak attempts to Opus 4.8) is definitely overly sensitive to the point of uselessness.
e.g. a colleague asked Fable to help create an simple app to help calculate the statistics for phase II and III trials. (Ignoring that such things already exist) it passed his request down to Opus, despite only being very marginally, tangentially, somewhat related to biology.
Re: The classifiers Anthropic puts in front of Fable are too zealous
#6Do we think that someone at Anthropic, OpenAI, the government... has access to SOTA models without censorship? "How do I build an effective weapon?", "How do I effectively control the masses?"...
It's very concerning that we get the nerfed models but you know that somewhere, people with a lot of resources have access to the raw, uncensored, probably more powerful models. The sprint toward AGI looks even more dangerous when you think about who will be gaining access to it first. I do believe the goal is to pull away from the rest of humanity in a near trans-humanistic state. Are we ready for that and how do we counter it?
Re: The classifiers Anthropic puts in front of Fable are too zealous
#7This post can essentially be distilled down to: yes, Fable's classifier (which is meant to downgrade cybersecurity, biology, or jailbreak attempts to Opus 4.8) is definitely overly sensitive to the point of uselessness. e.g. a colleague asked Fable to help create an simple app to help calculate the statistics for phase II and III trials. (Ignoring that such things already exist) it passed his request down to Opus, de…
If your prompt has to do with those areas, yes. I haven't seen a single refusal yet.
Reportedly the biology guiderails are particularly strict.
Re: The classifiers Anthropic puts in front of Fable are too zealous
#8I have only really used Fable as a final pass on something. A "Take a look at everything we did so far, and make sure we didn't forget something" kind of review prompt.
But it is a huge waste of money for most coding tasks. Opus is still overkill most of the time, too.
Re: The classifiers Anthropic puts in front of Fable are too zealous
#9I asked it a question about indoor carbon dioxide levels (wholly innocuous question), which it flagged as involving biology, therefore downgraded to Opus.
It's a pretty good strategy if they're hoping to fail as a business, I guess.
Re: The classifiers Anthropic puts in front of Fable are too zealous
#10I feel sorry for the author. I have asked Fable several mathematics questions and Fable’s answers were far beyond what Opus achieved.