121–130 of 203 posts
I don't care how capable it is, if it's going to treat me like it's babysitting a terrorist, it can eff off.
Plain and simple.
This 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…
I'm working on cryptography, all from academic research papers. Started well, but it eventually got some word into its context that is on the banlist. I found that if you tell it to fire off clean Fable subagents and you instruct it to check the Claude Code billing data to check for downgrades, you can get most high-sensitivity spec/review tasks done with Fable. Most. I figure that once GPT 5.6 comes out, Anthropic w…
To summarize: the classifiers Anthropic puts in front of Fable are way, way too zealous and have way too many false positives. From my experience, the model itself is very useful when it isn't refusing any of your prompts.
(Normally we prefer to find a representative phrase from the article itself, but I found that too daunting and gave up.)
This 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…
I've been working with it heavily since its first release. I use it for software architects, complex debugging and some development and I have not had it refuse or downgrade even once.
That said, I've got it easy. My colleagues who are chemists and biologists can't even ask one question. There are so many triggers in their memories and workspaces they can't even ask a non-triggering question. And we all work in medical diagnostics, it's not like we're doing anything remotely nefarious. Fable could be such a benefit, but the limitations make it worthless.
This 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…
My experience, too. I work on nothing in any way related to cybersecurity or biology. I asked it a few purely mathematical questions, it refused immediately. Before the export embargo I did get it to look at some hairy problems and the output was genuinely useful...
Of course it could also be the case that it is just a prompt filter, but Fable sees memories from the authors' prior sessions that cause a rejection. I wonder if the author could control for this is in some way, if Claude lets you run isolated session without memory access.
[flagged]
I havent used fable, but does it cost you the same when it downgrades to opus?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It feels like the longtermist believers got involved in this (those are the people obsessed with garage-engineered designer viruses who have a very tenuous grasp on how biology research actually works).
I assumed they just wanted to cultivate FOMO to sell an even more expensive version to researchers later on.