I tried asking Fable 5 to identify the fungus in a picture I uploaded of one of my wife's plants. Apparently it thought I was trying to build a bioweapon. Opus answered it (yellow dog vomit fungus). Now I can spread the spores and take over the world!
Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable
141–150 of 570 posts
Re: Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m a noob about laws but isn’t this abusing its dominant market position and violates some antitrust law?
Why would it? There’s plenty of competition in the AI space.
It is a common misconception that antitrust violations require a monopoly or something close to it. Some antitrust violations only apply to actors with large market share, some don't.
Although this is situation is likely not illegal for other reasons
Re: Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable
#143Surely if they are sabotaging the output, they shouldn't charge the same fee for tokens as if the output was not sabotaged?
This is looking like something for regulator to look at and probably a class action lawsuit in the making.
I think people should be getting refunds. Including for shenanigans with Opus.
Re: Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable
#144The 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
Can you imagine if AMD or Intel throttled your cpu if it detected you were working on "cybersecurity" or if you were designing a cpu?
There's no doubt in my mind they would if they could.
Re: Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable
#145[dead]
Re: Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it won't just reject ML research, which I can understand I don't.
Anthropic has already been burned before on this. DeepSeek was trained on million of conversations with Claude. And DeepSeek created thousands of free accounts to burn all this compute at their expense.
Anthropic's claim was that Deepseek collected ~150k conversations.
https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dist...
I think the extent of distillation by Deepseek specifically is overstated. For comparison, Minimax collected over 13m 'exchanges', which starts to sound a lot more like large-scale distillation.
Re: Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable
#147It seems like they've given up on the idea of the Cyber Verification Program https://support.claude.com/en/articles/14604842-real-time-cy... When Opus 4.7 was introduced it started refusing anything cyber-adjacent (as an API error message, not a conversational refusal), until you applied for CVP, which made it more sensible again. In Opus 4.8 it doesn't seem to help much, you just get refusals as prose rather than AP…
It's been refusing work not related to cybersecurity and claiming it is related to cybersecurity and then blocking the session.
Re: Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable
#148Is the answer requiring licensing for certain use cases for AI? If you're asking questions that involve synthesising or modifying biologics, or anything that looks like cybersecurity research, you need to tie your real ID to the account?
That's not a bad idea. Customer-vetting and KYC is fairly normal for other high-risk/high-concern products.
Re: Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has to be sort of impressive, given that you tried so hard to use it instead of the regular Opus.
Some people made grandiose claims about its capabilities and I wanted to experience it myself.
OK, but for almost 24h straight? That seems a little obsessive, and not in the good way.
Re: Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable
#150Would it be a costly process for Anthropic to re-tune those guardrails?
Like, re-training sort of cost? or like coding session sort of cost?