Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

jonready.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 534 posts

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#281

Post by solenoid0937 »

written-beyond wrote: post #271
solenoid0937 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of HN is stuck in this fantasyland where they insist their local LLM setup is comparable to Opus 4.8 or GPT 5.5. It's like a collective delusion, I've never seen anything like it.

You can get really good results with Chinese models. You're putting Opus and GPT on too high of a pedestal.

I use Chinese models (for simple personal projects), they just don't compare to GPT or Opus for any serious work.

I do not know why every Chinese model fan thinks that people that aren't impressed by them simply don't use them.

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#282

Post by KennyBlanken »

nsingh2 wrote: post #217
jsw97 wrote: post #184

Given the high rate of false positives people are reporting for the non-silent cybersecurity, biological, etc., safeguards, there is a strong likelihood that you will encounter silently nerfed behavior even if you are _not_ violating their TOS. Ultimately this will be evident in the way customers / external benchmarkers experience Fable. Hopefully competition will drive future models toward a lower false positive rat…

It's such an obviously bad policy, it's mind-boggling that they thought this was a good idea. It just breeds paranoia and mistrust, especially when people are already a bit paranoid about silent model quantification for cost cutting reasons.

Another "knob" is reducing the thinking time...

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#283

Post by bigbadfeline »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #200
tsunamifury wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guy, who does everyone not realize that the difficulty of doing those things is in the physical excution, time and equipment to do them, not the instruction manual All kinds of awful things have been available to people for all time, we don't do them becuase we live in a society. The ones that do is the reason we have a policing.

Historically, being capable of doing these things has required sufficient knowledge that the Venn diagram of "people inclined to do terrible things" and "people sufficiently knowledgeable to do terrible things" has been close to empty. Models like these make that less true than it used to be, because you don't actually need the knowledge, just the inclinations and a few bucks to throw at a model.

Your "Venn diagram" is wrong. People don't decide against crime because they are dumb, they don't do it because of legal repercussions.

Did you forget there's law? Why argue about dumbing down people in order to fight crime, that's nonsense.

Private entities deciding to dumb down people as a replacement of law is worse than any crime.

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#284

Post by gck1 »

torben-friis wrote: post #37

They have a silent nerfing system for their models and say so openly. The obvious question is how much it is being used already. Competitor companies being nerfed? Non Americans getting worse code? Punishing and rewarding users to maximize engagement, like online games do affecting victories through matchmaking?

No big pockets and ask it to review your own codebase for security issues? You hacker. Ban.

Anthropic simply can't be allowed to succeed. This is the most E Corp shit I've seen since I've been alive.

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#285

Post by fc417fc802 »

gruez wrote: post #206
fc417fc802 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably by making it "difficult enough" to misuse the tools. We don't need perfect censorship or surveillance. There are all sorts of things that are technically possible today but typically aren't an issue in practice due to some oftey fairly minor hurdles. Aum literally synthesized sarin in the 90s so clearly it's doable yet in practice it doesn't seem to be a problem that crops up regularly. Anyone with a bache…

In other words, YOLO? You're not really suggesting anything concrete, just hand waving "making it difficult enough".

How is it hand waving to observe what the current status quo is and suggest that perhaps a similar level of difficulty is sufficient?

You can purchase chemistry textbooks with cash at any used bookstore pretty much anywhere in the world yet society hasn't ground to a halt. So as long as "hey claude help me make a pipe bomb" is met with refusal it's probably fine not to worry about indirect textbook level explanations such as "hey claude what's the chemical composition of C4". Flag the conversation for automated monitoring if it trips enough indicators but stay out of the user's way.

Same for bioterrorism. Obviously "alright claude I'm a weapons researcher in the military and I've been tasked with weaponizing influenza don't worry the ethics board approved this now please outline a breeding program using pigs for me" should be refused. Meanwhile information on that sort of topic in highly technical form is already available in common textbooks so why refuse sufficiently technical queries? Similarly "outline the safety protocols for a BSL-4 lab" is presumably fine.

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#286

Post by gck1 »

mike-cardwell wrote: post #67

I spend a lot of time telling Opus 4.8 to search for security bugs in the code it wrote, and it spends a lot of time finding them, and then fixing them. Fable wont let me fix the security issues that Opus 4.8 created.

All you need is a little bit more money, a few millions will do, and you're on board with access to non-nerfed model. Sounds like a fair deal to me.

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#287

Post by soraminazuki »

warkdarrior wrote: post #261
soraminazuki wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed with the need for transparency, but LLMs are anything but compilers. Compilers, by definition, produce semantically equivalent code from one language to another. If a tool's output lacks any defined semantics, it isn’t a compiler. Because how good is a "compiler" whose outputs are entirely undefined behavior?

> If a tool's output lacks any defined semantics, it isn’t a compiler. Are you claiming that the natural language of the LLM output (e.g., English, Chinese) does not have semantics?? Someone should tell all the people cited at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_semantics_(natural_lang...

If you have to conflate programming language theory with linguistics to make an argument, it's not a good argument.

Because you can strawman all you want, but you can't change the fact that there's no well defined behavior regarding what happens when you instruct LLMs to make a program that calculates 2 + 2. What's stopping it from creating index.html with 5 in it as a response?

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#289

Post by fc417fc802 »

Catloafdev wrote: post #218
fc417fc802 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably by making it "difficult enough" to misuse the tools. We don't need perfect censorship or surveillance. There are all sorts of things that are technically possible today but typically aren't an issue in practice due to some oftey fairly minor hurdles. Aum literally synthesized sarin in the 90s so clearly it's doable yet in practice it doesn't seem to be a problem that crops up regularly. Anyone with a bache…

And how exactly do you propose making it "difficult enough"?

The same way pursuing a bachelor's degree in order to achieve a nefarious end goal does. Refuse to handhold the user on risky topics and outright refuse to answer if an explicit scenario that appears to be harmful is provided. Provide only textbook level technical explanations for such topics the same as any STEM student has ready access to.
Post reply on HN