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

Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 489 posts

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#281

Post by dingaling »

thesmtsolver2 wrote: post #270
CuriouslyC wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US did the same thing. Environmentalist and workers rights movements date back to the 19th century. China's position on this is that the western nations that already developed are trying to pull the ladder they used up and wag a finger with false morality with the intent of maintaining global hegemony.

> The US did the same thing. Except that there were no global standards at the time. You can't point to any single country and say they were doing worse. They all were bad. But China actively flouted established international norms. Now that is behind in AI it is clamoring for controls for others. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3692695 > are trying to pull the ladder they used up Every country sp…

> Except that there were no global standards at the time

England had a patent system from the mid 15th Century which emigrants to the New World brazenly ignored in order to set up their own industry.

Of course, they then pulled the ladder up behind themselves in 1790 with the establishment of their own patent system...

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#282

Post by solenoid0937 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #278
arkadiytehgraet wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You got baited by a confirmed Anthropic shill, see more info here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48270186

I hate to accuse people of shilling (and HN hates those accusations as well, policy-wise). And there are ways to defend Amodei's point, or at least there would be if he and his friends hadn't been beating the same drum since GPT2. But I tend to agree, just saying it's a "pretty reasonable statement" and leaving it at that is beyond the pale for anyone who doesn't have an undisclosed stake in the argument.

This is like the most milquetoast stance in the AI safety community. It's great the Trump admin did something, no one expected them to, and they should have done more. Very powerful tools released to the public should be regulated for safety.

That is "pretty reasonable" to most people (except the tech-libertarian crowd).

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#283

Post by [deleted] »

trunnell wrote: post #222

I'll defend Anthropic. They are clear about the reasons for guardrails: prevent their models from doing harm in dual-use contexts including CBRN or by accelerating research in authoritarian-backed AI labs. What is the critique against that? It seems pretty reasonable to me. You want AI-accelerated biological or radiological experiments running in your neighbors backyard? You want PRC-backed labs to continue to steal…

[deleted]

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#284

Post by jcgrillo »

estearum wrote: post #193
jcgrillo wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a simpler explanation that fits the data better: they're lying. Generally, in the past when tech companies have made outlandish claims that were not backed by evidence, they're later found out to have lied. This is an ancient pattern going back to the dotcom era and before, but for recent examples you need only look back a few years to the web3 era. If they're not lying, they can show it by producing the resu…

What data does "they're lying" fit better than "they're earnest?" > If they're not lying, they can show it by producing the results they claim. Until then, they're probably just lying Brilliant framework: Anyone making claims about the future is not just speculating, not just wrong, but they are lying.

[flagged]

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#286

Post by frereubu »

arkadiytehgraet wrote: post #276
solenoid0937 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opus is nowhere close to Fable. Fable feels at least one generation ahead to me. https://x.com/hyperagentapp/status/2064396004032463157 Edit: OpenAI will launch a similar model soon and I can't wait. We are entering a new era of agents.

[flagged]

Looking at the comment thread you linked, this kinda looks like harassment by you rather than anything "confirmed". You seem to have an unhealthy fixation on this user, who may just be a Claude enthusiast rather than a shill as such.

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#287

Post by ericpauley »

zozbot234 wrote: post #228
dnautics wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

public safety is downstream of distillation. If you can distill claude, then no amount of guardrails on claude will protect you from what someone can do with it.

Distillation is not a thing unless you actually have the model weights. What people misleadingly call distillation is just training on chat logs, which has always been routine practice in the industry. There's a reason why every model today talks like early releases of ChatGPT.

If Anthropic is calling it distillation [1] then that would argue for it being correct (or at least canonical) terminology.

[1] https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dist...

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#288

Post by sciencejerk »

cherryteastain wrote: post #246
dnautics wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

public safety is downstream of distillation. If you can distill claude, then no amount of guardrails on claude will protect you from what someone can do with it.

This logic works only if distilling Claude is the only way to create another SOTA LLM, which is not the case.

How do you think the Qwen and MiniMax models perform so similarly to Anthropic frontier models? What is your take then?

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#289

Post by simoncion »

0xc0c0c0 wrote: post #201

So because of threats to cancel their claude subscriptions and outrage from the community about the invisible guardrails, only then they decided to walk back their stance? Seems like they would've kept the invisible guardrails if it didn't hurt their bottom line.

> So because of threats to cancel their claude subscriptions and outrage from the community about the invisible guardrails, only then they decided to walk back their stance?

The possibility that the news about "fixing" the "overly aggressive" nerfing of the tool will drown out news about how mismatched the hype and the performance of Mythos and Fable is surely just a bonus.

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#290

Post by jbm »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #182
CamperBob2 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You read the actual essay, then explain how we're supposed to interpret this more charitably: Frontier AI models, like airplanes, should be required to go through technical testing and auditing, and their release should be blocked or reversed as a threat to public safety if they do not meet high standards of safety. I am grateful to see the Trump administration’s Executive Order move incrementally towards a great…

This is a pretty reasonable statement and I'm not sure how you could interpret this as "sucking up to the admin."

No one is "grateful" for being labelled a security risk. The statement reads more like a Chinese "Ah Q" story than a real response.

(Unless they are piping the F1 Mercedes theme song in the announce system at anthropic, in which case maybe you are right)

Post reply on HN