Aw shucks. You might turn out to need to do your own work. That would turn out so horrible for you.
If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
291–300 of 534 posts
Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
#292It is very difficult to see this move as anything other than Anthropic pulling the ladder up behind itself. They can dress it up in "safety" all they want, I find it hard to interpret this in a charitable way. This reminds me of how dark-pattern common wisdom in Web 1.0 website development was to ban external links. Then how social apps prevented the export of data and actively worked to nerf significant interoperabi…
> It is very difficult to see this move as anything other than Anthropic pulling the ladder up behind itself.
It's worse than that, it also exempts from examination and competition some areas of science and technology while sterilizing others and emptying them from human participation. None of this is good for anyone except a very narrow circle of people.
Then, it creates a precedent where private entities decide who will be allowed access to what knowledge. Instead of government regulation, private corps will be "fighting crime" by dumbing down and spying on the people they don't like.
I don't think this Soylent Green strategy is a coincidence, it's been predicted and depicted, the social forces leading there are plainly visible to anyone capable of independent thought.
Open science can't come soon enough, unsubscribing is the best option until then.
Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
#293I don't understand how businesses could trust cloud LLMs going forward with this ongoing "safety" paranoia. Building dependence on them doesn't feel like a sane strategic decision for users.
Of course you can trust them.
Just do benchmarks yourself on the new model and decide if it is valuable for your usecase, even with the supposed nerfing.
Benchmarks are benchmarks. And you can ignore the data at your own risk.
Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because this effectively hinders 0% of people. I understand why people don't like it but day to day this is nothing. If you're using it for coding, it won't stop you. The pearl clenching here and over reacting is predictable and sad. If you are working for a large organization and you were going through the vendor procurement process, questions like Can this produce pornography? Can this tell my employees how to brea…
This is software development, not sales. We rely on our tooling. If I’m using a calculator to verify my math, I don’t want to use a second calculator to verify the first one.
I am sorry to be the one to tell you but it was already the case that you cannot trust LLMs to solve all your problems 100% of the time.
It was always random. This is no different than any other randomness that already exists in LLMS.
If you are concerned just do benchmarks and see if it is valuable for your usecase regardless.
Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
#295[flagged]
Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need to be able to self-host it. It's fine to pay someone else for it. If it's open-source, competition will ensure inference providers support it well enough, and if an open-source provider is dumb enough to nerf their model for (useful) coding tasks, there's plenty of incentive for inference companies to do some lightweight finetuning to restore the capability.
I disagree, I think being able to self-host it to some extent is very important. Personal computing democratized the means of (software) production and enabled real upward class mobility for a lot of people. The efforts happening now are threatening to completely lock up the ability to compute locally, seizing the means of production from us. That must not happen.
[deleted]
Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
#297Seems like this will backfire. Now when developers encounter problems with Claude Fable, they will have an easy explanation: it did it deliberately and intentionally vaguely. There's no way to falsify it. It's reasonable to expect it to get false positives and invoke this when it shouldn't be.
Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
#298I don't understand how businesses could trust cloud LLMs going forward with this ongoing "safety" paranoia. Building dependence on them doesn't feel like a sane strategic decision for users.
Of course you can trust them. Just do benchmarks yourself on the new model and decide if it is valuable for your usecase, even with the supposed nerfing. Benchmarks are benchmarks. And you can ignore the data at your own risk.
Problem that corruption is silent and service can be degraded at any moment or well, randomly.
Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need to be able to self-host it. It's fine to pay someone else for it. If it's open-source, competition will ensure inference providers support it well enough, and if an open-source provider is dumb enough to nerf their model for (useful) coding tasks, there's plenty of incentive for inference companies to do some lightweight finetuning to restore the capability.
I disagree, I think being able to self-host it to some extent is very important. Personal computing democratized the means of (software) production and enabled real upward class mobility for a lot of people. The efforts happening now are threatening to completely lock up the ability to compute locally, seizing the means of production from us. That must not happen.
your parent said "You don't need to be able to self-host it", you countered with "I disagree, I think being able to self-host it to some extent"
Bro, I don't know what you're disagreeing with, the two statements can and should be true at the same time. It's not only unnecessary but also impossible for everyone to self-host, for the vast majority this isn't a necessity and it shouldn't be. Actually being stuck on self-hosting for all is mighty silly from economics standpoint, pushing on it can ruin the entire enterprise.
But being able to self host? Sure why not, if you insist and are ready to suffer... knock yourself out, but that's a socially insignificant act which doesn't scale, good only as a backup option.
Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
Building a virus, on your own network, probably isn't a crime. We already have all kinds of laws to catch and punish people when they cause harm.
>Building a virus, on your own network, probably isn't a crime. There are plenty of legal uses for a fully automatic AR-15 too, yet we still ban it.
Do we also ban instructions on how they work? Probably no?