Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've already explicitly enabled extra usage in your account settings though, it is not on by default
Unknowingly. Is that set at the org level? Because I never set it and never had it do that before.
[deleted]
Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable
301–310 of 570 posts
Re: Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable
#302I said I wondered if the models were going to start poisoning distillation and I got downvoted to hell. It’s interesting to me that they are now downgrading ML research too in this model, I would argue this implies the terrifying and impossible to reason about self improving AI doom loop is coming sooner rather than later. Bit worrying.
Re: Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
When they've repeatedly made decisions against their for profit nature, it changes the calculus a bit.
They haven't though. There's a long term plan here, and the goal is power and wealth. Short term moves that appear irrational turn out to be rational (from a greed perspective) when you factor in other considerations, like: Use their own AGI to create every software product on Earth and swallow the worlds economy. And we're kindly feeding their systems our codebases, IP and business decision-making so they can do exa…
If this was true they'd never have picked a fight with the DOW and they'd release Fable without safeguards.
Re: Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is this surprising or a problem?! It's a model demo, & their reasoning is reasonable and fair. Why all this drama.
Tech demo + theres the ability to provide feedback right at the answer interface if using the UI. Provide feedback in the negative, a brief explanation, and move on with your day. It will improve with feedback, not with whinging into the void.
Ironically making a stink about it online is likely to have a larger impact then using their dedicated feedback or support channels (which go to claude, not a person)
Re: Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their gap over Chinese models like GLM-5.1 is nowhere near 18 months. In many areas, it’s less than 6 months. The best closed models 18 months ago were worse than Qwen3.6.
These coding agent models only started getting useful in January. Before that they were difficult to control autocomplete, and not very smart. January was an inflection point, and no open weights model has crossed over that same threshold. This is definitely recursive self improvement territory, except that we're prohibited from participating. It feels like the capability gap is wider than before.
It was more like November. But it wasn’t really an inflection point, harnesses got good enough that people started noticing by the holiday break. And I’m not discounting some good ol’ stealth marketing in there as well.
Deepseek feels pretty close to Opus at this point, and it’s certainly useful enough for me to spend $20 on api tokens instead of four Claude max plans….
Re: Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their goal is to downgrade people who are violating their TOS, so I think they'd have some argument there. I have no idea how they'll deal with inevitable false positives, especially given how oversensitive most of the other triggers are.
It’s just impossible. Look at real-life stuff like laws, company policies, or school rules. Humans have to enforce them, and we constantly see crazy cases in the news. There’s no way simple rules can ever make speech completely 'safe.' I can't prove it with math or logic yet, but I have a feeling that it’ll never happen. Even humans can't do it. We can run a simple thought experiment here. Say Case A violates rule B,…
> I can't prove it with math or logic yet, but I have a feeling that it’ll never happen.
It's not really that hard to actually prove it with math.
It's a computer, so to produce the boolean result (safe or unsafe) there has to be a mathematical formula. This formula will inherently be extremely complex, but even a very simple formula has a huge problem. Suppose "unsafe" is true if X - Y > 0. Make X and Y themselves as simple or complicated as you like but even in the simplest version it's already impossible to calculate unless the model has perfect information.
You can't calculate "X - Y" if you don't know the value of X. And it's indisputable that there is information it doesn't have. Case in point, telling you about a vulnerability in some piece of code is safe (and indeed not telling you is unsafe) if you're the developer and you want to patch it or an administrator and want to mitigate it, but the opposite if you're the attacker and want to exploit it. The model does not know which one you are, therefore it cannot make the correct determination any more than it can solve one equation with two unknowns.
Re: Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also the sort of thing that has to have been thought up by someone with nothing better to do, given how ridiculous the premise is. You would have to assume the adversary is someone with the technology to build rockets , literally rocket science, but not the technology to build their own GPS receiver, which is simple 1970s radio technology? Worse than that, it's 20th century radio technology in the 21st century w…
Errr I at least thought it would be easier to build a small, bad rocket than a precision GPS receiver. But I am not an expert.
The only precision part about a GPS receiver is to assign precise timestamps when you receive a radio transmission from a satellite. The rest of it is just doing math.
Re: Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
It honestly explains so many issues I have been having, as I used it primarily for ML research (on my personal account, doing things not related to my job I should note). It would literally typo package names and spend huge amounts of time failing to setup simple environments…then do stupid things like set the learning rate to 1e-7, and use the eval set as training data.
That’s insane. I hope they fix it.
Nothing to fix. This is working as designed.
Using codex for this use case is the fix.
Re: Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a LORA that's designed to inject bugs into your code A statement like this, clearly, requires a reference.
From the model card: "the safeguards will limit effectiveness through methods such as prompt modification, steering vectors, or parameter-efficient fine-tuning" aka they will take your ML research code and inject bugs into it until it breaks using a LORA (or some other form of PEFT)
Are they trying to fight back against model distillation?
Re: Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable
#310The 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
It's not sabotaging it by using a worse model but by changing your prompt in your background, which means it silently destroys your code.
Also I asked questions about whether it's safe for me for example to work on just compilers or just inference kernel optimizations and it refused to answer me.
If I can't even ask what I can do safely without my code being destroyed, I just can't trust it not to sabotage my work ever.