I like Claude Code a lot, I think it sets a dangerous precedent to put guardrails in that return a response from a prompt that was modified by the system in real time in order to subvert the original intent. Fail cleanly. Anything else makes it too difficult to rely on. edit: Giving the absolute maximum benefit of the doubt I understand that they see themselves as "stewards" for lack of a better word. But the EA thin…
I think the reasonable middle ground anthropic is trying to achieve is - let the organizations that make the most important and critical software get a head start on cybersecurity before they inevitably allow everyone else the same access. Other commentors have made good points that these guardrails are counter productive for well intentioned cyber security, because I can't use it to test and harden my own software.
I can sympathize with the argument for the cyber refusals - especially as a temporary measure - especially if Mythos is available to those trying to defend against vulnerabilities.
The LLM development nerfing (and now refusals) is very different though. Anthropic has even said it isn't just for safety reasons:
> Using Claude to develop competing models already violates our Terms of Service, but enforcing this restriction through our safeguards avoids accelerating the actors most willing to violate these terms.
It's at least partially an anti-competitive measure.
The closest analogy is putting measures in a compiler to stop it being able to build other compilers.
Another analogy is priesthoods with secret religious knowledge that "only they are qualified to know".