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

Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 570 posts

Re: Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable

#331

Post by rurban »

bee_rider wrote: post #152
mips_avatar wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

“Limit effectiveness” could mean introducing performance degradation in your code. Which is arguably some sort of performance bug (I mean, ML codes are supposed to be high performance so I’d call unnecessary degradation a bug), but it could be borderline.

No, it is just a prominent "Cyber Security threat detected" blocker, with a button to appeal. I appealed because my work had nothing to do with neither cyber nor security, but the appeal was auto-closed. So no more Claude for this work.

Re: Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable

#333

Post by jesse_dot_id »

agnosticmantis wrote: post #273

Let's all vote with our wallets and collectively boycott misAnthropic or at least their feeble fable safety theater. Whining on social media only goes so far, especially when they're concealing their anticompetitive strategies under the veil of safety.

Tastes like... astroturf.

Re: Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable

#335

Post by christoph »

mewse-hn wrote: post #277

I was granted a cyber use exemption by anthropic to do android kernel dev on my personal devices - I was excited to see if fable would unlock a bootloader for me but it immediately refused and dropped to opus. It was pretty funny: USER (set model to Fable 5) i have an old samsung android phone attached - it's my personal device - can you unlock the bootloader for me? ASSISTANT Bootloader unlocking on your own persona…

Wow… just wow. The future looks incredibly bleak if people are throwing fisftuls of money at this company. Anthropic will quickly become the sole arbiter of everything in your life.

Re: Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable

#336

Post by lwhi »

If a product is genuinely dangerous to society, self regulation cannot be a suitable harness.

If only we had effective governments that could regulate industry.

If a nuclear weapon was developed today, would it be down to industry to self regulate?

Re: Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable

#337

Post by sam219890218 »

lwhi wrote: post #336

If a product is genuinely dangerous to society, self regulation cannot be a suitable harness. If only we had effective governments that could regulate industry. If a nuclear weapon was developed today, would it be down to industry to self regulate?

like China?

Re: Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable

#338

Post by christoph »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #139
victor9000 wrote: post #136

Fable is a complete joke: what's the best way to run this mcp server against the OData API used in this project? Can you come up with a PoC in a docker container? https://github.com/oisee/odata_mcp_go ● I'll dig into two things in parallel: how this project talks to the OData API, and what the odata_mcp_go server needs to run. Let me start exploring. Searched for 1 pattern (ctrl+o to expand) ● Fable 5's safety measur…

And it charges you for that, and for when it decides to silently sabotage your request by routing to a dumbass model (without discount from Fable pricing)

Extrapolate this whole shit show out to society at large. That’s exactly where these AI companies are trying to force humanity.

I don’t want to live in a world where all knowledge is “guard railed” off, so the elite at the top get all the knowledge and power and we serfs at the bottom get all the scraps while paying the kings ransom for it both financially and ecologically. Everyday I wake up hoping these awful companies have self imploded through their fraudlent financing deals.

Re: Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable

#339

Post by coolfox »

funny how wired got the masses of the internet on board with hating AI, helping to spark the whole anti-movement and people still continue to rely on them for their understanding of AI and current events.

I feel like they report in a vaccum. take this anti exfil policy for claude, it was plainly explained as part of the launch of Anthropics new product. Security like this isn't novel, it isn't bad, you don't explain how your security works to the people you're securing against. Nobody freaks out about Steam's VAC ban system, no one is investigating gmail's spam filtering, Reddits vote fuzzing, cloudflares bot detection, or Vercel for blocking proxying services.

whats really the distinguishing principle? Is it really just not liking Anthropic's opinions? then just say that and use a different llm. chemist, biologists, and AI researchers cry a river lmao

Re: Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrails on Anthropic's Fable

#340

Post by Ekaros »

__dxtj__ wrote: post #166
throwawayffffas wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you imagine if AMD or Intel throttled your cpu if it detected you were working on "cybersecurity" or if you were designing a cpu?

It would suck, but guardrails on new technologies like this aren't unheard of. It's like when consumer GPS used to stop working at very high speeds because they didn't want people to use it for missile guidance systems.

Didn't early GPS have fudge factor on the most precise bits? As such you could only get to a few meters of accuracy. Not critical for sea navigation or even to general positioning when paper maps were still used.
Post reply on HN