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

91–100 of 489 posts

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#91

Post by solenoid0937 »

californical wrote: post #84
Sol- wrote: post #46

This has dampened my opinion on Anthropic quite a bit. It's difficult to take their marketing for AI as an empowering technology seriously when they are quite clear in their new deployments that they do not mean empowering for you , but empowering for them and organizations that are in their (or the US government's, despite Anthropics performative disagreements with the administration) good graces. You are allowed to…

Yeah, I cancelled my Claude subscription yesterday after learning about their attitude of intentionally sabotaging their paying customers. Especially after trying Fable yesterday for some benign projects and being unimpressive relative to opus. Rolling it back is the right move, but I’m still not convinced that using them is in my best interest anymore, I’m investigating open source cloud providers now.

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.

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#92

Post by jcgrillo »

estearum wrote: post #48
jstummbillig wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> paternalism isn't a good look. In isolation it's not, but I think it's somewhat lazy to not talk about what they are trying to guard against, when we are supposedly giving the absolute maximum benefit of doubt. Are we just concluding "their concerns were never real"? Because that probably runs counter the things that they have been observing and concluding.

Basically all critiques of Anthropic's policy moves on these topics boil down to people not believing the fundamental concerns are real, and often then going a step further to conclude that Anthropic doesn't actually believe their concerns either. If you believe Anthropic believes what they say they do, all of it makes sense.

But the things they say they believe are insane and totally unmoored from physical, societal, and economic reality. If they actually believe those things they're untrustworthy because they're delusional. If they don't, they're untrustworthy because they're fraudulent. Either way it's not good..

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#93

Post by fooker »

whimsicalism wrote: post #43
mlazos wrote: post #36

The idea of them purposefully wasting my time by having the model act dumber and me having to argue with it without knowing if it’s the prompt or the model was just such an idiotic product decision I can’t believe they shipped that without getting any feedback from users first.

[flagged]

> if you understood what they think they are building and the culture inside of anthropic you would understand why they did it.

This seems like a cult with extra steps.

Related: I interviewed for Anthropic a few months ago and in place of the usual HR call they have one where they have someone with a suspiciously relevant degree grill you about how committed you are to the 'mission'!

I probably came off as being skeptical, and then, hilariously, I was strongly encouraged to read the book published by the CEO to 'form accurate opinions' on AI safety.

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#94

Post by varenc »

Sol- wrote: post #46

This has dampened my opinion on Anthropic quite a bit. It's difficult to take their marketing for AI as an empowering technology seriously when they are quite clear in their new deployments that they do not mean empowering for you , but empowering for them and organizations that are in their (or the US government's, despite Anthropics performative disagreements with the administration) good graces. You are allowed to…

Google has been doing the same thing for longer than Anthropic[0]. To protect their models from distillation attacks, they silently will downgrade the model's performance to essentially poison your training data without your knowledge.

A bit different than Anthropic refusing to assist with any AI development at all, but it's in the same vein and seems not widely known.

edit: reading the whole series of Google's AI Threat Tracker articles also provides some insight into threats Anthropic and others are dealing with

[0] https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/dis...

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#95

Post by xvector »

thewebguyd wrote: post #53
Sol- wrote: post #46

This has dampened my opinion on Anthropic quite a bit. It's difficult to take their marketing for AI as an empowering technology seriously when they are quite clear in their new deployments that they do not mean empowering for you , but empowering for them and organizations that are in their (or the US government's, despite Anthropics performative disagreements with the administration) good graces. You are allowed to…

Don't forget their push for full regulatory capture in the name of "safety" as well so they can pull the ladder up behind them before anyone else has an equally capable model and releases it without the anti-competitive safeguards, while also pushing to completely ban open weight models, or any model trained on a certain level of compute without "rigorous" government testing and validation (which I'm sure, they'll co…

[flagged]

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#96

Post by thewebguyd »

whimsicalism wrote: post #74
thewebguyd wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> guard against other people building ASI before they do because they think they are uniquely safety oriented relative to their competitors All this longtermism though is harmful. There are real problems of data theft, bias, labor displacement, and environmental costs that are happening right now but every push for regulation and regulatory capture, and all the safety talk, is always focused on some speculative futur…

I cannot overstate how much I think this take is wrong. Please please reconsider, look at the rate of progress being made, and consider that even if you only think ASI 'may' never happen in your lifetime it should still be one of your #1 concerns. Honestly, that respect for 'copyright protections' has somehow become a leftist shibboleth is bizarre to me and indicative that something has become deeply warped in our di…

There's nothing warped about it at all. Like it or not, it is a real issue. It's also an issue of license washing GPL code to privatize it. It's full scale theft of collective human knowledge, being sold back to us in a for profit private product.

Outside of that though, there are other issues right now that need addressed before we speculate about what might be possible with ASI in the future. If the potential for a harmful ASI is truly that near, and that great, then why push forward at all? Where's the push for a global stop order on development of this technology until regulation can catch up?

The talk of a potential future serves as a distraction from the very real problems people are facing in their lives today.

While Dario and team are worrying about ASI, real people are worrying about how they are going to continue to feed their family after wide spread layoffs set a very large portion of the population back into a lower quality lifestyle. Real people are concerned about water usage is draught stricken areas, the massive energy demand driving grid instability in their communities, or that the environmental and economic externalities of model training is being socialized while the profits continue to be strictly private.

What about the mass proliferation of misinformation at scale having a real effect on our democratic process?

Forgive me if I'd like to see those addressed first, and fast, before we start worrying about an unpromised future technology.

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#97

Post by reactordev »

thewebguyd wrote: post #53
Sol- wrote: post #46

This has dampened my opinion on Anthropic quite a bit. It's difficult to take their marketing for AI as an empowering technology seriously when they are quite clear in their new deployments that they do not mean empowering for you , but empowering for them and organizations that are in their (or the US government's, despite Anthropics performative disagreements with the administration) good graces. You are allowed to…

Don't forget their push for full regulatory capture in the name of "safety" as well so they can pull the ladder up behind them before anyone else has an equally capable model and releases it without the anti-competitive safeguards, while also pushing to completely ban open weight models, or any model trained on a certain level of compute without "rigorous" government testing and validation (which I'm sure, they'll co…

They are the only ones I’ve contacted my bank to get a charge back on…

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#98

Post by sobellian »

estearum wrote: post #57
thewebguyd wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then what is it they are trying to guard against, if its not simply protecting their moat ahead of their IPO? Because from the outside, their behavior looks like a situation of "What if Microsoft/Apple put controls in place to make it impossible to develop an operating system using their OS?"

Let's assume that Anthropic believes they're in an arms race to create a potentially dangerous technology, and they believe they're the best ones to win this race. Unlike nuclear weapons, advancing in this arms race requires actually deploying the product over and over again. Deploying the product makes your advancements visible to your competitors. It makes complete sense to try to limit the degree to which that's t…

It's an interesting assumption. The idea behind this with nukes was that we'd like to nuke Germany before they could nuke us. Even after we defeated Germany, we nuked Japan even though they had no possibility of getting their own nukes.

The nuclear 'race' was based on the premise that the winner could use it to destroy all other racers (a faulty assumption, see the USSR among others). I will charitably assume Anthropic does not intend to literally destroy anyone and merely wants to become an AGI monopoly. But if AGI is so powerful, any monopoly would not be stable since the incentives for entry into the market are massive. Why would China stop developing AGI just because Anthropic has it?

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#99

Post by ComputerGuru »

The problem with trust is that it is easy to lose and hard to get back.

You can't blame the people commenting "they SAY they won't silently sabotage your session but how can we know?" because they're right, we can't ever know. And Anthropic has firmly planted the seeds of doubt.

Re: Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails

#100

Post by [deleted] »

xvector wrote: post #95
thewebguyd wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget their push for full regulatory capture in the name of "safety" as well so they can pull the ladder up behind them before anyone else has an equally capable model and releases it without the anti-competitive safeguards, while also pushing to completely ban open weight models, or any model trained on a certain level of compute without "rigorous" government testing and validation (which I'm sure, they'll co…

[flagged]

[deleted]
Post reply on HN