I'm really uncomfortable with these changes, like everything Anthropic's doing as "frontier research" today will be regular product engineering in a year.
I 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.
It isn’t about trust or no trust, it’s about having a capability to do stuff vs not having it. If Fable is the only model doing the right thing in your use case, your only choice is to use it or not. If the efficiency gain is 2x, it’s a hit you can probably take. If it’s 100x you pay up and shut up.
“When you realize the goal is the path, the pursuit itself becomes the prize. Stones in the road are not obstacles blocking your path; they are the path”
now I understand distillation is much more important thank I thought
Disillusioned CEOs convincing themselves they have the mandate and right to define morality for everyone else. They get to decide what is right, wrong, permissible, or dangerous from the top, in the name of "safety". This is corporate nannying.
This makes Fable unusable for me. If I cannot tell whether I am paying for the whole service or just a partial one, because somehow their guardrails have decided my work silently broke their terms of service, then I prefer to go to older models or alternatives
> If Claude gives me poor or incorrect advice while I’m working on an AI component, I have no way of knowing whether the model was confused, whether my problem is unsolvable, or if some invisible policy restriction quietly kicked in. Anthropic has explicitly chosen not to tell users when this is happening.
I'm a big fan of Anthropic. Just check my post history. I've been accused of working there. But this is complete bullshit and they need to get real. Silent sandbagging is not acceptable, especially given they've shown with this release their safety filters have HUGE amounts of false positives.
I'm fairly certain they were doing something similar already possibly with some quantizations and not for the good humanity but just trying to handle the increased usage. Not for API requests though, just subscription CLI usage.
This kind of opacity is unacceptably user hostile. It's not okay to treat some amount of developers as acceptable casualties, without them even knowing, in order to help enforce a restriction that only serves Anthropic's interests. And if you want to tell me this is for managing the x-risk factor, I'm frankly unimpressed.
This is a fun peek into the economic implications of RSI/ASI. Because it's so infinitely valuable that it basically destroys all markets, labs will eventually do stuff like stop releasing models completely and skipping out on contracted commitments because they'll have the power to just drive their competitors out of business before the legal battle gets expensive.
Cloud providers - at first smaller ones, then the hyperscalers - will follow suit, completely closing sales to anyone but the labs and demanding payment in equity/direct decision-making power rather than cash. There's no particular reason why the inference/training split has to be 80/20, and no amount of willingness to pay can help you in an event that turns your money worthless.
Can't you just switch the toggle that says "switch models when a message is flagged"? I turned mine off in case anything does get flagged I will know..
For now, I'm really not happy about this limited rollout and then turning off. That's probably the most egregious thing I think Anthropic has done recently
171 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 74.2 ms ] threadJust 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.
They legally can steal it all and now you can't use the product of this theft to improve your own systems.
now I understand distillation is much more important thank I thought
That's always been the case with corporate LLMs.
Cloud providers - at first smaller ones, then the hyperscalers - will follow suit, completely closing sales to anyone but the labs and demanding payment in equity/direct decision-making power rather than cash. There's no particular reason why the inference/training split has to be 80/20, and no amount of willingness to pay can help you in an event that turns your money worthless.
We have 8 billion natural intelligences already. (Each of them more intelligent than any LLM.)
For some reason this didn't destroy all markets. There's also diverging opinion about infinite value.
Competitor companies being nerfed?
Non Americans getting worse code?
Punishing and rewarding users to maximize engagement, like online games do affecting victories through matchmaking?
Anthropic simply can't be allowed to succeed. This is the most E Corp shit I've seen since I've been alive.
This is a scary thought: tailoring quality based on user profile.
For now, I'm really not happy about this limited rollout and then turning off. That's probably the most egregious thing I think Anthropic has done recently