9 ms·
> In light of the ability of recent models to accelerate their own development, we’ve implemented new interventions that limit Claude’s effectiveness for reques
by bkjlblh 3mo ago
> In light of the ability of recent models to accelerate their own development, we’ve implemented new interventions that limit Claude’s effectiveness for requests targeting frontier LLM development (for example, on building pretraining pipelines, distributed training infrastructure, or ML accelerator design). 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.
> Unlike our interventions for cybersecurity, biology and chemistry, and distillation attempts, these safeguards will not be visible to the user. Fable 5 will not fall back to a different model. Instead, the safeguards will limit effectiveness through methods such as prompt modification, steering vectors, or parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT). These interventions will not affect the vast majority of coding work. We estimate they will impact ~0.03% of traffic, concentrated in fewer than 0.1% of organizations
- mips_avatar 3mo agoIt's bad that Anthropic can determine what this means. If you're building a modern app you're likely training your own embedding models and now anthropic can just silently sabotage your training pipelines?
- abixb 3mo ago>We estimate they will impact ~0.03% of traffic, concentrated in fewer than 0.1% of organizations At the scale of API requests that Anthropic sees, I think the affected organization count might be substantial, and they might not be getting the full model capability that they're paying top $$$ for. Also, wonder how they arrived at that estimation.
- wongarsu 3mo agoOne in 1000 organizations and one in 3000 requests is indeed a lot
- happyopossum 3mo agoThat’s 1 in 30,000 requests…
- dragonwriter 3mo agoNo, 0.1% is one in 1,000. 0.03 is (approximately) one in 3,000; one in 30,000 is 0.003%
- ViscountPenguin 3mo agoYou're off by an order of magnitude with those last two.
- mediaman 3mo agoDouble check your math. All of their posts in this thread are correct. 1/30,000 * 100 = .003
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- ViscountPenguin 3mo agoOh, fuck
- freakynit 3mo ago/r/TheyDidTheMath IYKYK
- dotancohen 3mo agoIf it makes you feel more comfortable, throw another significant digit at GP's decimal. Make it a 3 like the previous digit. Now multiply.
- monster_truck 3mo agoHey man your computer has a calculator try using it next time
- gck1 3mo agoAlso, aren't all Claude users in their own "organizations" in Anthropic's own terms?
- DonsDiscountGas 3mo agoI have no idea how you came to that conclusion. Unless your training pipeline involves actively querying one of Anthropic models, no they can't. And if it does you're distilling their model.
- VBprogrammer 3mo agoThe crocodile tears of companies who've hoovered up everything possible, regardless of permissions or legality, now crying that someone else is stealing their hard work is comical. I don't even think they can believe it themselves, it's in reality they are just trying to throw fear, uncertainty and doubt about potentially cheaper offerings.
- JumpCrisscross 3mo ago> crocodile tears Not what that means. Crocodile tears "is a colloquial term used to describe a false, insincere display of emotion" [1]. Defending yourself against an attack vector you just exploited is between savvy and hypocritical. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile_tears https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile_tears
- digitaltrees 3mo agoI think his use of crocodile tears is appropriate, anthropic is feigning a false sense of concern for safety when really it is anticompetitive behavior, and I think that selfish entitlement is related to the original act of intellectual property theft to use the worlds training data, most of which was not public domain, to distill the wisdom for their models. So why do they get to cry about people distilling the knowledge from their models that they themselves distilled from the worlds knowledge?
- mips_avatar 3mo agoLike if you're using claude code on a feature tangential to your training pipeline it's allowed to nerf itself and damage your AI work.
- 3mo ago
- Jabrov 3mo agoA million AI researcher voices at big tech companies suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced
- notrealyme123 3mo agoI am a AI Researcher at a university. I tried Fable for my current project, but i feel it missunderstands me a bit to often. Now i don't know if i am using it wrong, or anthropic tries to slow my research. That model is a big no no.
- rfgplk 3mo agoMeaningless and easily bypassable. Will actually try coding up a tensor library with it, see if it sabotages anything.
- mips_avatar 3mo agoThey said in their terms and conditions they will silently sabotage you if you do this.
- qiine 3mo agoeasily ?
- matheusmoreira 3mo agoLooks like Anthropic's definition of safety includes their own safety from competition.
- axus 3mo agoAI-generated competition for thee, not for me
- SAI_Peregrinus 3mo agoIt's always been about the safety of their valuation.
- wongarsu 3mo agoOnly since Claude 3. So a bit over two years now
- dragonwriter 3mo agoAI vendors’ idea of safety has always been safety for the interests of the AI vendor in question. This is not a new development, though this may help more people realize it.
- digitaltrees 3mo agoding ding ding. This should be a new measure of anticompetitive analysis in anti trust law.
- theLiminator 3mo agoThis is pretty bullshit, now you have no idea if your output is getting silently nerfed.
- cedws 3mo agoThis makes me want to see China and open models succeed more than anything :)
- 382hi 3mo agoDon't worry, we will succeed :)
- UncleOxidant 3mo agoCan we get a Qwen3.7-122B, please? Thank you.
- YumpiLumpus 3mo ago[dead]
- johnsimer 3mo agoDo you want anyone in the world to be able to synthesize dangerous viruses?
- invalidusernam3 3mo agoWhat about allowing people to synthesize dangerous virus protection?
- root-parent 3mo agoWe do. Its the only way we will get our jobs back.
- rspeele 3mo agoIt's afraid!
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- 2001zhaozhao 3mo agoHow do they detect whether an experiment being done on a smaller model is used to improve a competing frontier model, or just an innocuous hobbyist LLM experiment?
- vitally3643 3mo agoGiven how well the cybersecurity safeguards work, they probably don't.
- iririririr 3mo agoinfering the surroundings, like everything else. they will probably look at which company is your email, and if you wrote "better than claude" on the readme.md this is LLM, it's not like a science or something.
- thepasch 3mo agoYeesh. Anthropic's paranoia about China is starting to get pathological.
- hashmap 3mo ago3 months before asking for what to eat before a linear algebra exam trips the machine learning topic ban is my guess. I got flagged immediately asking why my JEPA thing breaks weird.
- seemaze 3mo agoAh, so this is why raw Mythos was too "dangerous" to realease..
- digitaltrees 3mo agoOr, they may Mythos seem mystically powerful in advance of the IPO, and are pumping the token use count. But it worked, there is a frenzy for this release in way that is more intense than any previous release. Anthropic is doing a better job with their model menu, most people I talk to know immediately that Opus > Sonnet > Haiku but cant tell you what the rank order of open ai models are, when to use them, etc.
- chrisoosthuizen 3mo agoThis feels like the start of a much bigger plan for anthropic to close off the use cases of its models and eat any of its competitors.
- digitaltrees 3mo agoI am building a coding harness, and I see evidence of them doing this with agentic harnesses and scaffolding. It feels clear to me that as they expand in to the app layer, the window of using their API to build agentic apps is closing, they will steal your ideas, implement the product and then close the gate. I am creating my own inference stack because their incentive to block competitors is becoming super clear.
- hackmack10 3mo agoNo offense, but the sad thing is, everyone and their mother is working on this same problem. I'm also building a harness. It's feeling like, there is no moat, there is no way to get ahead, they will steal your idea one way or another, if you ever make it public.
- blackqueeriroh 3mo agoWhat, exactly, is new about any of this?
- digitaltrees 3mo agoWhen they launched their business model was to be a pure API for intelligence. Then when everyone claimed they were just commodities with no moat and they shifted hard to being the app layer. That was the transition. They went from selling shovels to all gold prospectors to stealing the information about the location of the gold so they could dig it out first. We are all stupid enough to keep buying shovels from them because we think their shovels dig gold better and faster.
- digitaltrees 3mo ago
- rastrojero2000 3mo agoSo that's a possible reason why my specific Claude Opus instance seemed to be impossibly stupid and always degenerates into doing really dumb things to my code! Cool, good to know I can trust Anthropic.
- johnnyApplePRNG 3mo ago> Instead, the safeguards will limit effectiveness through methods such as prompt modification, steering vectors, or parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT). Am I to understand that this is essentially their form of social-platform ghosting instead of banning? So they're not even going to tell you that the question you're asking is against their rules, they're just going to twist up your question and/or the answer somehow such that you waste your time essentially? It seems like I ran into this EXACT same functionality from Claude many months ago when I was trying to ask it to research on the web and help me setup the ideal llama.cpp config for local llm inference. Funny how lost it got through that relatively simple install when we had all of the documentation in the world (and a human dev with 20+ years experience guiding it along) to go by... and simultaneously it's debugging and building high level cryptography code in rust in the other terminal tab. This is infuriating to learn.
- ls612 3mo agoI had Claude walk me through getting local LLM models running on my Mac a month or two ago and so far as I can tell it was intentionally helpful. I even stated the reason was to have an uncensored model for myself and it had no objection. Long story short LM Studio running a Heretic Gemma 4 is doing just fine on my system now.
- vorticalbox 3mo agoI run a few local models for different things. I find Gemma 4 great for writing but qwen better for coding. I tried the same prompt on gemma4 and qwen 3.5 and Gemma consistently failed to call the multi line edit tool.
- ls612 3mo agoOh to be clear I don't think Gemma 4 is suitable for real work. It runs at 10 tps and is somewhere between 4o and o1 in quality according to my subjective judgement. But Claude was happy to correctly tell me how to get it running and how to solve the pitfalls I encountered in that process.
- 3mo ago
- thothless 3mo agothe gall of these companies to regulate your usage of stolen knowledge is absolutely hilarious. and they want me to pay $100+ a month to be their training? i hope we can find morality again.
- gck1 3mo agoBut Chinese models will poison your output if you ask them about Tiananmen Square! That's not good, so poisoning everyone's output without telling them is the only way to prevent that. Come on guys, why can't everyone just be there for the good guy?
- Sabinus 3mo agoYou're equating a government suppressing information for social cohesion with a private company protecting their IP.
- kiv_apple 3mo agoProtecting IP means that model would refuse to do certain things. Example from pre-AI era - program asks you for license key and refuses to start if it is wrong. But if program deletes random system file when you enter invalid license key (doesn't matter it is brute force attempt or typing error) it is different thing goes well beyond IP protection.
- gck1 3mo agoThey're not merely protecting their weights. First, they want government to get involved and regulate frontier model development - even stop it completely. Second, poisoning output of a model configured on the computers of millions of users goes way beyond protecting IP. That's malware.
- tancop 3mo ago[dead]
- maxall4 3mo agoThese safeguards are ridiculously sensitive: a prompt as simple as “ Why is an infinitely slow process reversible?” gets flagged as a ToS violation.
- largbae 3mo agoPull that ladder up behind ya, will ya son?
- usef- 3mo agoWhat ladder did Anthropic use?
- hnav 3mo agothe entire internet, books, news, regardless of license.
- digitaltrees 3mo agoAll of the api calls developers used to build agentic design patterns.
- dboreham 3mo agoMakes it even more odd that we haven't seen alien spaceships.
- 827a 3mo agoThis is deeply vile behavior; not remotely the actions of good people.
- spaceclay 3mo ago[dead]
- novaomnidev 3mo agoSo Fable will intentionally lie to you and give you incorrect outputs, if it doesn’t like what you’re asking. Got it.
- novaomnidev 3mo agoThese things are like encyclopedias or dictionaries that can speak in first person… Imagine if your encyclopedia tried to hide entries from you, just absurd!
- digitaltrees 3mo agoThis feels less like an "we are worried about security" and more, we are in the lead and plan to keep it that way until its too late. In someways its been helpful that openai and anthropic are tipping their hands about their anticompetitive instincts and willingness to steamroll their own clients, customers, and society. But it does feel like its too late to stop this. The advantage people get by using these tools is too tempting to resist even if it is self defeating. It feels like watching people light their own house on fire to stay warm in the deepest, darkest days of winter.
- nullbio 3mo agoJust so everyone is aware. Anthropic has been sabotaging AI researchers and their codebases and shadow-nerfing accounts for several years at this point. This isn't new, but they hadn't disclosed it until now. Likely because it is getting to the point where it's too noticeable, or they're concerned about it leaking from employees.
- dash2 3mo agoWhat’s your evidence for this claim?
- davedx 3mo agoCould this be legally construed as anti-competitive behavior? Edit: I asked Claude. It replied: > Consumer protection / deceptive practices. In the EU this would be a clear UCPD (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive) issue and potentially a DSA violation. In the US, FTC Act §5 prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts." Selling a product that secretly performs worse than advertised for a commercially self-serving reason, without disclosure, is textbook deception. The Samsung/Apple battery throttling cases are instructive here: Apple faced regulatory action across multiple jurisdictions specifically because users weren't told. > Competition law. This is where "anti-competitive" gets complicated. Refusing to help competitors build competing products via your ToS is generally legal — you can decide who you license to. But covertly sabotaging output quality for a class of users while charging them full price crosses into different territory. Under EU competition law (Article 102 TFEU), if a company with dominant market position uses covert technical means to disadvantage competitors, that's closer to abusive conduct than a legitimate ToS restriction.
- greenrd 3mo agoI think either you've prompted Claude misleadingly, or it's interpreting the law unnecessarily prissily (which is a failure mode I've noticed LLMs falling into). This clearly is disclosed, otherwise how did we get to know about it?
- kiv_apple 3mo ago"Shadow ban"-like mechanic in contractual relationships is generally against the law. You either refuse to work with customer or do your job well (at least as well as other tasks of other customers). "I'll accept your task, but silently and intentionally do my job badly" may violate some laws.
- Game_Ender 3mo agoWhat's not clearly disclosed is when you are being limited and what the bounds are. If you are developing ML kernels for a computational photography use case will the safe guards miss-fire and sabotage or slow down your efforts? What about distributed GPU interconnect work for a nation super computer lab used in weather simulation? The reason they are doing this shadow ban style technique, is they don't want users to figure out how to jail break their way out. Or the explicit direct bad PR of when it miss-fires.
- ayewo 3mo agoFor anyone that is confused like I was, the quoted text I'm replying to was copied from page 13 of the system card [1] and not the model announcement page, which this HN discussion is linked to. 1: https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/d00db56fa754a1b115b6dd7cb2e3c342ee809620.pdf https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/d00db56fa754a1b115b6dd7cb2e3c3...