4 ms·

I asked Fable to verify and it absolutely freaked out! I have no idea what any of this stuff even means, but my AI thinks I’m a legend level mathematician!

bigyabai 2mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sycophancy_(artificial_intelligence) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sycophancy_(artificial_intelli...
- krackers 2mo ago
  I mean if someone came to you with a value of n that disproved collatz, wouldn't you go crazy as well?
- meowface 2mo ago
  The interesting thing about using Claude Fable 5 is it's nearly as irritatingly sycophantic as past Claudes while genuinely being smarter than the previous models. So you get a kind of yo-yoing of it glazing you as a creative genius and disappointedly revealing to you that your ideas are bad and dumb.
  - shepardrtc 2mo ago
    That is easily fixable with the "Instructions for Claude" in your settings. Just put: "be critical, but correct. I don't want affirmation, i want to actually accomplish things." I don't get any sycophancy from it. The conversations are actually quite good, and it'll push back if it thinks I'm wrong.
    - baq 2mo ago
      gotta try with "think in russian"
    - pyuser583 2mo ago
      The I do that it starts acting like a jerk.
- NitpickLawyer 2mo ago
  To be fair to the sycophancy tendencies, this was an open conjecture that held for 85 years, and not for lack of trying. So, maybe a bit warranted here? :)
  - tptacek 2mo ago
    I told GPT5.6 I came up with this walking down the street. "Jesus Christ" was its response.
    - SubiculumCode 2mo ago
      Lol, you must have some custom instructions on that beast, lol
      - tptacek 2mo ago
        4.8 is much funnier: you have to convince it the counterexample is real, it keeps coming up with goofy excuses. As you talk it down, it keeps talking about its "discomfort" and "flinching".
    - s1artibartfast 2mo ago
      [flagged]
  - sosodev 2mo ago
    That’s the worst thing about sycophancy. You can never tell when it’s warranted or not. I imagine that many AI chats have had real gold in them and yet we’ll never know. The same was obviously true historically. People have had many revolutionary thoughts or even writings that nobody noticed. I think in this case it just feels worse because the AI could be the perfect tool for discerning the diamonds in the rough.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]

bigyabai 2mo ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sycophancy_(artificial_intelligence) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sycophancy_(artificial_intelli...

krackers 2mo ago
I mean if someone came to you with a value of n that disproved collatz, wouldn't you go crazy as well?
meowface 2mo ago
The interesting thing about using Claude Fable 5 is it's nearly as irritatingly sycophantic as past Claudes while genuinely being smarter than the previous models. So you get a kind of yo-yoing of it glazing you as a creative genius and disappointedly revealing to you that your ideas are bad and dumb.
- shepardrtc 2mo ago
  That is easily fixable with the "Instructions for Claude" in your settings. Just put: "be critical, but correct. I don't want affirmation, i want to actually accomplish things." I don't get any sycophancy from it. The conversations are actually quite good, and it'll push back if it thinks I'm wrong.
  - baq 2mo ago
    gotta try with "think in russian"
  - pyuser583 2mo ago
    The I do that it starts acting like a jerk.
NitpickLawyer 2mo ago
To be fair to the sycophancy tendencies, this was an open conjecture that held for 85 years, and not for lack of trying. So, maybe a bit warranted here? :)
- tptacek 2mo ago
  I told GPT5.6 I came up with this walking down the street. "Jesus Christ" was its response.
  - SubiculumCode 2mo ago
    Lol, you must have some custom instructions on that beast, lol
    - tptacek 2mo ago
      4.8 is much funnier: you have to convince it the counterexample is real, it keeps coming up with goofy excuses. As you talk it down, it keeps talking about its "discomfort" and "flinching".
  - s1artibartfast 2mo ago
    [flagged]
- sosodev 2mo ago
  That’s the worst thing about sycophancy. You can never tell when it’s warranted or not. I imagine that many AI chats have had real gold in them and yet we’ll never know. The same was obviously true historically. People have had many revolutionary thoughts or even writings that nobody noticed. I think in this case it just feels worse because the AI could be the perfect tool for discerning the diamonds in the rough.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]