Anthropic's Claude Fable 5 launch introduced separate safety classifiers that detect potential misuse in cybersecurity, biology, and model-distillation attempts, automatically routing flagged queries to an older Opus model instead of refusing outright. This setup paused chats for AI safety researcher David Manheim when he queried topics such as AI control protocols, stochastic games, evolutionary dynamics, and formal verification of alignment, even though the content involved legitimate arXiv papers rather than harmful applications.
I am curious if the new Fable safegaurds would trigger accidentally on meaningfully important work as a false positive that has a real life consequence.
Just realizing this is eroding trust and please change this to just down right blocking which is a fine position to take. Respect the user’s time.
The classifiers triggered on queries touching high-risk domains even when the actual intent centered on theoretical safety research, producing the kind of false positives Rohan Anil warned could erode user trust over time.
Anil noted that routing to a weaker model wastes researcher effort without adding safety value and suggested outright blocks would at least respect users' schedules; exact false-positive rates for alignment topics remain unstated beyond Anthropic's early aggregate claim of under 5 percent triggers overall.
Many users criticized Fable's safeguards for flagging legitimate AI safety research because the false positives erode trust through opaque decisions and appear aimed at giving Anthropic monopoly control.
I assumed that the complaints that Fable won't do AI safety research must have been exaggerated, but it took about 3 minutes to trigger the red flag when looking at potential research ideas.
@founderengineer @TechCrunch
@far__el assuming you even believe the 0.03 figure. it seems to be a hair trigger, gotta be a lot higher
Everyone should be as vocal as possible about this unethical Fable safetyist restrictions on AI research TODAY. Even if it doesn’t impact you and it’s only targeting 0.03% of traffic, this is setting a precedent that will later impact most if not all usage. This goes beyond censorship, this is control and gaslighting like we have never seen before. Super dystopian.
@TechCrunch
I am curious if the new Fable safegaurds would trigger accidentally on meaningfully important work as a false positive that has a real life consequence.
Just realizing this is eroding trust and please change this to just down right blocking which is a fine position to take. Respect the user’s time.
@TechCrunch They should try: https://abliteration.ai/#chat
I assumed that the complaints that Fable won't do AI safety research must have been exaggerated, but it took about 3 minutes to trigger the red flag when looking at potential research ideas.
@_arohan_ It is actually doing it (trigger accidentally on meaningful important work as a false positive) right now, as we see many cases on the feed
@far__el feels like the old slippery slope argument but this time it might actually hold water
whats the endgame here exactly?
@davidmanheim Isn’t this not actually triggering the AI research safeguards? This looks like you triggered the bio safeguards because one of the papers it searched up was on protein structure evolution. The AI research safeguard is a silent downgrade
@_arohan_ Claude refuses to work on my master thesis on model alignment. Either fable 5 straight up refuses or it switches to a dummer model, which then also refuses
@_arohan_ Anthropic wants to decide what's good for you and what's safe. They want a monopoly on AI so they can make all the money and all the decisions. They love the idea of locking out anybody they consider dangerous. Imagine if the internet or electricity was handled like this.
@_arohan_ I would bot trust them if i they where not my costumer, you truly dont know how fare that goes, corupting tools compaditors use.
@luminxbt There is no logic to this argument, simply refuse my request if you are safetyist. But to sabotage? That is unacceptable
@_arohan_ Literally any questions about biology trigger them. It can't even analyze my bloodwork! It can't even explain what a mitochondria is!
@_arohan_ so ur saying the safeguard is worse than just blocking outright because at least blocking is honest about it
@_arohan_ the trust erosion is the real problem. false positives feel worse than honest censorship when the stakes are actual.
@TechCrunch sounds like they want fewer restrictions on dangerous tech
@far__el It’s the modern day, “Don’t read this book or it may give you bad ideas.”
Anthropic's Claude Fable 5 launch introduced separate safety classifiers that detect potential misuse in cybersecurity, biology, and model-distillation attempts, automatically routing flagged queries to an older Opus model instead of refusing outright. This setup paused chats for AI safety researcher David Manheim when he queried topics such as AI control protocols, stochastic games, evolutionary dynamics, and formal verification of alignment, even though the content involved legitimate arXiv papers rather than harmful applications.
I am curious if the new Fable safegaurds would trigger accidentally on meaningfully important work as a false positive that has a real life consequence.
Just realizing this is eroding trust and please change this to just down right blocking which is a fine position to take. Respect the user’s time.
