I'm really uncomfortable with these changes, like everything Anthropic's doing as "frontier research" today will be regular product engineering in a year.
tuggi
It’s very frustrating…
numpad0
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.
variety8675
It is absolutely fine to distill the IP of everyone else, but you'd be violating the TOS to distill ours :)
cute_boi
I tried today and it gave cybersecurity error on base64 implementation. It is so nerfed....
iLoveOncall
At this point you're criminally incompetent if you still feed your proprietary data and code to AI labs. They legally can steal it all and now you can't use the product of this theft to improve your own systems.
thot_experiment
It's a SaaS, when in the history of SaaS has it ever been a good idea to trust that the company won't ruin the product under you?
Ifkaluva
I guess an uncharitable way to read this might be “the ML engineers/scientists want to automate all of the jobs except their own.”
pablogancharov
“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
CrankyBear
"Claude can now be silently nerfed. Anthropic has decided it won't tell users when this happens." W T F!!
noncoml
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.
__natty__
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
gowld
> 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. That's always been the case with corporate LLMs.
extr
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.
comboy
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.
Anvoker
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.
somesortofthing
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.
Discussion Highlights (20 comments)
mips_avatar
I'm really uncomfortable with these changes, like everything Anthropic's doing as "frontier research" today will be regular product engineering in a year.
tuggi
It’s very frustrating…
numpad0
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.
variety8675
It is absolutely fine to distill the IP of everyone else, but you'd be violating the TOS to distill ours :)
cute_boi
I tried today and it gave cybersecurity error on base64 implementation. It is so nerfed....
iLoveOncall
At this point you're criminally incompetent if you still feed your proprietary data and code to AI labs. They legally can steal it all and now you can't use the product of this theft to improve your own systems.
thot_experiment
It's a SaaS, when in the history of SaaS has it ever been a good idea to trust that the company won't ruin the product under you?
Ifkaluva
I guess an uncharitable way to read this might be “the ML engineers/scientists want to automate all of the jobs except their own.”
pablogancharov
“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
CrankyBear
"Claude can now be silently nerfed. Anthropic has decided it won't tell users when this happens." W T F!!
noncoml
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.
__natty__
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
gowld
> 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. That's always been the case with corporate LLMs.
extr
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.
comboy
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.
Anvoker
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.
somesortofthing
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.
trilogic
https://huggingface.co/Trilogix1/Hugston-Nex-N2-Pro-gguf
darkbatman
This is crazy and would be frustrating, I probably would just be using another model as authority and keep fable as reviewer only in this case.
derac
Is there some consumer protection law around this?