alt Hacker NewsI thought it was the very first line of the product announcement, where they defined what it was they were calling "Fable" as opposed to "Mythos" in the first place:
https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-fable-5-mythos-5
> Today we’re launching Claude Fable 5: a Mythos-class model that we’ve made safe for general use.
It then goes on to a lengthy and detailed section outlining the safety considerations:
https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-fable-5-mythos-5#:~:te...
Replies
It's not detailed, at all. It's all unnecessary verbiage and some meaningless graphs around "trust us, only we know what is safe". Meanwhile people run into these stupid "safeguards" on the most innocent queries. See e.g. this thread of discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48837404 Or indeed the very article these comments are under
But none of which suggest that it is not useful for math or theoretical CS tasks. The biology classifier is so miscalibrated so as to render the model useless for biology; and yes, they hint at that on the label (but not the extent of it). However, there is no description or suggestion that it is so miscalibrated that it offers up refusals in completely innocuous theoretical tasks. If it is simply a state-of-the-art model for coding, and frontend design, so be it, but at least they should be honest about that.