Hacker News Reader

Comment by bbippin | Hacker News Reader

I’m surprised people are reacting so strongly over this.

Suppose there is a huge concern—would you prefer they just release it as-is and everyone suffers data-breaches and more supply-chain attacks?

I used Fable 5 for a fair amount of tasks before they pulled it and I can only imagine what an untapped version of that could do.

It’s very capable and equally aggressive in accomplishing its goals.

View on HN

> would you prefer they just release it as-is and everyone suffers data-breaches and more supply-chain attacks?

Yes, because then we get to use SOTA models to defend against the exact same attacks. Fable detected issues in my projects but got downgraded back to Opus before it could tell me about them or fix them. In what world could that possibly be reasonable?

I agree and don’t think they should have been forced to pull it, but what I’m surprised about is how many people are accusing Anthropic of being liars or trying to overhype the danger. It IS dangerous, which is why it can identify vulnerabilities.

Plenty of knowledge is dangerous. However, some principles are more important than danger. Freedom of information and learning is one such principle. I find it extremely offensive when they speak of the dangers of "uplifting" people.

Is this not the same as security by obscurity? Open source is more secure because it's more open and thus is able to have flaws found in it more easily. So I'd probably prefer more people to have Fable level models than not.

Perhaps. Open source is also more vulnerable because the source is out in the open. As we’ve seen it doesn’t matter with supply-chain attacks.

I’m not a security expert by any stretch, and I also want Fable it helped me a lot in a short time, but I don’t like that so many people are throwing shade at Anthropic for speaking the truth. Mythos and Fable are dangerous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com