If they succeed here, won't they have to gate access to this feature, too? For the same reasons as, "if I so much as mention mitochondria, it downgrades me to Opus."
Step 1. Make it so Claude can do anything — the whole point of AGI
Step 2. Wait, if the user can do Anything, that would be Very Bad!
Step 3. Err on the safe side with blanket bans of entire fields
The latter actually seems to me a sensible reaction to e.g. the compartmentalization used in the large scale cyber attack using Claude last year. Where they were able to do Bad Thing by dividing it into many, many Small, Seemingly Harmless Things.
Gated access sounds bad (and I agree it sounds bad!) but it might actually be the only sensible response to such a set of conditions. I'm not sure though.
--
I saw some studies recently which showed LLMs provide much more detailed information to expert users. So we can distinguish between competence and incompetence based on use of language, and that is a reasonable metric for harm reduction.
But I don't think we can reliably detect "user has harmful intentions", at least not at a sufficient level of sophistication of the attacker.
I just wait until a Opensource model inhaled all the chemistry books and papers. Lol.
They are following closely and the best offer 80-90% of the performance and come with a very small fraction of the costs.
There are no open source LLMs, only LLMs you can download.
Why wouldn't the US gov. outlaw the open source models?
Applicable to only those of the US (who choose to comply), which would mean giving non-US an advantage, which is a distinct no-no. They tried to restrict Fable to only-US, but that backfired since the world isn't at all clean cut, resulting in full unavailability of the model
Streisand effect
Deepseek.v4.Pro.RePacked.LLMBoyz.part1.zstd
Will each part be a 1.44mb rar/ace file?
Damn this reminds me of my days going around with a stack of - mostly recovered - diskettes.
And screaming loud Keygen music
Without international treaty and regulation restricting frontier capabilities globally, any attempt to outlaw open source models will only be as effective as King Canute ordering the tide to turn. Unless the USA fancies bombing those who refuse.
China is definitely refusing. And definitely will bomb back.
And build the wall, all around.
How would that affect the world?
Prior restraint?
It cannot. The only available law is an export control law. A restriction on an open model would be strongly unconstitutional due to a freedom of speech guarantee in the Constitution.
Much harder to ban if they can run locally
"Making Claude a chemist" is a punch in the face of all us here after we got a taste of Claude fable blocking almost any STEM-related topic. So i don't know what Story Anthropic wants to tell us with this blog. Probably more like "Hey, look at what awesome tricks Claude can do which of course you will never experience because you're not american, not friends with the CEO, not rich or simply because fuck you"
I think the story they want to tell is "we're not just taking your jobs, we can do positive stuff like Chemistry too, just like DeepMind!"
Except of course they mostly can't because Chemistry is about structure and molecular dynamics, not people's descriptions of experiments.
DeepMind if so far the only AI/AGI company - the rest are LLM companies.
Maybe? It seems like their strategy is to accept that safety is imperfect, err on the side of over-triggering, and iterate.
I don’t think it’s a black and white “if fable 5 over triggers on bio safety in 2026, that’s the final pattern we should expect to see from post-Mythos 20 in 2036”
It's a good marketing strategy though, since nobody can disprove that Claude is the best chemist :)
I think one time I asked opus about copyfail when it just came out and it did treat me like some sort of criminal, but are there really people that run into this on a regular basis other than cybersecurity experts (which cannot be a big enough group to generate all of this criticism)?
I have been trying to work on debugging tools using Opus 4.8. As it turns out working with low-level techniques that inspects and alters behavior of other processes is bordering close enough to cybersecurity research that it often hits the guardrails.
I asked it to clip a video onto segments based on location of spoken words (using separately done audio transcription) and it flagged that as cyber.
Fable wouldn't even explain what an amino acid is.
It would make more sense to have specialized versions of Claude instead of having a universal one ie BioClaude, ProgrammerClaude, NuclearClaude, CyberSecurityClaude, et al
This would be both safer and less annoying to use.
That seems bad because it kills interdisciplinary science.
sure, but how else would you better guarantee safety? How else can we avoid annoying guardrails?
Besides, it's not like you can't have different agents with skills collaborating
> how else would you better guarantee safety?
You wouldn't. This safety nonsense is overrated.