I’m a web performance engineer — I help clients find and fix site speed issues — but recently I spotted what I thought might be a security/privacy issue. Security not being my specialism, I asked Fable to help me triage and, if necessary, raise the issue with my client.

It refused. It’s so so so adjacent to the work we’d already been doing, but the moment I asked it to help me understand what I thought I’d found, it left me high and dry!

Every one of their models has become absolutely useless, for validation of bugs and the remediations. Unless I’m doing straight forward dev work, I’ve turned to alternate models and harnesses I’ve started building on my own. The frontier models have apparently become so good at security that they can’t be bothered to discuss it with laymen…

Agree 100%. This is just another level of obscurity. Security through obscurity... Its annoying, very annoying.

I suspect this will be seen as a mistep by Anthropic in the long run. Including how their own hyperbole led to the US gov adding export controls.

The HAWK attack was on a 3rd round PQC candidate that had been under adversarial review by experts for 3 years. It is an outlier and most vulnerabilities are easier to find.

I dont understand. Not everything has to be for everyone.

From a cost perspective Mythos is too expensive right now. With the right Harness and a few layers of models you can get close or better in some circumstances. Kimi / GLM, Qwen etc. And that's before ablation / Abliteration...

For those in Mythos.. if you ask how much it cost to assess their repos, your jaw would drop. We're talking the price of buying a couple machines to run Kimi / GLM full weight outright.. for one Scan.

Right now I wouldn't say GLM 5.3 is the same, but it's not far off. For the cost benefit it's the better of the two.

I’ve been working on a decompilation project that fable was choking on and GLM 5.3 has been chunking away at it for 72 hours now? I think it’s my favorite agentic/implementer model right now.

The GLM series is GOATed.

I had that when opus 4.8 was first out. It repeated refused to make a PoC for an issue it suspected.

I eventually gave up and just asked it to fix the issue. The first thing it did? Write a PoC to verify the issue was still valid...

Just use an EU- or US-hosted Asian Opensource model. They will spit out everything.

Voting matters. Remember these companies are trying not to get shut down overnight.

On the other hand, people are using Grok to do things like “nudify” images of random people they find online, including minors.

I’m not a fan of limiting access to models, but the other extreme (no limits or guardrails) is at least as bad if not worse.

[dead]

Hugging Face was able to sign up for Glasswing but they just didn't.

You are mixing Anthropic and OpenAI...

Do they still think they occupy the commanding heights or do they just see the need to act like it until the IPO in a few weeks?

>In a world where things such as GLM-5.3, DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813, and Kimi-K3 exists, this is a bit laughable.

This is not just for security, too. Using Fable for anything that could be remotely construed as being connect to chemistry or biology was impossible until a few weeks ago. Now it is slightly better, but still fails on many completely innocuous projects.

So as other models advance, Anthropic's sole frontier offering to entire academic fields remains an Opus that seems to get worse in capability each release. They're starting to become a joke in my field: at a conference a few weeks ago, one presenter laughed when I asked about his use of Fable and pointed out that it would downgrade if the letters 'd', 'n', and 'a' were anywhere near each other, which is not that far from my experience.

>> In a world where things such as GLM-5.3, DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813, and Kimi-K3 exists, this is a bit laughable.

Is it, though?

We don't know what Mythos is really capable of, beyond what Anthropic has told us, and some second-hand accounts from orgs that have been whitelisted.

What we do know is that their withholding it from the masses is causing a lot of harm to their reputation and general annoyance. And probably a lot of money as well, as those people cancel their subscriptions in favor of other models. They are about to IPO, and you don't want people to have a bad taste in their mouth during this critical period.

As such, I think it is reasonable conclude that there must in fact be very valid reasons for them to keep going down this path of gradual access-widening. I'm never going to blindly trust a corporation, but in this case I'm not going to hate on them either because, at the risk of repeating myself, we just don't have all the facts.