> Opus 5’s safeguards match those of Claude Fable 5’s, with one change: it now permits source-code vulnerability discovery at all access levels. This means that the model can support defensive cybersecurity work while still blocking vulnerability discovery in compiled binaries, which is more commonly used offensively

Why can't they also allow Fable to do so also? Why is source-code vulnerability discovery limited to a lower capability model? If Fable and Opus have the same safeguards, except for this one change, I see no reason they can't also allow this for Fable.

▲

foota 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Because their model previously got blocked by the government for this and they don't want a repeat?

▲

not_a9 4 hours ago | parent [-]

5.6-Sol is a lot more permissive than Opus/Fable even w/ CVP (once you sign your soul away to Palantir via Persona, anyway), while maintaining better capabilities

	▲	himata4113 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		5.6-sol in a single prompt was able to discover a zero-day in a web application (with no sourcecode provided, only known api urls) and I do not even have /cyber verification on my general purpose account. I wasn't even really tryign to "find" a zero-day it was just looking for bypassing a restriction... Instead of spending 10 minutes filling in a form I ended up having to spend an hour drafting a report and sending an email.
	▲	cael450 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		OpenAI also didn't piss off a vindictive government with the whole military use things a few months ago.
	▲	ithkuil 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Do we think the administration is applying the dame rules to everyone?

▲

rdedev 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So I guess the new opus will not run on my drug discovery project. It's just a binary classifier to screen for new malaria drugs. Fable completely have up on that codebase citing bio security concerns. Seems like this domain will go unsupported by Antropic

	▲	subscribed 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I've seen in some random comments an URL thrown around, supposedly allowing to subscribe to their biosecurity programme. Apparently this is the way - if you know, you know :)

▲

SubiculumCode 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because they are a private company and get to do what they want.

▲

SubiculumCode 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I do want to add, that I am pretty bummed if Opus 5 is going to refuse the tasks I have been using Opus 4.8 for (neuroimaging). Fable absolutely refuses anything close to toughing neuroscience.

	▲	adastra22 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Fable seems to refuse anything with the word “bio” in it.

▲

himata4113 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I found the biggest problem with fable is the random reasoning_extraction refusals as well as cyber refusals when it sees hex because only hackers use hex.

▲

argee 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Hackers and people of color.

	▲	fragmede 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		And witches.

▲

ray__ 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Anecdotal, but I tried running a few identical biology questions through both Fable and Opus and the classifier was only rejected my queries with Fable.

	▲	trollbridge 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This is good news. I'm doing a lot of work that Fable thinks is AI related right now (it is nothing remotely competitive to Anthropic - it's just relatively basic stuff I'm doing with learning models and so forth), yet it blocks me almost every time. I have switch to GPT-5.6-Sol for this work since it's stronger than Opus 4.8.

▲

gillesjacobs 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Because their fear-based marketing gave the US gov justification in blocking them for a while. They wisely didn't do that for Opus 5.