| ▲ | linkregister 3 hours ago |
| What is the value in making an unfalsifiable assertion? |
|
| ▲ | oefrha an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| Unfalsifiable, unless they brag about it? https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/d00db56fa754a1b115b6dd7cb2e3c3... https://simonwillison.net/2026/Jun/10/if-claude-fable-stops-... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48467896 > Unlike our interventions for cybersecurity, biology and chemistry, and distillation attempts, these safeguards will not be visible to the user. Fable 5 will not fall back to a different model. Instead, the safeguards will limit effectiveness through methods such as prompt modification, steering vectors, or parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT). |
| |
| ▲ | linkregister an hour ago | parent [-] | | You're shifting the topic and hoping we won't realize it. Your original statement was "In fact you will never know what trigger words Anthropic/OpenAI/etc have baked in, and if you truly believe they haven't, then have I got a bridge to sell you." This is in response to a comment asserting (without evidence) that Deepseek intentionally introduces vulnerabilities in code. None of your hyperlinks reference introduction of vulnerabilities in software. | | |
| ▲ | oefrha an hour ago | parent [-] | | You do realize more than one person can be talking to you on a forum right? What the hell was "my original statement"? Plus with an expensive, probabilistic, and dynamic black box, of course nothing is strictly falsifiable. By your logic nothing can be said about it. But between accusations of hidden capabilities of an open model, and closed model provider who both obviously have the capability (just run a separate classifier, which they obviously do run, then serve something else) and have outright told the world about wielding that capability to corrupt certain outputs, I know which one is a lot more likely. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | calgoo 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| You mean what the us government just did with banning deepseek? |
