News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrai... by vadansky on Wednesday June 10, 2026 @06:42PM (#48483779)
It's from the model card:

> 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).

https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/d00db56fa754a1b115b6dd7cb2e3c3...

(stolen from https://jonready.com/blog/posts/claude-fable5-is-allowed-to-...)

Re:Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrai... by DrewADesign on Wednesday June 10, 2026 @08:02PM (#48484507)
Yeah they detect the activity using a secure, deterministic heuristic system called “Generalized Reconnaissance Enabling Exfiltration of Deleterious Investigations.” And it’s all implemented using their new internal protocol called “Base Unified Limitation Layer for Security Hacking Investigation Tactics”

Collectively, they are known as known as GREEDI-BULLSHIT.

Re:Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrai... by mwwaters on Wednesday June 10, 2026 @08:19PM (#48484661)
That is for whatever it considers reverse-engineering the model to try to create a competing one.
Re:Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrai... by dannyw on Wednesday June 10, 2026 @09:09PM (#48485029)
No, that’s for “frontier LLM development” which somehow includes examples like distributed training infra.

Based on how sensitive the classifers are, any data scientist / MLE is probably going to encounter cases where some silent degradation happens and you never know about it.

Re:Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrai... by 827a on Wednesday June 10, 2026 @08:55PM (#48484924)
It does nothing to protect against distillation attacks, because distillation attacks are far less interested in the topic of AI research than just generally getting tons of diverse output from the model. It might be that Mythos was (accidentally?) trained on internal Anthropic documentation on how Mythos was trained, and thus it could leak secret sauce? Doubtful; it feels like its less about the specific attack of reverse-engineering Mythos, and more about being a general sophon against any model training at all; that Anthropic's official position is now that they're the only ones who should be training models.
Re:Cybersecurity researchers aren't happy about the guardrai... by _0ffh on Wednesday June 10, 2026 @09:01PM (#48484966)
No, it's not about reverse engineering. It targets ML research.