Not sure the relevance of this comment, but normally if someone built a classifier that bad they’d be fired. Anthropic obviously thinks they have some monopoly power they can use to foist garbage on consumers, I think they don’t.
replyThe consequence of a too strict classifier are annoyed customers who will spend less on Fable. The consequence of a too lax classifier are export restrictions that prevent a huge chunk of their customers from using Fable
replyI'm annoyed but not surprised at the overeager classification
If people are complaining about Anthropic (on an only-vaguely related thread) rather than simply switching to a suitable competitor, then Anthropic clearly has some 'monopoly' power over the specific capabilities the complainer wants from them.
replyFable/Opus 4.8 outperform Codex 5.5 for me at the general architecture/refactoring/performance work I’m doing, to the point where it’s not worth using Codex. Codex will often spit out non idiomatic code that overcomplicates things.
replyNot to argue the point but that statement isn’t logical, look at all the complaints about restaurants. Publicly complaining about something doesn’t require it be a monopoly.
replyWhat does this have to do with anything? Who are you talking to? This is Hacker News, not Anthropic support.
replyHN becoming anthropic support would certainly explain a lot of threads and comments I've seen here lately. Thank you for this.
replyI'm impressed that folks are using this frontier model for cooking
replyThe safety filter rejected or the model was down?
replyI asked it how people get blue eyes from their parents and it downgraded me to Opus because of safety.
reply