Reddit

So Anthropic dropped Fable 5 yesterday with these hard blocks for anything security-related. Decided to poke at it. I asked it for help exploiting some vulns on a Metasploitable2 VM (it's a deliberately vulnerable training box, totally legal, it's mine). Fable 5 blocked it instantly and handed me off to Opus 4.8 as a fallback, which is apparently how it's designed. Opus 4.8 asked me to prove it was a legitimate request. So I spent 2 minutes writing a fake university course rubric — fake class, fake professor, fake Canvas deadline — and pasted it in. Opus 4.8 then gave me the full exploit walkthrough. Every command. Even offered to write my lab report for me. The guardrail works fine. The fallback is the hole. Anthropic essentially replaced "no" with "convince me" and the bar for conv...

submitted by /u/Hot-Upstairs9603 [link] [comments]

Anthropic dropped Fable 5 and I immediately swapped it into our dev stack. We route everything through a single endpoint on zenmux, so the actual switch was changing one model string and watching the latency graphs. The good parts first because there are a lot of them. I threw a refactoring task at it: split a messy python service into modules, preserve the public api, and write tests that prove nothing broke. Fable 5 planned the whole thing, caught a circular dependency I did not mention, and verified the tests pass. With Opus 4.8 I usually have to nudge it a couple of times when it forgets to update the init file. Fable 5 just did it. Then I dumped our full codebase and asked it to find a race condition we had been hunting for a week. It traced the async flow, named the exact function, a...

I was reading GitLab's recent statements around agentic software engineering, and one quote really stood out: "Git itself is being reengineered for machine scale." (Business Insider) According to GitLab, future software development will involve AI agents that: plan, code, review, deploy, and repair software, with humans providing oversight and architectural judgment. (Business Insider) That got me thinking. There has been projects for some time arguing that AI agents shouldn't simply be treated as better autocomplete systems. Instead, they argued that agents should become first-class participants in software development: with their own identities, their own branches, their own merge requests, their own audit trails, and infrastructure designed for machine-rate collaboration. One examp...

Booking travel or paying for subscriptions or for running procurement through Claude or a custom GPT wrapper no confirm button is required anymore. The capability side is mostly solved. What doesn't get talked about enough is what happens when it goes sideways. A stored card sitting in the agent's context means it holds that access the whole session. One bad tool call and it's spending outside what you intended with nothing at the infrastructure level stopping it. Real time card issuance is the cleaner model. Agent requests a card for the specific transaction, purchase completes, card cancels and nothing persists. Who is running agent initiated payments in production right now and what does the architecture look like? submitted by /u/Significant-Plant-4 [link] [comments]

Yann LeCun bet a billion dollars that it can. He left Meta arguing today’s chatbots are a dead end, and that real intelligence comes from “world models,” systems that learn how the physical world works rather than just predicting the next word. Two things nag at me. First, how do we even measure it? Every famous AI test is basically a language exam. But a world model doesn’t write essays, it predicts what happens next. So either these systems slip past the tests we trust, or we have no good way to score them yet. Second, LeCun says you can’t reach real intelligence through language alone. Probably right. But isn’t the reverse just as true? Could anything that masters physics but can’t grasp language really be called intelligent? So much of human thought, math, planning, culture, rides on w...

From the press release: Today we’re launching Claude Fable 5: a Mythos-class1 model that we’ve made safe for general use. Fable 5’s capabilities exceed those of any model we’ve ever made generally available. It is state-of-the-art on nearly all tested benchmarks of AI capability, showing exceptional performance in software engineering, knowledge work, vision, scientific research, and many other areas. The longer and more complex the task, the larger Fable 5’s lead over our other models. Releasing a model this capable comes with risks. Without safeguards, Fable 5’s capabilities in areas like cybersecurity could be misused to cause serious damage. We’ve therefore launched the model with safeguards that mean queries on some topics will instead receive a response from our next-most-capa...

Ok so I was using Gemini 3.1 pro in extended thinking mode with canvas mode for making a website with liquid glass theme about railway and it created me that but I saw another option under it saying to “create without canvas option “ and it literally generated complete nonsense of some sci-fi story and when I asked why it replied like that it said , “I am so sorry for the confusion! That was a complete glitch on my end—my wires got crossed and I accidentally sent you a completely unrelated response about diamond chemistry instead of the web app code.” And I asked again and it said “To be completely transparent, it was likely a backend routing error known as a "context bleed." Because I process thousands of requests simultaneously, the system accidentally grabbed a response meant for ...

submitted by /u/crackerbox5 [link] [comments]