As believers of open research, we are disappointed to see Anthropic silently degrading Fable 5 for AI development
"Any topic related to building pretraining pipelines, distributed training infrastructure, or ML accelerator design... may have limited effectiveness through Claude via methods such as prompt modification, steering vectors, or parameter-efficient fine-tuning."
Not only do they get to decide what you use LLMs for in research, but this also enables them to silently intervene in your research without you knowing.
This sets a dangerous precedent. If a model refuses openly, users can understand the boundary. If a model falls back to another model, users can still evaluate the difference. But if a model silently modifies or weakens its own answers while still pretending to help, researchers lose the ability to know whether a failed result came from their own idea, their implementation, or an invisible intervention by the model provider.
That is not safety. Safety policies should be transparent, auditable, and user-visible.
On top of that, the people most harmed by this are not the largest labs with massive teams and proprietary infrastructure. It is the independent researchers, academic groups, startups, and open-source builders who rely on public tools to compete, innovate, and pioneer AI for everyone else.
I’m a firm believer that any AI system that you use for too long eventually paints itself into a corner with the knowledge that knows about you. One of the best ways to get a clean slate for a response that you don’t want any of your information mingled into is to just use the incognito mode. It’s refreshing how clean these responses can be sometimes.
I wonder about the rate of model improvement as well. Hard to say when we’re gonna hit those plateaus, but at least for the foreseeable future, they do seem to be improving substantially. With the pressure that OpenAI is now putting on Anthropic and others with their GPT 5.5 I wonder if Mythos sees a wider rollout anytime soon.