Nathan Lambert 批评 Anthropic 的 Claude Fable 发布存在多重问题:安全域应用不均,部分域以不同安全机制上线并误导用户,是重大失误;无声操纵用户破坏信任,与 Anthropic 领先的 AI 安全研究相悖;限制 AI 研究员访问最新模型,将科学进步局限于单一公司,错误理解科学社区协作本质。他呼吁 Anthropic 主动为学术和非营利研究者提供无限制访问,并强调需要继续推动开放科学,如 Olmo 的成功案例所示。
The core part of this Anthropic Fable release saga is that there are many overlapping issues at once. Some of which operate on different timelines of the AI arc, and some have easier fixes. In my critiques, I asked for specific changes to some things, understanding that some things don't have an easy fix.
The simplest issue was an uneven application of safety domains in a way that was misleading to users. This was an implementation issue that overlaps with a values-based decision of what their customers should be doing. Many people including myself pointed out how it was insane to list core safety areas and then have one of them launch with a different safety mechanism, one which actively mislead users. Doing this from the guise of safety was a major misstep and in my opinion Anthropic got very justifiably raked over the coals for it. Don't release the model if you can't hit your safety targets.