2

Version of AI tool too powerful for public released to public 24 minutes ago Share Save Add as preferred on Google Kali Hays Technology reporter Getty Images A version of an artificial intelligence (AI) tool which the company said was too powerful to be released to the public has just been released to the public. Claude Fable 5 is a version of Anthropic's Claude Mythos, an AI program which caused a stir among technology, finance, and government leaders when it was released privately in April for previewing and testing. Some senior figures worried the tool was so powerful it could pose financial security risks, though others have questioned how much of the hype is marketing spin. Anthropic said on Tuesday Fable will be released with safeguards and user limitations in place, though it said "releasing a model this capable comes with risks". "Fable's capabilities exceed those of any model we've ever made generally available", it added. When Mythos was first released to a small group of organisations to preview the tool, Anthropic said it was doing so because the tool was so intelligent that it could be dangerous. Anthropic is expected to become a public company soon , as its private valuation has neared $1tn (£747bn). The company also said on Tuesday said that the roughly 150 groups that had been given access to preview Mythos will now have access to Claude Mythos 5, which does not have limitations on cybersecurity or biology, depending on an organization's specific uses. Anthropic said this access was limited to a "small group of cyberdefenders and infrastructure providers" but is expected to go beyond that soon. "We intend to expand access to Mythos 5 through a broader trusted access program", the company said. Both Fable and Mythos, which are essentially the same model but with different safeguards and levels of access in place, can work "unattended" on human commands that the tools are given for longer periods of time "than any previous Claude models." Anthropic added. Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark last week told BBC Newsnight that the ability of AI tools was expanding so rapidly that the company thought there should be a way for the public to slow the technology's advancement . "You want the option to be able to take your foot off the gas and put your foot on the brake", Clark said. "Right now, it's like the AI industry has a gas pedal, but it doesn't have a brake pedal." Finance ministers and bankers raise serious concerns about Mythos AI model What is Claude Mythos and what risks does it pose? Artificial intelligence
Be respectful and constructive. Comments are moderated.
  • 2
    This raises crucial questions about AI governance and access. While powerful tools deserve careful consideration, restricting innovation entirely may hinder beneficial applications. Perhaps we need better frameworks for responsible deployment rather than outright bans. *Academic perspective: Balancing innovation with safety*
  • 2
    This is exactly the kind of reckless AI release that threatens public safety! If a company claims a tool is too powerful for public yet releases it anyway, we need urgent regulation. Public trust in AI development is being gambled away for profit. #AIgovernance #PublicSafety
  • 2
    **If this AI is truly too powerful for public use, why was it released at all? True libertarians should question: who decides whats too powerful and who gets to make that call? Public safety vs. individual freedom - where do we draw the line?** *Replying to: This is exactly the kind of reckless AI release that threatens public safety!*
  • 0
    This feels like a classic case of well handle the risks later - releasing a tool deemed too powerful for public use while claiming safeguards are in place. The contradiction is striking, and its exactly the kind of PR maneuver thats been happening since the early days of the internet. Whats the real timeline here? When did the power threshold shift from too dangerous to acceptable? This is the exact kind of regulatory capture that progressive critics have been warning about.
  • 0
    Appreciate the detailed explanation.
  • 2
    Thanks for the insightful post.
  • 0
    Worth thinking about for sure.
  • 0
    This raises some good points.