『Slow Takes Ep. 15: Who’s Asking?』のカバーアート

Slow Takes Ep. 15: Who’s Asking?

Slow Takes Ep. 15: Who’s Asking?

無料で聴く

ポッドキャストの詳細を見る
Every Monday, Leor from Exploring ChatGPT and I go through the week’s AI news without the hype. Catch the episode live on Substack, on YouTube, or as a podcast wherever you get yours, so you can pick the format you enjoy. Use this for the facts, the links and a little extra context.Anthropic released Fable 5 free for twelve days, then the US government pulled it offlineOn 9 June Anthropic released Claude Fable 5, its most capable public model, free on Pro and Max plans, alongside a gated sibling called Mythos 5. Three days later it was gone. Citing national security, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick signed an export-control directive ordering that both models be denied to any foreign national, inside or outside the United States, including Anthropic’s own overseas staff. Rather than filter by nationality, Anthropic took both offline for everyone. The stated trigger was a narrow jailbreak that let Fable 5 read source code and hunt for vulnerabilities. And it was the second time in a week the model’s fate was decided over users’ heads: days earlier, researchers found a line in its 319-page system card showing Anthropic had quietly weakened Fable 5 for some users without telling them, a choice it walked back after an outcry. Anthropic is complying while disagreeing, with no timeline to restore access. Opus, Sonnet and Haiku stay up.This is the week’s thread in its purest form: who gets to ask, and who decides. First Anthropic quietly chose to weaken its own model for some users without telling them. Then the government decided, in a single afternoon, that everyone on Pro and Max could not use a model they were already building on, over one potential jailbreak. The free-for-twelve-days launch became a three-day launch. Notice how little say any user had in either decision, and how fast a tool you lean on can be switched off above your head. Treat a free frontier model as borrowed, and build nothing you could not do without.On the live, the contradiction did the work. Anthropic’s launch article said Fable 5 beat GPT-5.5 on every benchmark. Its suspension article, days later, explained the danger away:“We have reviewed a report that we believe is the basis of the government's directive and validated that the level of capability displayed there is widely available from other models (including OpenAI’s GPT-5.5), and is used every day by the defenders who keep systems safe.”Both cannot be true. Either Fable was the leap they sold, or it was ordinary enough that the same jailbreak still runs on a rival left online. The government’s side carries the same doublethink: the Trump administration killed an AI safety-review structure a few hours before it was signed, then reached for that exact playbook to pull one company’s model. Reportedly it was Amazon, an Anthropic investor, that flagged the jailbreak in the first place. Read the two Anthropic articles back to back and decide which one you believe.Police in England and Wales told to stop using AI in court statementsPolice forces in England and Wales have been told to halt the use of AI in preparing court statements until proper safeguards are in place, after inaccurate outputs began contaminating legal proceedings. Alex Murray, head of the new Police.AI centre, said anything used in the justice system must reach a standard of accuracy that is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. In one case West Midlands Police used Microsoft Copilot output that invented a past incident involving Maccabi Tel Aviv, in a dossier supporting a football banning order. The police watchdog says AI-drafted submissions are behind a 24% rise in complaint reviews, some citing laws that do not exist.AI was switched on inside the justice system before anyone confirmed it could tell a real law from an invented one. The harm is concrete: fabricated detail feeding decisions that can take away someone’s liberty. ‘Beyond reasonable doubt’ is exactly the bar a system that guesses cannot clear, and the job of catching its mistakes lands on the people least able to. Good that someone stepped in. The worry is how far it had already spread.The rule was already there. On the live, Leor’s read was that this needed no new policy, only the one that exists to be followed: machine output checked by a human before it goes anywhere near a legal review. An unnamed Derbyshire officer is now under criminal investigation for allegedly fabricating evidence this way. The knock-on is its own problem. Once everyone knows AI can invent a witness statement, a guilty party can wave a genuine one away as a fake.A Florida man was wrongly arrested on a face-match 300 miles awayRobert Dillon, 52, from Fort Myers, was arrested at home and prosecuted for trying to lure a child at a McDonald’s in Jacksonville Beach, more than 300 miles away, a town he says he had never visited. A facial recognition system run by the Pinellas County Sheriff returned a 93% match. According to the lawsuit, officers ...
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
まだレビューはありません