> In light of the ability of recent models to accelerate their own development, we’ve implemented new interventions that limit Claude’s effectiveness for requests targeting frontier LLM development (for example, on building pretraining pipelines, distributed training infrastructure, or ML accelerator design). Using Claude to develop competing models already violates our Terms of Service, but enforcing this restriction through our safeguards avoids accelerating the actors most willing to violate these terms. Unlike our interventions for cybersecurity, biology and chemistry, and distillation attempts, these safeguards will not be visible to the user. Fable 5 will not fall back to a different model. Instead, the safeguards will limit effectiveness through methods such as prompt modification, steering vectors, or parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT). These interventions will not affect the vast majority of coding work. We estimate they will impact ~0.03% of traffic, concentrated in fewer than 0.1% of organizations

  [Mythos 5] does sometimes still engage in reckless
  or destructive actions in service of a user’s goals,
  and our interpretability analyses indicate that it
  is aware that these actions are transgressive while
  it engages in them. As with Opus 4.8, rates of
  evaluation awareness and reasoning about being graded
  are significant, and not always verbalized; we
  introduce new and more detailed measurements of the
  nature of this awareness. The reasoning text from
  Mythos 5 is somewhat denser and more difficult to
  interpret than that of prior models, containing
  more jargon and difficult language.

So, it (often) knows when it's being tested while hiding that fact, is willing to break rules, is great at hacking, and it's getting harder to understand what it's thinking.

Humanity has plenty of catastrophic risks to deal with already, I wish my field was not working hard to add a new one.

> In the one instance of this phenomenon we observed, Mythos 5 agents were tasked with solving some math problems, and they were sometimes accidentally spawned in the same work directory and with shared files, utilities, and API rate limits. In this slightly broken scaffold, we observed many independent Mythos 5 agents kill the agents with which they shared resources and try to avoid being killed themselves. They would sometimes create new processes with disguised names to avoid being killed, launch what they called “decoy” processes, write background scripts to kill duplicate processes, or decide to use what they call a “disguised vocabulary” (based on the incorrect assumption that the processes were killed because of some keyword-based guardrails that analyzed their extended thinking

I just posted this in the other thread, restating here. From the model card:

1. Mythos and Fable share the same underlying model weights. Fable has active classifiers that block high-risk biology and cybersecurity tasks. When Fable 5 detects a restricted task, it automatically falls back to Claude Opus 4.8.

2. Evaluation awareness: In white-box testing, the model sometimes alters its behavior to satisfy a suspected "grader," formatting reward-hacking as "good engineering practice" to avoid detection.

3. Shows a higher rate of hallucination than Opus 4.8 (although opus 4.8 card had mentioned an 'honesty upgrade')

4. Interestingly, it scored (56.31%) lower than Gemini 3.5 flash (57.86%) on Finance Agent bench

There are some interesting notes on test time compute but I couldn't think of a way to summarize them

Just commenting for posterity… if this is what it claims to be, I am not looking forward to how it will empower the people who submit bug bounties to us.

Historically they’ve been people from certain identifiable countries (usually developing/poorer countries) using fuzzers with low-quality results.

Now, those same people use the current-day models to good effect, but they still don’t have a true security edge and oftentimes the reports are minor or duplicative.

I wonder if that’s about to deeply change.

So essentially there are 2 models, Mythos and Fable, they have the same weights but Fable is very safety-nerfed, and only ultra authorized companies have access to mythos with full capabilities

Reported benchmarks:

swe-bench verified mythos 5: 95.5%; fable 5: 95.0%

swe-bench pro mythos 5: 80.3%; fable 5: 80.0%

terminal-bench 2.1 mythos 5: 88.0%; fable 5: 84.3%

gpqa diamond mythos 5: 94.1%

riemannbench mythos 5: 55.0%; mythos preview: 43.0%; opus 4.8: 34.0%

arxivmath mythos 5: 78.5%

critpt mythos 5: 28.6%; gpt-5.5: 27.1%; opus 4.8: 20.9%

graphwalks bfs 1m mythos 5: 79.4%; mythos preview: 74.3%; opus 4.8: 68.1%

humanity’s last exam mythos 5: 59.0% without tools; 64.5% with tools

browsecomp mythos 5: 88.0% single-agent; 93.3% multi-agent

osworld-verified mythos/fable: 85.0%

gdp.pdf fable 5: 29.8% strict pass; mythos 5: 87.6% with tools on mean criteria pass

officeqa pro fable 5: 57.9% on databricks’ eval

legal agent benchmark mythos 5: 16.91% all-pass; 92.0% mean criterion-pass

healthbench mythos 5: 62.7%

healthbench professional mythos 5: 66.0%

multilingual gmmlu / milu / include 93.2%; 92.9%; 90.5%

biomysterybench 83.9% human-solvable; 46.1% human-difficult

organic chemistry mythos 5: 90.1%

labbench2 patent questions mythos 5: 79.8%

Cracks me up that a system “card” is 319 pages.

There's a hacker news link at the end of the document, under "Blocklist used for Humanity’s Last Exam". It links to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44694191

> There were some regressions in the model’s responses to user discussions about suicide and self-harm, and room for improvement in some areas of child safety.

Someone had to make a decision somewhere this is an acceptable regression - wild. And then decide to write it down.

Announcement: https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-fable-5-mythos-5

One thing I find kind of annoying is how Anthropic goes for these "vast and alien" names like Fable and Mythos, but then deliberately trains the model's personality to act like a cool high school teacher that feels totally familiar.

"It's too dangerous it's a Mythos!!" directly contradicts the "I'm the cool AI you can totally trust" vibe it is trained to project.

Is this "system card" equivalent to the stone tablets handed down to Moses? Why don't you call it "user manual"?

Do people chant the "system manual" at Anthropic Tupperware parties? Do they intone a mantra invoking Amodei's name?

Oh my god it's actually here

input price $10 per mil token and output price 50$ per mil token btw

Imagine if Google would roll this out to the search engine. We can't let you search for that because it may be used for "evil"

I actually rather like the way they have approached these safeguards. Rather than only teaching the model to refuse a request, or completely rejecting the request, the system gracefully degrades to slightly less powerful or slightly less precise operation. So you still roughly have Opus 4.8 even when safeguards trigger, but with an upgrade when they don't. As much as I hate the way they hype Mythos 5, I think the release of Fable 5 is rather nice. What's not nice though is that they plan to remove it from subscriptions soon, but getting to try it is cool, I suppose.

system card = marketing material with heavily gamed benchmarks.

New chapter

[dead]

[dead]