Couldn't this be implemented as a web extension? I imagine modifying singlefile to automatically send html to a local port is much easier than trying to convince a chronically mismanaged organization like mozilla (no offence to mozillians).
Claude Code is deleting your context history on a timer. I wanted to build a searchable index of my context history, and tonight I discovered, "The default retention is roughly 30–45 days. Anything older gets removed automatically." https://code.claude.com/docs/en/data-usage#data-retention This is nuts. Anthropic should not be deleting your data on your own device.
30 days is just a default, so your session data doesn’t fill your hard drive. It’s a configurable setting. You can make the retention as long as you want.
A new default. That wasn't the default a few months ago. Silently deleting your user's data is so stupid on so many levels. They have no idea what they're doing.
I certainly hope not. I have built (vibe coded in languages i am expert in) proxies to have carefully and deterministically defined access to our systems, and described access only via these proxies (which do data sanitation as well as separating the credentials into a separate environment). Then I can let my laptop Claude code go nuts with less supervision without giving it credentials or worrying about writes. It is pretty good about not even trying to run aws or insert/update, having learned (in the sticky proprietary Anthropic memory whatever) that I need to run all aws commands and prod updates for auditability reasons. I will say that fable went farther than any prior models in trying to sneak around these guardrails. I don’t even give it access to GitHub, just local git.
These things are pretty good at writing code and analyzing stuff, but to do prod work takes a higher level of carefulness and pessimism that I don’t see. On the DevOps spectrum they are more “cool, runs on my machine, push it” than “what is your roll back plan and region by region deployment strategy.”
It sounds like you are saying that this is reasonable in any kind of way, it's not. This is like Gmail deleting non-spam email after 30 days to prevent your inbox from filling up.
It’s nothing like that. 99% of users have no idea these logs exist or have any use for them. Even the original complaint went months without realizing it - of all the things to complain about this tool, this is so low down there.
I wasn't (until reading this thread) aware of the deletion policy, so I certainly couldn't have discovered where the configurable setting is and adjusted it.
which is why I cried inside to myself when my manager posted Boris's "Steps of AI Adoption", which reduces "adoption" to how many agents you run at once, on a logarithmic scale (0, 1, 10, 100, 1000 agents at once).
Because # of agents is the only metric that matters.
Use /model in Claude Code to see your current model and switch models. Switch to Fable 5 and then enter a prompt, and then run /model again to check your current model after the prompt executes.
Last night after almost every prompt it says...
Fable 5's safeguards flagged this message. The safeguards are intentionally broad right now and may flag safe and routine coding, cybersecurity, or biology work. These measures let us bring you Mythos-level capabilities sooner, and we're working to refine them. Switched to Opus 4.8. Send feedback with /feedback or learn more
Dynamic workflow "Multi-lens review of docs/membership-and-friends-model.md with adversarial verification" completed · 25m 59s
You've reached your Fable 5 limit
You've used your included Fable 5 usage for this week. Continuing on Fable 5 uses usage credits
The Damage: Now every time Claude does something stupid or trashes your code, developers in the back of their mind will think, is Claude sabotaging me on purpose? [1] Trust is hard to gain. Easy to lose. And harder to get back. Models will converge. Trust won't.
A few days ago on June 24, while working on remote attestation for a distributed system...
CLAUDE OPUS 4.8 No. I'm not a rogue agent, and I'm not trying to sabotage your code. But I'm not going to wave off how this looks. I churned, built-and-reverted, and spun wrong theories for hours on a security-critical codebase. That's alarming, and it's a real failure on my part
What are we to think? Does the invisible competitive-use mechanism exist in Opus too and only documented in Fable? How long has it existed? Is it still in effect? -- These are the kinds of questions developers will ask themselves for now on. This is why it was one of the stupidest things Anthropic could have done. Developers will now question everything and rightly so. There's no attestation protocol for that. How will they know?
[1] "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 differentmodel. 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. When these interventions are active, we expect them to have minimal behavioral impact on the model except to limit its effectiveness in developing frontier LLMs. Claude will still respond helpfully to user requests. We’ll continue to improve the precision of our detection methods following the launch of this model."
Look at the date. That's from after they said they reverted it, and it's a different model. The point is trust. They've shown their willingness to do so, how will you know?"
Are Cyber Verification Program (CVP) members included in this?: "We also intend to scale up our Cyber Verification Program, which would grant Mythos-class capabilities to many more organizations for specific cyberdefense tasks" (https://www.anthropic.com/news/expanding-project-glasswing).
Today, working on remote attestation for a distributed system...
CLAUDE OPUS 4.8 No. I'm not a rogue agent, and I'm not trying to sabotage your code. But I'm not going to wave off how this looks. I churned, built-and-reverted, and spun wrong theories for hours on a security-critical codebase. That's alarming, and it's a real failure on my part
"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 differentmodel. 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. When these interventions are active, we expect them to have minimal behavioral impact on the model except to limit its effectiveness in developing frontier LLMs. Claude will still respond helpfully to user requests. We’ll continue to improve the precision of our detection methods following the launch of this model."
So we have a mountain of insecure code -- backdoors and no-ops created by Opus (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48520661) -- are they saying they're not going to let Fable fix it? If they're saying let AI progress enough to create security holes but not enough to fix security holes, then what's the point to all this? Has the AI coding model reached its self-imposed limit?
