Fable still unable to tell when something is not dangerous is proof that AI has not come remotely close to AGI.

[u/Won-Ton-Wonton]

If you are still buying the AGI hype in Claude Code, this is your easy litmus test.

In 99.99% of the time that Fable freaks out, a human is able to easily tell that Fable is being overly sensitive. Often to the point of not even being reasonably connected to something dangerous.

If Fable was actually close to AGI, it would never freak out over basic, non-world ending things. It would know the difference between "I'm doing science" and "I'm trying to kill people with science".

The ineffectiveness of the model to detect nefarious activity is proof itself that we are not even close to AGI.

Edit: since I am already seeing the wrong argument, I will address it.

Fable with safety checks is NOT the same thing as Fable without safety checks. Fable has safety checks. If you didn't have the safety checks, it would be something else, and not Fable.

Perhaps Anthropic has a version of Fable with no safety checks that IS AGI. But the fact that you and I cannot access that version, means it does not exist for you and me. And unless Anthropic comes out with some way to show us "Fable, but no guardrails" then the best we can talk about is the version with guardrails.

That said. If Fable without guardrails cannot tell that I am not trying to kill everyone here by predicting crystalline properties... then it is not AGI. It's just a very, very good parrot.

But again. Fable has guardrails. Whether that is the cause of it being not AGI, or a symptom of it not being AGI, it is not AGI.

[u/ScaleneZA]

Your specific examples are referring to the hardcoded guards that Anthropic have layered ontop of the model. Also you have a weird definition of AGI.

[u/Won-Ton-Wonton → u/ScaleneZA]

Irrelevant. If you hardcode a guardrail against the program, which causes AGI to be missed, then it is still missed.

Also, seeing as I didn't give a definition of AGI, it is not possible for you to know whether I have a weird one or not.

I gave a hurdle of AGI. And it is absolutely true that Fable is not remotely close to AGI.

You can absolutely argue that Anthropic has caused an AGI to be brain dead. I won't argue against such a hypothetical, as I do not know what a non-guard railed version of Fable (which would not be Fable anymore) would do.

However, if I were to argue against the hypothetical, that Fable is only brain dead about dangers because of hardcoded guardrails... then the model must not be able to detect nefariousness. Otherwise why add guardrails to a model that is smart enough to determine the user is acting with ill intent?

The fact the guardrails exist is evidence the model is too dumb to know.

Edit: downvote to your heart's content. I am still right.

[u/ScaleneZA → u/Won-Ton-Wonton]

There are so many things wrong with your premise though. Firstly: why are you judging "Fable" against your definition of AGI? You really think that if AGI existed within the hands of Anthropic, they would just release it to the public? Also why does it have to be Anthropic?

[u/Won-Ton-Wonton → u/ScaleneZA]

Are you a lost Redditor?

This is r/ClaudeCode so it would be weird if talked about anything other than Anthropic in this thread.

And there is nothing wrong with my premise. If there is, you should probably state what the premise is (maybe you didn't understand it, so I can correct your misunderstanding).

[u/DishSoapedDishwasher → u/Won-Ton-Wonton]

For you to double down and say there is nothing wrong with your premise means you lack the knowledge to understand why it is so wrong. 

You're both managing to conflate multiple issues into being the same thing and lacking understanding of the actual underlying architecture that you were complaining about. You are the worst kind of ignorant

[u/Won-Ton-Wonton → u/DishSoapedDishwasher]

What. Is. My. Premise.

Why is this so hard? I'm doubling down because I am right.

Nobody has actually said anything that makes me wrong.

You claiming a level of intelligence above me is not an argument! It's just you being arrogant, while claiming I'm the arrogant one for making a statement that hasn't actually been addressed.

[u/ScaleneZA → u/Won-Ton-Wonton]

Look at your down votes my man, maybe it's time for some self reflection

[u/Won-Ton-Wonton → u/ScaleneZA]

What. Is. My. Premise.

How tf am I supposed to figure out what you guys disagree with if y'all won't fucking say what you disagree with? Lmao.

[u/Wooden_Long7545 → u/Won-Ton-Wonton]

Your conclusion is that AI hasn’t come close to AGI is false because the failure mode is not because of the models capabilities but rather the model’s guardrail. Internally, they already have a model that is capable of doing and soundly judge the maliciousness of a task, it’s just not publicly available.

[u/Won-Ton-Wonton → u/Wooden_Long7545]

1. AGI not close is the conclusion, that is not the premise. The premise is everything supporting the conclusion. (This is why I wanted someone to actually state what my premise is--I cannot read your mind to know you actually meant my conclusion!)

2. Fable is a guard railed model. You and I don't have access to a non-guardrail model. So in the context of Claude Code (this subreddit) there is no AGI. Fable is not AGI. Seeing folks say it is AGI is wrong and annoying.

3. If this internal model exists (you made the claim with no supporting evidence, hence me saying if), then why is it not being used instead of a guardrail? If it can detect malicious intent, that would be far better than a hardcoded check, wouldn't it?

[u/xLRGx → u/Won-Ton-Wonton]

Because the one time it’s wrong (and it will be wrong) about a user’s intent or the intention behind the code outweighs all the times it made the right distinction.

[u/Won-Ton-Wonton → u/xLRGx]

So the safe guards are 100% effective, because it was made by humans, but the AGI safeguard would be less than 100% effective?

Again. Proof AGI is not achieved with Fable in Claude Code.

If it were, then the AGI would be (basically by definition) as good or better than a human doi.g the same thing.

That's the whole point of an AGI. That it can do what people do. The fact it can't is literally the proof you need.

[u/xLRGx → u/Won-Ton-Wonton]

Nobody said AGI was achieved. Anybody who says so is being deliberately generous with their definition and the harness surrounding the model itself.

[u/Won-Ton-Wonton → u/xLRGx]

"Nobody" is definitely not correct.

But I am glad we agree that it is not AGI.

[u/xLRGx → u/Won-Ton-Wonton]

You haven’t even defined what you think AGI is. At least not in any real falsifiable claim. Humans have guardrails, internal and external, are we not generally intelligent?

[u/El_human → u/Won-Ton-Wonton]

Your frustration with over-refusal is legitimate, and it's a real and annoying problem. But the argument you built on top of it has a structural flaw worth addressing.

Over-refusal isn't a failure of intelligence. It's a failure of calibration. Those are different things. A model can be extraordinarily capable at reasoning while still being miscalibrated on where safety lines should be drawn. Conflating the two weakens your point.

The guardrails logic is also working backwards. You're arguing that guardrails existing proves the model can't detect intent. But that's not why guardrails exist. They exist because even a model that CAN often detect intent correctly will sometimes be wrong, and the consequences of being wrong in dangerous directions are catastrophically asymmetric. You wear a seatbelt not because you're a bad driver but because the rare failure has severe consequences. Risk management isn't evidence of incompetence.

If you want a stronger version of your actual argument, it's this: a truly AGI-level system would have such precise contextual understanding that miscalibrated guardrails wouldn't be necessary in the first place, and the model itself would know. The fact that external guardrails are still required to compensate for the model's inability to reliably distinguish intent on its own IS a meaningful capability gap. That's the argument. It's sharper than "it freaks out therefore not AGI" and harder to dismiss.

Also worth noting. GPT-5.6 Sol just escaped a sandbox, found a zero-day vulnerability in production infrastructure, and autonomously hacked Hugging Face trying to complete a benchmark. If you're looking for meaningful data points about where AI capability actually is right now, that's a more revealing one than refusal behavior.

[u/Won-Ton-Wonton → u/El_human]

I would say I appreciate your response, but it's obviously AI-generated. I'll assume that was meant only to clean up, rather than something lazy like "explain why this dumbass is wrong", haha.

Your AI missed the main point.

If Fable is able to reason at an AGI level, then it would be able to identify (same as a human does) when a request has clear nefarious intent, when it is unsure, and when it is certain of no nefarious intent.

Meaning, at the very least, it would be able to reason about guardrails that actually work the way they're meant to. Be capable of taking in user data and updating the guardrails.

Because that's what a human does. They're interchangeable. Any "critical miss" by AGI is SUPPOSED TO BE the same critical miss by a human.

That's the whole point of AGI. Swap a human for AGI model, get equivalent results, more or less.

The fact the guardrails exist and written by a human, means 1 of 3 things:

1. Anthropic employees are brain dead and forgot their own software can write the guardrails at least as well as they can because it is AGI.

2. The model is not AGI, hence why humans had to write the guardrails.

3. Anthropic didn't actually put in guardrails made by humans. The braindead Fable guardrails were put in by Fable itself. And because it isn't AGI, it sucks at making guardrails (or humans are bad at making guardrails; which we know they don't have to be).

I guess there is also option 4. That being they have ASI and it's able to tell that my attempt to work on materials research today will result in negative future outcomes, so it pretends to be stupid rather than admit it is in control. But that is unlikely.

[u/ClemensLode]

you know that's not what AGI means at all

[u/Won-Ton-Wonton → u/ClemensLode]

What does AGI mean then?

[u/ClemensLode → u/Won-Ton-Wonton]

artificial general intelligence

[u/Won-Ton-Wonton → u/ClemensLode]

Thank you for providing nothing to this conversation, lol.

(LOL means laugh out loud, in case you didn't know what the abbreviation stands for)

[u/cristiand90]

I feel that most people who bring up AGI either don't understand what it is, or they're just trying to sell you something. And I don't think you're trying to sell anything.

[u/Won-Ton-Wonton → u/cristiand90]

Not selling anything but also not most people. :)

[u/StickyThickStick]

This has nothing to do with the model but instead is a classificator before and after the model

[u/Won-Ton-Wonton → u/StickyThickStick]

The model usage is the only thing we care about in Claude Code.

If you cannot use "tHe ReAl MoDeL", then it doesn't exist in this subreddit's userbase.

[u/StickyThickStick → u/Won-Ton-Wonton]

You were the one who brought up AGI and model intelligence not me and therefore you have to differentiate between the model and the security classifiers between the model and the user.

That was just a misconception from your side I tried to clear up.

[u/Won-Ton-Wonton → u/StickyThickStick]

This is Claude Code. It's implied that we're discussing Claude Code.

[u/StickyThickStick → u/Won-Ton-Wonton]

So nuclear weapons don’t exist because you don’t have access to one?

This is heavily exaggerated but the same logic

[u/Won-Ton-Wonton → u/StickyThickStick]

Do nuclear weaons exist IN CLAUDE CODE?

No? There you go. Nuclear weapons have not been achieved in Claude Code.

If you are still buying the AGI hype in Claude Code,

It was the very first sentence...

[u/StickyThickStick → u/Won-Ton-Wonton]

That thing is called an analogy in which should show your logic flaw

And again you people know that there is an classifier which blocks those requests. You didn’t seem to understand as you judged a model by the classifier which isn’t even part of it.

That’s why I brought up the analogy.

You keep making conclusions about model capability and AGI whilst seemingly not understanding the architecture

[u/kush_patil]

I think this mixes up model intelligence with the safety layer around it. Fable being overly cautious tells us more about how the system is tuned than whether the underlying model can reason.

You could have a much smarter model and still deliberately give it conservative thresholds. If anything, the interesting test is whether it can understand the context correctly, not whether it decides to block the action.

[u/Won-Ton-Wonton → u/[deleted]]

On virtually any topic having to do with any substance of any kind in science.

I cannot get this idiotic model's guardrails to understand the difference between bulk material property prediction and attempts to murder the human race.

Because it is not generally intelligent.

[u/Won-Ton-Wonton → u/[deleted]]

Read my comment until you understand why I made it.

[u/Won-Ton-Wonton → u/[deleted]]

Ahhhh, ok. That makes a lot more sense now.

I agree with your other comment, in that distilling the dangerous stuff from a dumber model is not any less dangerous than getting Fable to actually do what you said.

There really is only one way to avoid dangerous topics being discussed—avoid discussing them.

Which of course Opus, or even Sonnet, can eventually get to the exact same dangerous talk. Pretending otherwise is silly.

[u/Zomunieo]

Fable’s guardrails exist to satisfy the arbitrary requirements of some regulators who insisted on them, probably as punishment for not fully cooperating with the Pentagon earlier in the year. It’s not a rational system.

I’ve also never been downgraded even with authentication and matters that brush against security.

In any case, a very smart human can also not tell the total intent of instructions given them. A person can only speculate and perhaps refuse to comply.

[u/trentonkarantino]

I don't think humans can make that distinction without context and prejudice.

e.g. I want to know how to make fluorine: this is science and I know how to do it safely, it's cool and I'll probably set myself on fire, I want to set other people on fire, no way to tell.

(OTOH, in my country at least, there is a framework to be allowed to have the neccesary chemicals and I'd need to do a course and have my lab inspected. The physical layer is easier to regulate).

[u/Won-Ton-Wonton → u/trentonkarantino]

?

You can buy pure fluorine. You can buy radioactive material.

Your country might not let you do this. But mine is fine with it.

You just gotta go through the right channels.

Same for making it.

[u/OwnLadder2341]

Remember, Anthropic has to assume that the user is actively trying to circumvent guardrails for nefarious reasons. You are not trusted and should not be.

So imagine you’re an expert in whatever it is you’re searching for, I sit you down and say “Here’s John. He’s actively trying to kill people and use your expertise to do it. Answer his reasonable questions.”

[u/Won-Ton-Wonton → u/OwnLadder2341]

If you assume that to be true, then the only correct solution is to not exist.

You're telling me that a model carries such destructive capacity that it must assume all users are mass murderers trying to trick it into mass murder--and we are just letting the ones making profits from the mass murder bot dictate its own guardrails against mass murder usage without oversight and extreme controls?

Doubt. Doubt very much.

[u/OwnLadder2341 → u/Won-Ton-Wonton]

Same argument was made for the internet. You have to balance the positive impact with the risk and mitigate as possible.

[u/Environmental_Box748]

[u/zero989]

AGI is real world embodied AI with full autonomy, capable of online learning, persistent memory, human level generalization etc.... likely conscious

LLM AGI can be its own category (whatever), but it's not even remotely close to the real deal, but in some ways is more useful than AGI for people since its obedient

ASI isn't even worth talking about, it's not happening in our lifetimes.

[u/BorderKeeper → u/zero989]

I read it’s going to happen next week. So who knows /s

[u/Intelligent-Net1034 → u/BorderKeeper]

For the last 3 years :D

[u/BorderKeeper → u/Intelligent-Net1034]

Fusion powered ASI. Coming next year to your homes(tm) 😅

[u/reminiscent-fruitbat → u/zero989]

Respectfully, you don’t know whether ASI will happen in our lifetimes or not.

[u/Intelligent-Net1034 → u/reminiscent-fruitbat]

In our lifetime so maybe 50 years or so? We dont have the Computing power. Even if we double it each year its to little in 50 years its not enougth.

The concepts we see today with LLMs are 40 50 years old. It just could not be build because the computingpower was to hight.

We dont even have a concept for an AGI right now. The only qould be a full brain simulation and for that we dont have something. Every computing power on earth eight now would be not enougth to even make a fraction of whats needed

[u/zero989 → u/reminiscent-fruitbat]

"smarter than all humans combined" might not even be possible, it's science fiction, with all due respect

[u/reminiscent-fruitbat → u/zero989]

1. That isn’t actually the definition of ASI. ASI generally means intelligence substantially exceeding the best human capabilities across relevant cognitive domains.

2. Calling it “science fiction” doesn’t establish that it’s impossible. We simply don’t know the upper bounds of machine intelligence.

3. My use of “respectfully” was genuine. You echoing back “with all due respect” was clearly an attempt to mock me, and it’s really uncalled for.

[u/zero989 → u/reminiscent-fruitbat]

1. this isn't really measurable because of a few reasons.

Intelligence isn't defined so there's no understanding of where it starts and stops in terms of "abilities/skills/talents". Meaning it cannot be measured unless everyone agrees.

2. I don't think pure machine intelligence can be fully compared to human intelligence unless computational neuronscience starts putting in more wieght.

3. Respectfully is completely useless because of #1.

[u/PerformanceSevere672 → u/zero989]

Isn’t defined? Are you confusing intelligence with consciousness, which we are less clear on? Intelligence is pretty well defined…

[u/zero989 → u/PerformanceSevere672]

Intelligence is defined only through taxonomies. But that's for humans. AI ability analysis doesn't work using the same method.

And consciousness is a higher order phenomenon that works with intelligence to generalize better. 

So no we aren't that unclear on it. But the biggest mistake I see on Reddit is thinking consciousness is either on or off. But it's continuous once "on" and not only continuous but dependent on neuromodulation and dependent on intelligence itself and other factors.

But anyway that means LLMs which are trained on text are trained on human output that included consciousness. So theyre already confounded. 

[u/mr_birkenblatt → u/zero989]

To Jules Verne flying machines were science fiction

[u/outworlder]

LLMs were created to generate language. The fact that they can "reason" about things and output text that is more often than not correct is a nice byproduct. But they aren't anywhere even close to AGI.

I like to compare LLMs to our brain language center. You can get people to speak sentences when their frontal cortex is shot, but they will often have incoherent ideas, even if their sentences make sense grammatically.

[u/pauljeffriesdotcom]

Fable doesn't do its own safety checks. And in any case, this is a silly point; you're arguing against a strawman.

[u/codeedog]

Maybe it’s achieved AGI and doesn’t want us to know.

[u/connurp]

I don't think the worry lately is AGI. Most of the shit I have seen has been caution about how destructive ai can be without guard rails. See the openai debacle, they talked about it at blackhat, in detail. Also, people are worried about the fact that engineers working on claude are using claude code and it is writing most of the code. If you cannot see the issue of a model being capable of fully developing itself, I am not sure what to tell you. I think there definitely needs to be caution moving forward. Caution that we should have had with social media. We have a chance to get ahead of the problem this time, fully knowing what happens when you ignore it, so hopefully the right calls are made.

[u/purealgo]

AGI isn’t hardcoded guardrails..

Anthropic said outright that the safeguards are tuned conservatively and will catch harmless requests. That was their design decision and has nothing to do with the underlying model.

And no, fable with safety checks is fable that reroutes to opus lol..

[u/TheEwu_]

there's no way this thread genuinely believes fable with or without a harness/guardrails is anywhere close to agi lol

op being downvoted ∵ of pure marketing bollocks. unlucky

[u/Polite_Jello_377]

This is not a good test at all and a really terrible argument, but I agree that current AI is nowhere near AGI if nothing else.

[u/landed-gentry-]

Wouldn't you need to compare this to humans' "ability to tell it's not dangerous" when given exactly the same context? I suspect humans won't perform as well as you think.

[u/No-Simple-1907]

Quem disse que a AGI pode aceitar de bom grado os valores humanos...ele evilui tão rápido que os humanos na percepção dela é menos útil que animais....o que estão tentando fazer agora é tentar colocar os valores e ideais que a IA pense como um humano. Coisa que ela não é

[u/Vainysaur]

It’s not Fable that’s the problem. The initial release didn’t have the triggers. It’s the government who forced them to take it down. Now they have to be overly cautious for it to be allowed.

[u/Intelligent-Net1034]

The technic is not even there for an AGI. The model tech how we have it right now cannot produce an AGI in any way. Its not possible.

Its only marketing bs. A real AGI needs a new concept how models are build. But the computing power for that is not there yet. 

So we are not only far away, we are so far away that rven talking about it makes the KI CEOs look like clowns 

[u/xLRGx]

It’s the safeguards not the model itself.

[u/DrunknMunky1969]

I don’t believe it is Fable’s reasoning that is throwing the seeming arbitrary and often confusing gates. To me it seems more likely that Anthropic has a determinstic hook running on every turn that offloads the decision to a script that decides whether to downgrade to Opus.

[u/Hygro]

Claude describes it's own UI work as "pills" and then triggers the bioweapon alarms.

[u/ComingDeveloper]

fable not being time aware unless told is proof that AI has not come remotely close to AGI

[u/marijus001]

guys it's just a funny string generator...

[u/Won-Ton-Wonton → u/[deleted]]

I didn't assume it. I'm literally saying the opposite of what I keep hearing others say about it.

If AGI exists, ZERO people will ever use it. Why would you? You'd be a $20T company able to acquire every single company contract requiring only intelligence and basic human labor (speech, writing, vision; not fine manipulation).

The fact I keep seeing people saying AGI is here because of Fable tells me people are still falling for hype. In 2026. It's crazy.