soft-shell crabvietnam crab exporter

Simon Willison’s Weblog

Subscribe

Wednesday, 10th June 2026

If Claude Fable stops helping you, you’ll never know (via) Jonathon Ready highlights one of the more eyebrow-raising details from the 319 page system card for Fable 5 and Mythos 5. Here's a longer excerpt, highlights mine:

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.

I believe this is the first time Anthropic have announced these kinds of silent interventions. The justification still feels pretty science-fiction to me - the linked article talks about "recursive self-improvement". I'm not at all keen on a model that silently corrupts its replies to questions about "ML accelerator design" purely to slow down research that might conflict with Anthropic's own goals!

Update: Anthropic walked back this policy in the face of widespread outrage from the research community.

# 12:37 am / ai, generative-ai, llms, anthropic, claude, ai-ethics, claude-mythos

Easy solution to slow down recursive AI self improvement:

  • The lab with the top-ranked model must agree THEY must not use it for working on frontier AI
  • But everyone else should have access to it.

By definition, this means the frontier doesn't advance.

It also has the critical benefit of avoiding a dangerous power imbalance.

Anthropic has chosen the opposite of the safe path: they are allowing themselves, the current top lab, to use their top model for frontier AI research. They've said they'll sabotage others who try.

This means the AI frontier advances, & power imbalance increases.

(To be clear, I don't think we should try to slow down recursive AI self improvement - I think we should open it up and democratize it as much as possible. My point is: if you claim we should slow down, and you have the best model, you should ensure your org can't use it.)

Jeremy Howard, in a Twitter thread

# 3:23 pm / ai, generative-ai, llms, jeremy-howard, anthropic, ai-ethics, claude-mythos

Sighting 10:00 AM – 10:20 AM — Brown Pelican, European Starling, Great Blue Heron, in Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, CA, US, CA
Brown Pelican
Brown Pelican
European Starling
European Starling
Great Blue Heron
Great Blue Heron
Great Blue Heron
Great Blue Heron

DiffusionGemma (via) Last May Google briefly released an experimental Gemini Diffusion model. I tried the preview at the time and recorded it running at 857 tokens/second. It was an exciting model, but Google made no further announcements about it.

That research has returned in the best possible way: as a new open weight (Apache 2 licensed) Gemma model, google/diffusiongemma-26B-A4B-it.

NVIDIA are currently hosting the model for free on their NIM cloud API. I used that API to generate this pelican, which took 4.4s (according to time uv run generate.py) to return 2,409 tokens - so at least 500 tokens/second.

Flat minimalist illustration of a white pelican with a large orange beak riding a red bicycle with black wheels, against a pale blue background with a green line representing the ground

# 8 pm / google, ai, generative-ai, llms, nvidia, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, gemma, llm-release, llm-performance

Research Can DuckDB run untrusted SQL as safely as Datasette runs SQLite? — Investigating the security of running untrusted SQL in DuckDB compared to Datasette with SQLite, this project establishes that DuckDB can be sandboxed to match—and sometimes exceed—the safety of SQLite, but requires more than its basic `read_only=True` option. Datasette achieves safe SQL exposure by using engine-level read-only connections and opcode-based time limits in SQLite, which inherently prevents unauthorized file or network access.

Highlights from the release notes:

  • Tools can now ask the user questions mid-execution. Tools that declare a context parameter receive a ToolContext object, and await context.ask_user(...) can ask a yes/no, multiple-choice (options=[...]) or free-text (free_text=True) question. While a question is unanswered the agent turn suspends: the question renders as a form in the chat UI and persists to the internal database, so suspended conversations survive a server restart. Once answered, the tool re-executes from the top with stored answers replayed, so call ask_user() before performing side effects. #20
  • New built-in save_query tool: the agent can save SQL it has written as a Datasette stored query. Saving always requires human approval - the agent shows the full SQL plus the proposed name, database and visibility, and nothing is stored until you click Yes. #20

The ask_user() feature was enabled by the new LLM alpha I built yesterday with the help of Claude Fable 5.

Tuesday, 9th June 2026
Thursday, 11th June 2026

2026 » June

MTWTFSS
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930