I didn’t think to disable memory before I cancelled my plan, but I was getting blocked similarly for having a lot of biology chats (nothing close to “biosafety related”; all stuff that would be in standard textbooks or publications on biophysics). The classifier would activate even on a new conversation on a pure math problem or even travel suggestions…

But at the end of the day, if I can’t use it to help with anything biology related in the slightest then it is a completely worthless product to me, so I switched to OpenAI.

I’m in the US and my entire account became unusable for any type of questions with Fable because I had research questions about modeling antibody-antigen binding and abstract chemical dynamics. Nothing close to biosafety related, pure, basic textbook level biophysics. Had to cancel my Max plan and switch to OpenAI which so far has a much less ridiculous classifier.

Yeah, this feature is only useful to scientists who work at institutions that have deals with Anthropic to use the models without the classifiers.

This isn’t true in math; see the proof of Crouzeix’s conjecture which was done by GPT 5.6 Sol in response to a prompt from a neurosurgery resident who had no deep math background, was learning that subject to better understand radiology, and thought it sounded like a cool theorem.

> Jin reported that the proof was obtained with the assistance of OpenAI's GPT-5.6 Sol model during an approximately sixteen-hour autonomous reasoning session in ChatGPT Work, after which he checked the resulting argument

You're wrong

I cancelled my Claude max subscription. Somehow every query I sent was flagged as bio or chem, even pure mathematics questions. Not going to waste money paying for a “max” subscription that won’t ever let me use the top tier model…

Sol is great and has never blocked a request, and generally gives great answers. Happily switched over to it now.

I cancelled my Max subscription as I was unable to ever get Fable to handle a single query, with everything getting dropped down to Opus (even purely mathematical prompts). Given its lower quality, and the lack of such limitations when using GPT pro, I just couldn’t see the point to continue to subscribe to an expensive Max plan that doesn’t actually let me use the top tier model…

I actually cancelled my max plan for Claude today due to this silliness. I can’t get Fable to answer a single question, even pure mathematical questions that have no bio/chem references. It was a totally worthless addition to my account…

Do you have examples we could try?

Alternatively, many faculty may be simply adjusting their curves to avoid failing too many students because they are incentivized to avoid giving too many low grades. Lower grades generally result in lower course evals, which can impact raises and promotion, and low grades can also result in additional attention from admin that no professor wants to deal with…

Their review of MacOS 26 is 79 pages when downloaded as a pdf, so they still sometimes have in depth articles. But I agree that that level of detail isn’t as common as in the past.

It’s good, too.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/09/macos-26-tahoe-the-a...

I've nearly exclusively used Julia since 2017. I don't think this is a perverse use of such functions -- long ago I naturally guessed I could use `cumsum!` on the same input and output and it would correctly overwrite the values (which now gives a similar warning in the documentation). However, when I first used it that way I tested if it did what I expected to verify my assumption.

It is good the documentation is now explicit that the behavior is not guaranteed in this case, but even better would be if aliasing were detected and handled (at least for base Julia arrays, so that the warning would only be needed for non-base types).

Still, the lesson is that when using generic functions one should look at what they expect of their input, and if this isn't documented one should at least test what they are giving thoroughly and not assume it just works. I've always worked this way, and never run into surprises like the types of issues reported in the blog post.

Currently there is no documentation on what properties an input to `sum!` must support in the doc string, so one needs to test its correctness when using it outside of base Julia data types (I haven't checked the broader docs for an interface specification, but if there is one it really should be linked in the docstring).

But your use of cumsum!() seems natural; I can see using it that way, and might have done so myself. The use of sum!() under discussion seems weird, though.