(www.anthropic.com)
Especially if those people aren't presently very bright, and are already mad at you for not helping them achieve their unrelated authoritarian goals.
I do not think this is somehow a 3D chess move by Anthropic. They are not masterminds, even if they'd really like to be. People who actually interact with their products know that Fable and Mythos are incremental improvements, not doomsday devices. I think this is a punitive move by an administration that loves being punitive, which they have unknowingly bolstered with their own dumb rhetoric.
Just more corrupt behavior from the contemptible kakistocracy that's busy running things into the ground and enriching themselves while they're at it.
They suggested the use of the very law used against them here...
[1] https://darioamodei.com/post/policy-on-the-ai-exponential
Congratulations, Dario!
But it seems likely that they took this possibility into account - and that they now prominently and unremovable show the "Fable not avaiable" (link - government said so) is likely with the intention to make pressure on the US government.
This prediction is quite falsifiable too so anyone is free to rub it in my face if it fails. If it's really a speculative insider trade the reversal will be done in the space of 2-3 weeks tops, but likely even faster. Probably on a workday. Kinda the same pattern they were doing with tariff swings until the market figured it out and stopped reacting.
Indeed, the lord works in mysterious ways.
They should have consulted their own models about the ramifications and unintended consequences; based on their actions over the past few months I think it is safe to say that the models are smarter than the decision-makers at anthropic, lol. I know the models are smarter than I am and even I could have told them that they were taking paths, FUD for example, that would lead to grief.
If you look outside HN, you'll see that people who interacted with Fable 5 overwhelmingly thought that it was a significant improvement, not simply an incremental one. Most reputable benchmarks show this as well.
My day-to-day take, for the coding I do (not security related): incremental, modest improvement, if any. Not worth the 2x cost. I've calmly continued to use Opus, happy that it seems like it got an allowance upgrade.
For most single issues/bugs/tickets, the quality difference wasn't noticeable. But that's like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. I was using Fable for much more ambitious and complex tasks that require orchestration, and it was crushing it. I described it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48505782
So yes, the benchmarks are indeed accurate: where Opus 4.8 would start strong and eventually struggle or run into obstacles, Fable would relentlessly keep working, keep accurate track of all work threads (e.g. multiple inter-dependent issues being worked in parallel by subagents) and would go above and beyond.
Every single worker and operation would need to be in countries with no extradition treaties, and even then they'd likely be limited to serving the tiny handful of nations that are willing/able to resist US pressure, so pretty much - Russia and China.
I also think that’s a big clown show. People think that LLMs accidentally get good with security patterns. That is not the case, they included all of that in the training data. They could also have left out the knowledge.
Or watch Primagen's "I think they are lying to you" with clips in it
Not only that, but also a golden opportunity to flex the muscle of anti-immigration.
Export control is not an effective tool for controlling a consumer facing technology developers everywhere want to use (see:VPNs) so there was no good faith policy justification for imposing an export control.
This is an administration that seems to be keeping track of who its friends are and aren't, and likes to be the center of every story. They also seem to like extracting concessions and reciprocal favors. We saw some of this behavior in the last administration too. US voters deserve better.
It's easy to wave this aside as the current administration playing political games. But I don't think there is any reason to assume that the current era of open availability of models is going to continue indefinitely. Do you think that Chinese labs will continue to release open models forever, even why they get to the level that Mythos is at now, and beyond? And do you think that a competent US government would have no interest in regulating and restricting model access in 2 years time, assuming that model capabilities continue to improve? I think we bias towards thinking the status quo is the norm and will continue, but this news invites us to question that assumption and think about different ways the future could go.
Yes.
I think the Chinese government either already has, or will soon, grasp that if they train the models that people use they dictate what people believe (at least around the margins where that's malleable), and they will happily throw resources at that.
And simultaneously that the only way they can actually get everyone to use their models is if it's possible for us to run them on our own hardware.
(This isn't exactly a utopian view of the future)
Qwen 3.7 is not open source; previous Qwen versions would have open source releases, but Qwen 3.7 plus does not. The second best Chinese model, Minimax M3, is testing the waters by taking longer and longer between “model release” and open sourcing it. This time, they spent 2 weeks after release before open sourcing it. There’s also a lot of rumors of GLM and Deepseek not open sourcing future models.
It’s pretty obvious that you cannot take Chinese models as open source for granted, they’ll be closed source soon.
There is no evidence here that the cutting edge labs have any durable advantage. Extrapolating current trends it seems likely that even the Europeans will be capable of meeting any given performance measure with enough time. In fact the evidence suggests that the capital required to run the models is where a moat will develop. Knowing the weights won't help much.
China may not care about open source, but they know they will personally fund AI through government investments while US relies on private investments, best way to scare private investments is a free capable alternative for everyone
Add on the fact that they actually invested in energy infrastructure and can offer AI very cheap to their citizens and you can get a population well versed in AI to reduce menial tasks and focus on more productive things (if we're to believe the claims of the technology)
There are lots of AI companies and it doesn’t seem that they all have the same funding fountain or share monetization goals. I wouldn’t read much into what each one of them is doing.
I think the larger problem is that restricting US AI companies gives the Chinese a leg up because they now have a window open where they can become the source of the most powerful models available due to government restrictions rather than on technical merits. All Anthropic customers just got a downgrade last evening, for example. While the Chinese are able to serve the world or whoever, the US corporations will be limited to the US market, or whatever the powers that be will allow. This restrictiveness could turn out to be disadvantageous to American companies since people will migrate to wherever they can get the most powerful models.
How much stock should we put into that graph, though, I'm not sure.
DeepSeek is developed by the largest Chinese hedge fund, their models used to make them $ on the share market are very profitable, they've never ever released anything on those models.
Somehow you are claiming that those same group of people are going to totally change their very consistent long term behaviour and start promoting openness when they are in the global leading position in AI?
I think you made this up.
Right now, I don’t believe any LLM company is profitable at all.
Unless you meant “more profitable” to mean “not-as-badly-negative profit”.
China knows that doing what Anthropic/OpenAI/Google/... are doing is impossible for them. No one outside of China in any sane condition will send their data to compute farms IN CHINA like people currently do with US-based frontier models. Even if they could muster the inference power.
Hence they do the second-best thing possible to attack the dominance of the US-based corporations: reduce their moat by open-sourcing models that are not fully equal, but practically useful and good enough for easily 90% of typical tasks people use agents for in their daily lives. But way cheaper to run.
As long as this arms race in AI continues, China as "number two" will have some incentive to continue open-sourcing models. But of course the US government might force a change if they continue to enforce limited public access to new frontier models - there is no market to minimize if a model is not allowed to be publicly available.
I think your vision of how the rest of the US sees the world is tinted by a massive bias.
But at work the calculus is entirely different. There is already lots of exposure to US companies (guess where our emails and tickets life), so the increase in espionage risk from adding another American company is small. Not zero, and trust towards AI companies is limited. But adding the first Chinese company to send data to would be a major risk. One nobody would sign off on, given the general reputation of the Chinese economy for widespread espionage, disregard for copyright and producing copies of successful products using insider information
Before the EU cleaned up Europe's act pretty considerably on corruption, US companies used corporate but also state-level espionage actors to level the playing field against a culture of bribes and they were fairly open about it. They absolutely needed to do it, because of the potential penalties back home if they engaged in bribery abroad.
The tables have turned, now. The EU runs much more cleanly than decisionmaking in DC, which is clearly corrupted and lubricated with cash and opportunities for failsons and faildaughters; it has accelerated radically quite recently but it was heading that way from the first Bush era.
But I'd bet the corporate-state merger of industrial espionage is in full flow.
I have zero expectation that a similar culture exists inside Chinese companies. If you think these corporate and national cultures are the same, you need to adjust your priors.
Not necessarily of the companies themselves, though; just embedded people at the right hiring level.
> Given how generally ideological the people working in these companies are
History has many examples of truly surprising spies, over the long term. Including in highly ideological environments such as animal rights and eco-campaigning groups. The embedded police spying scandals in the UK make this clear.
It is naïve to think that there are no CIA or NSA employees in some functional role at these two businesses, just as it is naïve to think that they don't have intelligence industry contacts playing them because they are naïve. You only have to look at how the NSA weakened open cryptography to see that two companies staffed by young, absurdly rich people barely out of college with wobbly moral e/acc compasses might be getting played by homegrown spooks.
> I have zero expectation that a similar culture exists inside Chinese companies. If you think these corporate and national cultures are the same, you need to adjust your priors.
I suggested absolutely nothing of the sort — I flatly was not talking about China at all.
FWIW it cuts both ways: in the dim and distant past of the early dot-com era, I remember encountering someone who wafted inexplicably between US and UK multinational companies who I thought was possibly British intelligence. An odd duck for sure.
Quite funny because if you use that phrase verbatim except swapping China with the US it could actually fit.
Good governments try to do things that are in the interest of their population, and yes it could mean opposite interests to your/someone else governments.
No reason to blame US, Israel, China, Russia, etc. They just defend their piece of cake.
Again I have to echo the previous poster's point: Most people outside of the US really do not see the US as some much better alternative than China. If anything, in the specific area of LLMs, China are the ones doing work benefitting the everyman whereas almost everything the US labs do does not.
That said, I imagine e.g. South Americans thinking very differently on this front
what did you think US-based AI is trained on
I'm pretty sure the US just jumped to the front of the list with their biggest IP heist in humankind history
China indeed has a general reputation for widespread espionage, so any Chinese company wanting to expand into the European market has to prove it isn't spying on its potential customers. US companies have traditionally been seen as friendly, so their platforms are essentially built around "trust me bro" guarantees.
In a world where both China and the US are now seen as hostile-by-default, this might actually leave some Chinese companies with an advantage in their ability to demonstrate trustworthiness.
It’s the same paradox as people claiming: “we are European, our data is safer in Europe” when actually your privacy is higher when your data is stored in China (or Russia) you are safer because it is out of reach from your local government.
The only thing I dislike, and that’s no matter the service, is that my data or information usage is shared with third-party.
For example, Anthropic conveniently forgets to mention Datadog has tons and tons of information about Claude users, or that your data transits through machines they don’t operate.
Like if they could release Ch-ythos 6 tomorrow BUT it had Western ideals, would they take the fame, clout, attention, & profit, or stick to the party line?
(hope the monolithic brush is appropriate, considering, I mean it's an impressive system/country even if I have my own strong preferences - also I've taken as true reporting about their models deflecting etc. on sensitive topics)
I use LLMs for health, design and programming.
If you want to make a political or religious pamphlet it’s not a single LLM that you should base yourself on. No matter where it comes from.
Between RBJ refusing to step down, Biden not reversing immigration policy, and Biden refusing to step down in the primary until too late, he’s going to go down as a poor president in the history books - even if he wasn’t a bad dude or even bad in terms of policy.
"Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible." - Donald Trump, 2016
Technically his material support to a genocide makes him complicit, it would not have been nearly at the scale without US support tens of thousands of women and children were murdered as a direct result of his decisions[1], if international law meant anything we would hang him for that. So no, he was a "bad dude".
The downfall of the US benefiting bad people is not evidence that the US didn't have a positive impact.
US is a great and respectable country with amazing nature, people tech and military, very very far a collapsed state.
If anything to be worried of, it's the state of Europe. Closer and closer to war, full of insecurity and no innovation.
US is a great country.
OpenAI and Anthropic are both hamstrung by this. Anthropic does have the better chance of surviving.
that doesn't require the model to be SOTA, it can be just a compact model capable of running on some inexpensive hardware. that is vastly different from SOTA models like Mythos which can potentially disrupt lots of things.
> Yes.
holy shit the naivete of HN nowadays.
Is the government going to fund all further development? Hard to imagine investors continuing to throw billions at products they aren't allowed to sell.
And if not, can we simply keep augmenting “stale” models with new knowledge to keep them useful?
I’m on the pessimistic side of things on both questions.
As for the second question, obviously stale models can be augmented to an extent but it’s nowhere near a substitute for new knowledge being fully baked directly into its training.
Here is why it's unlikely this is anything other than "silly behavior by a government":
- some benchmarks show GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.1, and even Claude Opus outperforming Claude Fable, and yet it's Fable which is restricted.
- some benchmarks still show the likes of Kimi 2.5 outperforming any Claude model, and DeepSeek is getting equivalent scores (a few tenths of a percent difference)
> Do you think that Chinese labs will continue to release open models forever (...)
That's immaterial to the discussion. Even if China forced Chinese labs to restrict access to all models, the truth of the matter is that Trump's administration to restrict access to US-based models does not prevent others from having access to models that are as capable or even better.
So what's exactly the point of this?
It was almost like having another human using and shepherding Opus for me, instead of herding Opus directly myself.
I'm unconvinced that this is anything more than proof of work and marginal improvement that other models will catch up with, perhaps as early as to next week. Lots of other current-gen models will find vulns that can be chained together if you're willing to burn enough tokens on the task, and Fable is an absolute token incinerator.
Yet somehow we're always forgetting that lesson and surprised when government is found snooping.
This seems to be an administration that is dead set on antagonizing every single part of the world. Either enemy or ally.
Let's not forget the Trump administration threatened two separate NATO allies with invasion and annexation, and then had the gall to complain they were not helping them attack Iran.
Anthropic would have been able to talk to someone and explain how it wasn't possible to ban just "foreign nationals", and would have pointed out how nonsensical such a request was. The fact that the post does not mention any such discussion, and leaves the nonsensical request as the only stated reason, makes this feel like a power move by Dario, simply complying in the most dramatic and rage-inducing way and announcing it in a way to direct that rage at the USG. (Which is, IMO, a savvy move)
What penalties? Treason is still punishable by death in the U.S. I hate that I just felt compelled to write that as a serious possibility and, pre-Trump 2.0, I would have accused anyone citing that as scaremongering. But times have changed and this administration hates Anthropic vehemently. Anthropic is the only major AI company not "playing ball" with the DoW and donating to Trump's pet projects.
I truly believe if Mythos was an OAI or Google model, there would have been exactly the kind of discussion you imagine and this would have all been worked out. I deeply regret that recent facts make the most likely conclusion that this late-Friday ban was planned for days (if not weeks). And there was no real attempt to work anything out about Mythos, because that's not really what the DoW wants.
The driver behind this is the still unresolved dispute of Anthropic's Acceptable Use Policy regarding autonomous lethal weapons and mass domestic surveillance, which conflicted with the Pentagon's push for unrestricted model deployment ("all lawful uses"). This is the DoW's counter-attack. I fully expect that the DoW is going to hold Anthropic (and Ant's IPO) hostage by blocking any new model until Anthropic gives the DoW full access with no restrictions except "all lawful uses" (and the DoW's position is their in-house lawyers decide what's legal).
It's not nonsensical if the intention is to destroy Anthropic. There is nothing to explain.
Anthropic has been trying to leverage government intervention and dishonest security bluster for competitive advantage and now the Trump admin is using it as a pretext to destroy them ahead of the IPO.
"Silly" is a silly word for corruption.
So it's silly behavior, as typified by the last decade of American governance? Is there "serious" American leadership we should be expecting to see soon, e.g. 2029 AOC elected on a platform of unlimited 10GW datacenters and universal basic Mythos 8 models?
It may seem subjectively silly to you, but e.g. getting executed for refusing to point at a deer and call it a horse is pretty silly stuff as well, at least for those not living in the Qin Dynasty.
US voters deserve better.
Deserve's got nothing to do with it.
https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/communities-are-raising-n... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277298502...
(And waste electronics are considered hazardous in the EU.)
Improving the electrical production system would be fine, but it needs to be paid for upfront by the datacentre and ideally completed no later than the datacentre. Otherwise citizens end up paying for this on their electricity bills, as is happening in Ireland [1], and other electrical upgrades (factories etc) can't be done as there isn't the capacity. (I think the limit here is trained engineers to design and build the power plants and distribution networks.)
We have at least 4 new-ish hyperscale datacentres in Denmark, one each from Microsoft, Meta, Google and Apple. I think they're here for the renewable power, and at least the Meta and Microsoft ones are putting their waste heat into the local district heating systems. Some of them have indirectly financed construction of renewable power.
But the energy used is enormous! [3] says data centres were 10% of electricity generation in 2020, before the massive increase in GPUs.
They are built on the promise of high-paid jobs, but that turns out to be 20 technicians and a few security guards [2].
I haven't looked into it, but I assume there are no "profits" from big-tech datacentres leading to additional tax payments, unlike e.g. a factory.
[1] https://www.friendsoftheearth.ie/news/the-cost-of-data-centr...
[2] https://ing.dk/artikel/how-few-people-work-tech-giants-data-... — just 450 full time staff for the big-tech datacentres in Denmark — seems to 1-2 each for MS, Meta, Google and Apple.
Electricity is sold on the market. If you live next to a data center you can choose not to use any services enabled by that center, but you cannot choose to pay non-datacenter prices for the electricity to charge your car or run your household
Any F35 bought by Europe is nothing short of lunacy. You don’t buy from people hell-bent on having conflicts with you.
Heck the F35B only exists due to the UK demanding it. They have access to the source code (and so do Israel).
No - it's extremely effective.
Do you realize the difference between a 'few people using VPNs + fake IDs at 2-person companies ... vs companies all companies globally not allowed to use tech?
If 'Bank of Montreal' were caught using export controlled technology it could be devastating - so they're not going to be using it along with any little mom and pop shop.
We don't know what the Administration is doing other than 'This is Extremely Heavy Handed' and will have devastating consequences if it goes on.
I can hear alarm bells going off in less silly governments around the world as we speak. Genie's out of the bottle. The gears have been put in motion. Etc.
But I assure you that many places will be happy to switch up to Fable when it's available and back to Opus when it's not.
It's a programming tool, not something that will send you out of business if it disappears.
10 years from now we’ll look back and laugh at how silly it all was.
With due respect, this take is very deluded. US voters have very little to lose if the tech is not available to the rest of the world. US politicians and elite, regardless of political inclination, understand the enormous strategic potential of this technology and will ITAR the shit out of frontier models and/or use them as leverage for extracting concessions out of other countries.
The main losers are Big AI labs, their investors, foreign employees and rest of the world.
Fwiw, China and other countries would’ve done the exact same thing. It’s perhaps the game theoretic optimal approach when your comparative advantage is so vast (capital, compute, talent, embedded knowledge) and keeps growing especially if RSI is real (making it nearly impossible for anyone else to catch up)
Really? You think the economics of the AI buildout remain viable if US companies cannot export their highest value services?
You think expelling foreign AI researchers doesn't hurt the industry or boost foreign competitors? Half (or whatever) of Google's AI team, including their AI chief are foreign nationals and/or located outside of the US.
You think that other IT exports will not suffer if the US turns out to be an unreliable and even capricious supplier?
This does real damage to the US economy.
But the questions about viability of the labs because of export restrictions is not in my cone of uncertainty. If you believe the labs' implied/stated objectives, the end goal is eating all human-driven GDP, and the US is still the largest single-market economy in the world, last I checked. Keeping the politics of AI-driven unemployment aside, economy-wide automation would make the US wealthy beyond imagination.
US exports as a whole is only 10% of the GDP. I am not aware of the international revenue share for OpenAI/Anthropic.
The US is about a quarter of the global economy, but let's use Microsoft's international revenue share of ~50% as a proxy for tech services. It's ~40% for the S&P 500.
I don't know what share of that would be impacted by export bans, but it would certainly affect ROI. It would hurt the competitiveness of the wider US tech industry and create incentives for moving highly paid work overseas.
>US exports as a whole is only 10% of the GDP.
It's 12% to 13% but this is distorted by the way in which tech services are counted in export statistics and also by tax avoidance. Just look at Ireland's ridiculous GDP numbers.
If the technology is as powerful as these somehwat fantastical "goals" suggest, the incentive to use it everywhere in the world would be enormous. An export ban wouldn't mean that only the US has the capability. The theory behind current models is well known. It's just a matter of optimising them for specific use cases and using them on an industrial scale.
Most AI researchers are not US citizens either. It's completely obvious that this is the US shooting itself in the foot (if it were to last, which I don't believe).
> US exports as a whole is only 10% of the GDP and has a deep trade deficit ... maybe there is a connection?
I agree that it's really hard to tell from the outside, but if I had to guess I think we still have more to worry about on the side of "Wall Street races to superintelligence" than on the side of "KYC for AI". I could be wrong though.
Yes, something better than a winner-take-all system.
We have now enough data about modern democracies to conclude that presidential and semi-presidential republics are flawed.
Winner-take-all mechanics are not democratic, period, they give voters very little choice to be represented (generally a handful of parties), just two in the US.
People aren't "conservative" or "liberal". They have a huge and diverse array on topics ranging from education, immigration, healthcare, privacy, civil rights, public spending, foreign policies, etc, etc, etc. Yet we bind people to choose among a handful of parties, which at best overlap with some of those opinions, just to elect a single person that is extremely hard to remove (both from a legal point of view and a from that person's rightful ability to claim popular mandate), that do not rely on confidence votes nor their own party support.
And that individual, in the end, really represents fully a very minority of the country (because of the points before) and can also do the opposite of what the promises were, unchecked.
And from a democracy safety itself, please not that every single country turning authoritarian in the last 60 years has been either presidential or semi presidential. Sri Lanka in the 70s is the only exception, there are no others. All others have been presidential.
Why is that? Well, not to search very far, I just got a breach notice from a company I never heard of the other day. They are sorry.
Can you imagine the disaster???
Also, foreign nationals legally residing in the US can have access to US-based payments. There's no way when accepting a credit card payment from a US card issuer to ask whether the card holder is a natural born citizen versus Green Card holder, etc.
Can we stop with this bothsides-ing. The level of co-opting by this administration is unprecedented. There’s the strong-arming to get Intel equity stake, Nvidia/AMD revenue share, U.S. Steel golden share, Lithium Americas equity stake, Big Law pro bono pledges, TikTok forcible acquisition, Paramount-CBS-Skydance favor, it’s just unbelievable the stark use of power.
Both sides are not at all the same in how executive power is being wielded.
Be as upset as you want about Congress passing the law but that’s a 100x higher bar than what the Trump administration does regularly.
We are here in many ways as a direct result of the last admin, particularly the way they threatened tech companies. This moved tech companies to feel emboldened to go all-in on Trump. Don't think I'm justifying that - it's just what happened, in basically the tech bros own words.
The Dems then proceeded to lose to Trump, despite being extremely well funded themselves. They accomplished this through a spectacular series of "own goals": arming genocide, vetoing ceasefires, forcing deeply unpopular candidates, allowing a certain attempted insurrectionist rapist run out the clock on justice [0], awful elitist messaging on the economy, keeping the Epstein files under wraps, etc.
The red side is worse than the blue side, so the blue side demand immunity from criticism. The red side sets everything on fire, on purpose. The blue side prevents progressives from real change. The cycle rachets and repeats. This has been going on for decades, at the cost of millions of lives and trillions of dollars - but people who point it out get accused of saying both sides are the same.
0 - "That Biden was a placeholder president – a stop gap to streamline an aspiring American autocracy into an entrenched one – was obvious by mid-2021. The first, rather large clue was the lack of urgency toward sedition." - https://sarahkendzior.substack.com/p/behold-a-pale-horse-rac...
Your second sentence is a great example of the type of both-sidesing that needs to stop.
Your third sentence is a great example of the type of both-sidesing that should not stop.
Your fourth is disappointing conclusion, a strawman to start ("demand immunity from criticism"...) and a false equivalence / faux symmetry as a bonus ("sets everything on fire" & "doesn't support progressive policies" are two sides of _which_ coin, exactly...?)
> We are here in many ways as a direct result of the last admin, particularly the way they threatened tech companies. This moved tech companies to feel emboldened to go all-in on Trump.
I agree - he clearly should have done much more than just threaten.
Have _both sides_ actively collaborated in genocide?
... Yes.
Therefore, _both sides_ have breached any recognizable red line of decency. _Both sides_ have breached hard-won national and international law.
Time for something better than both sides unapologetically arming live-streamed genocide.
"Oh, you're one of those single issue guys" - if the issue is genocide, then yes. Why aren't you? Why aren't 98.15% of 2024 voters?
As pointed out below: it's our culture. And that's not okay.
> Your second sentence is a great example of the type of both-sidesing that needs to stop.
I don't see how you can disagree with the simple truth of it tbh. In what way is that not what happened?
With statements like that, if it’s been going on that long then it’s either our culture and normal way of life or you’re on some QAnon cuckoo rabbit hole.
That's the one - from an outside PoV the two US parties are two sides of the same coin, barely a perineum twixt them, both ceding the votes of many people to the cash of a very few.
It's baked into the US zeitgeist that it's better to sit back and watch "the government" go tits up and then wade in with guns hoping for a better outcome than it is to properly manage communal resources and common ground.
And potentially more importantly: if a model like Mythos, which at best is an incremental improvement over Opus, is getting this treatment, how are all the AI investments that are based on the expectation of ASI / AGI / significantly better models going to be recouped?
I suspect if OpenAI or Grok was operating at the same level they wouldn’t find themselves on the sharp end of the government stick
I guess that is how it always starts.
Governments don't give up power, and once there's precedence for use of that power they'll continue to do it and begin eyeing the next power they can claim.
IF LLMs are THAT dangerous and powerful (and that's a huge if that I do not currently subscribe to), then no, no one should have access at all, there is no group of people in positions of power (government or corporate power) that I would consider "restrained"
From that, we can very reasonably conclude that the US government has a specific vendetta against Anthropic in particular, and that this vendetta has nothing to do with the technical merits of their product.
To my knowledge, they have yet to drop that classification, despite heavy court opposition.
Additionally: technical benchmarks suggest that the most recent ChatGPT models are within maybe 10% of Fable 5's capabilities, so this being a pure "capabilities" concern seems unlikely.
Uncertainty: It's possible that we have just suddenly reached the end of public AI releases, though - if ChatGPT 5.6 also gets blocked, that would be very good evidence of a general, non-weaponized policy. Given the recent Executive Order requiring pre-release audits of frontier models, this is somewhat more likely than it was a couple weeks ago.
I still think things add up to "weaponization is the most likely theory" and that one is being disingenuous to dismiss it as a reasonable possibility. But it's certainly NOT the only reasonable possibility.
ChatGPT 2 was once too powerful to release.
AI has been moving faster than culture and thinking around it. Once we've adapted to what these models can do we'll relax a little, and then a new stepwise improvement will start it all over again. It always goes this way.
It had just one the cold war and China wasn't even a shadow of what it is now.
So, the last time an AI-related export control was imposed - NVidia chips deemed to be "too powerful" - how do you think that will work out? If the US is holding all the cards, why is China now refusing their chips?
Don't you think these types of restrictions will weaken rather than empower the US?
I do. But I think the US is currently in a position of strength that they are continually undermining.
The broader discussion about AI and model capabilities died a couple of years ago precisely because it's so underwhelming now. People did adapt. Startups stopped hiring just to get to MVP. Coding sweatshops had huge layoffs and stopped overhiring. The corporate world got better tools for collaborations and meetings. Accessibility tools are still bad, but improving. I would argue that the a11y topic is still very ripe to be the next big thing as it continues to converge with better UI/UX instead of being an afterthought.
The layperson and tech professional alike otherwise agreed that this is a vehicle for blame game, grift, disinformation, etc. This is where all the pushback is and the topic at hand. People aren't dumb. The only people worried about "AI" are the ones who bet too big on it.
95% odds this gets reversed by Monday morning is why
AWS and friends are very good at providing excellent enterprise grade security, but it’s literal child’s play for nation state threat actors to exfil these models.
TEMPEST / EMSEC alone is a wide open door for unclassified datacenters when the Mossad’s out to get you.
I'm sure if proprietary models continue to be a big thing, the methodology of their storage and loading on hardware will be obfuscated quite a bit.
Your hypothetical implies that there is a better alternative, but when those models are "restricted", in practice that means that the only people who have access to them are precisely those who can and will use them for the worst kind of shit. So yes, releasing them to the public is a better deal, ethically speaking, at least then the playing field will be slightly more equal.
Businesses will gladly pay it.
Individuals will be locked out and unable to compete.
Oracle will be able to "prompt a new smartphone" for $500M or whatever and enter the market to compete with Apple and Google. You and I can't afford that and won't be able to compete.
Hyperscalers will hyper scale even faster.
They'll port Linux to Rust, remove the GPL, and have all kinds of new entirely proprietary OSes. They'll be attested, signed, and gradually we'll lose open hardware. Thin clients with binary blobs, highly encrypted, no control, only leased to us.
Within a generation nobody will be able to program or own devices that can program.
That's the scary scenario.
Then they won't survive the termination boundary.
Too bad. Should have had more cash.
You don’t _have_ to buy into the technocracy, there ’s a whole outside going on.
US have fair tax breaks to support the national champions, China have unfair State-backed monopolies.
US have necessary intelligence gathering, China have state-surveillance.
The US government believes that Fable/Mythos is a weapon that needs to be export-controlled, and limited to only US customers. Presumably OpenAI/xAI/Google would face the same constraints, for the same reasons.
OS/foreign models are unaffected - OS because they cannot control who runs them, and foreign because they are not controlled by the US government. We could assume that China will implement the same policy controls, but they see the world differently so might not.
So US AI companies are then limited to the US market, effectively, after about six months (the lag between the current frontier models and the OS models). They have much less incentive to push the envelope to create better models, because the US govt might also ban those completely.
The investor froth around the race to AGI dies, so valuations shrink (the current IPOs may be affected), and presumably the bubble bursts. None of the AI companies can afford to continue building data centres, so that all dies immediately. US GDP drops by ~5% because of that alone.
In a year's time, the US is in a major recession because it gambled so hard on AI. Europe less so, only because it was such a distant follower in that race. China is more-or-less unaffected. The best models are now OS/foreign, and AI is moving forward more slowly, but still moving forward.
Any other scenarios?
Get to Tuesday, restriction is lifted. Get to Friday, restriction is back on. Confusion reigns.
Interesting scenario though: do the other labs attempt to “dodge” the import restrictions by claiming their models are “dumber and not a threat” thereby maintaining larger market access.
If so, doesn’t this basically force a stall in US-based development? EU will keep doing its thing at its pace. Chinese models will get a boatload more popular, but will probably slow down as they can drop to whatever pace they wish.
cynical follow-up: if they’ve plateaued, is this a clever way to avoid the negative consequences of the market implosion that a substantially substandard model release would cause, thereby giving them an “out”?
Of course, the world is not filled with rational actors, and the probability of the current administration allowing the market to tank like that seems next to null, so Occam's razor (or whatever) would point to another TACO inevitably incoming
I'd certainly bet on your scenario if it was reasonable to assume the US and China could get over the 'race to the top or die at the bottom' dynamic
so far ai2027 seems to be playing out to an almost uncanny accuracy, realpolitik obliterates the façade yet again
The thing is, that blatant market manipulation is playing with fire here, as so much of the US economy is invested in the AI bubble.
If the major nations that host companies that create those OS models implement export control on top models, there won't be any new OS models with top capabilities.
Same as the new bridge between Windsor and Detroit can't open until some palms are greased.
Chaos is a ladder, gotta keep climbing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic%E2%80%93United_State...
The public may not see more improvements but I'm sure they government will be forcing AI companies to continue improving them for their own use. Those schools aren't going to bomb themselves.
“Oh no it’s not our fault!!1! ~~My dad works at Nintendo~~ the govt told us we weren’t allowed to release it”
The base intelligence does not feel much greater to me.
Fable was designed for _really_ hard software engineering problems. Possibly large, but especially hard. For those tasks, you feel the difference immediately.
And yes, the parent poster is accurate, Fable is just as prone to moronic mistakes as Opus was. Stop being so AI-pilled.
Codex is still a better model, and yes, for the hardest engineering problems. I use Claude for UI/GUIs and Codex for all my backend, because I have 20 years of experience of actual hard engineering, and I can see that Codex writes, cleaner code, and is far more steerable.
Bad engineers think Claude is better because it writes more lines of code and is more "proactive", but lines of code doesn't make a better system.
This is a forum filled with experts. Putting marketing aside, in a forum like this, it is most useful to assess models according to the toughest problems in the domain they were specifically refined on. For DeepSeek, that's math. For Claude, that's programming. Gemini and ChatGPT are generalist. Yes, you can use every model for anything you like. But Fable is a bit special, it's very expensive, and very clearly designed for particular types of tasks.
> Fable is just as prone to moronic mistakes as Opus was.
"Just as" is up for debate, but yes, all models are capable of moronic mistakes. That's not helpful information though.
> Codex is still a better model
You're comparing agentic workflows, which relies on a lot more than just the underlying model. It sounds like you're using it like a precision instrument, which is great! It's very different compared to my use cases though, and the ones that Fable seems to excel at. I'm using it for scientific computing, and you really, really want it to one shot a solution. It's either the right algorithm for the task, or the wrong one. So for the hardest problems, it needs to successfully implement a solution in effectively one shot. I use Codex too, but it's often too careless for the delicate tasks. If it gets it wrong, it is really hard to steer it back. You have to start from scratch.
> Bad engineers think Claude is better because it writes more lines of code and is more "proactive".
Think you missed the mark on this one. Not really an engineer, have as much experience as you do in my job. A solution to my problems comprises few lines of code. Fable actually gets it right, first time, every time (so far), but this is with a very long prompt and a bunch of attachments. No other model has done this for me. Not shilling for Anthropic, just impressed. This isn't particularly subjective for me; it is quantitatively measurable.
Don't assume everyone using AI is going to have the same experience you have, or the same types of use cases. And please don't assume that because others have different experiences that it makes them "bad".
Also, Claude has always been mediocre at creative tasks. For your line of work, I would have already recommended Codex hands down.
Half of HN commentators probably work on basic CRUD. Armchair experts, maybe.
Efficiency will become the next thing to focus on. It was already emerging, but accelerating the focus on efficiency will lead to a ton of excess capacity and even some investments in data centers to go belly up. And ultimately the AI bubble bursting will look a lot like the dot com, with its surplus fiber.
Oh, and this will put gas on the fire that fighting AI and big tech is the next political rally cry. Along with “eat the rich” as they are seen as taking both jobs and money.
Curious to see where it’s all headed and how Trump’s call will impact it.
But I hadn’t considered this fell into that category. Except maybe as a direction from Iran. You make a good point, it may trigger immediate reactions in the market. Not just 3-6 month ones.
I wonder what the counterbalance will be by Monday morning.
What an unbelievable claim. Especially since the vast majority of publicly available benchmarks disagree.
These threads about Anthropic always seem so astroturfed with some of the loudest and most uninformed people around.
It’s still pretty good though
I've used Claude Code and Codex since release and use them both in parallel. Codex is still better (yes even with Fable).
Claude Code is best for UI, nice looking guis, etc, and apparently also best at impressing mediocre programmers who are prone to AI psychosis.
All the best engineers I worked with in past jobs (faang folk, spacex, x.ai, and others) all use Codex, go figure.
You do realize none of this thread was about Claude Code vs Codex?
It might be a national security problem for other nations to have access to these models. But it's equally now a national security problem for any other nation to depend on them. Or US tech in general.
Just because the Chinese are running export controls in one market doesn't mean that they're going to close of access to AI. They might, but each market should be considered in isolation.
They’re falling back to Opus 4.8. Most people weren’t using Fable for everything anyway because it’s so expensive.
None of open weights models are even at Opus 4.8 levels. If someone was using Fable they don’t have any second best alternative outside of Anthropic.
More stuff done per dollar or more stuff done for more dollars? Seems to be an important distinction
Fable was definitely better for a variety of tasks, even accounting for using 2X the token rate, like the way it used the tokens faster reduced the wasted tokens, as least for the subset of those who already knew at least some optimizations...?
Or they were getting silently rerouted and couldn't realise they weren't using Fable
GPT-5.5 isn't awful.
It's not racist or even politically incorrect in the US, it's a common saying.
Friends Don't Let Friends Use Ollama https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47788385
I have decently capable hardware, but stuff like Qwen 3.6 and Gemma 4 still doesn't compare to agentic editing with a frontier model. Right now, OpenCode's $10/mo "Go" plan is what I'd be looking to try once my year expires.
Enjoy.
Don't get me wrong, I use it, it's fast-smart-and affordable. But not suitable for all tasks.
Opus 4.6+ is able to make slow progress, but it takes several revisions per workstream. It requires constant supervision as it often creates convoluted solutions that expand the code in bloated ways. It works, but still requires my constant input.
Fable was able to almost one shot most of the big migrations with very few bugs, and was able to fix those bugs with 1 review pass. I almost didn't believe it. I was able to put it on a task (with dangerous permissions) and come back hours later to see it done, working, and clean.
I tried DeepSeek v4 and it wasn't able to make any meaningful progress at all. It kept creating dangling pointers and had trouble understanding the inline assempbly needed to be replaced if we were to compile for 64 bit. It kept getting stuck and looping on the same problem, without making progress.
What I do use DeepSeek for is lots of my automations on my websites. I find DeepSeek is fantastically cheap and fast and effective as summarization, collation, generating reports, finding and reporting issues from logs, etc. But I haven't found a way to get it to effectively port 90's C++ code to modern, cross-platform standards. But I want to be clear- I really like DeepSeek and use it wherever I can.. I mean.. it's so affordable!
Then I had deepseek summarize the bug, gave it to Opus, and it solved it in $1.12 and five minutes.
Found just later I was using v4 flash and not pro (for mistakenly setting the model to deepseek-chat and not v4-pro).
There are aspects about Deepseek I don't like though, when pushed against it will eagerly bend instead of reasoning and advocating for his points, something Opus 4.7 and later models started doing a lot (even when wrong).
And it works, because the American market is generally more important than the markets of these countries 9 times out of 10.
It's tough, US technologies are everywhere but they are only liabilities. Microsoft is the stickiest of all.
They have pioneered and been very influential in different aspects of LLM engineering and research, while also publishing in the open.
You would not have Fable 5 as good as it is without Chinese work.
A House committee also recently probed Cursor and Airbnb for using Chinese models, rather than more expensive American alternatives. A sexagenarian Congressman gave a nonsense quote that he certainly did not come up with himself,[1] which sounds very similar to language Anthropic uses in its marketing materials.[2][3]
[1] https://www.semafor.com/article/04/29/2026/house-committee-p...
[2] https://www.anthropic.com/news/updating-restrictions-of-sale...
That's not really a threat model described in either of the Anthropic posts you share, which mainly talk about the risks of allowing authoritarian regimes to use powerful US-trained models, and the geopolitical risks of authoritarian countries developing strong AI before democratic/liberal countries do.
> We need to ensure America has leading open models founded on American values. Open- source and open-weight models could become global standards in some areas of business and in academic research worldwide. For that reason, they also have geostrategic value. While the decision of whether and how to release an open or closed model is fundamentally up to the developer, the Federal government should create a supportive environment for open models.
If I need to upgrade, the plan start at $6, so its a no brainer.
It's definitely not as good. But it's also definitely good enough.
What's your DSv4 setup? What harness? It sounds like I should give it another try!
I mostly do C# and some frontend. I was starting to feel really depressed and unengaged at work because I was starting to use AI far too much like a magic slot machine. I'm now making a conscious effort to go back to using it as a tool used a bit more deliberately.
I'm not even using the pro model. The flash version is fast so I can keep it interactive rather than context switching to reddit while the model is working, and it turns out using my brain means I don't really need the model to be that smart.
I spent about $1.5 this week.
The real story here is that this may be the beginning of governments restricting the availability of strong LLMs to the public, to you. Fable was the strongest model on the market, and the US government has told you you can't use it (technically, only if you're not a US citizen, but in practice, even if you are). If you think the solution here is going to be open source Chinese models and / or running on your own hardware, think again. Do you think China is going to allow the strongest LLMs from companies within its borders to be open source a year from now when they have Mythos capabilities, if the US government is keeping the strongest American models back? Unlikely. These are heading in the direction of being powerful cybersecurity weapons and it will be in the interest of nation states to restrict and control them. In 2 years time, I would be surprised if the strongest LLMs are available for general use at all.
Will we be the poorer for that, or will we be safer? I think poorer, because I hate being told what technology I can and can't use, but I'm not certain. Maybe you think the government should restrict strong LLMs. Maybe you don't. But either way, this is big news and a rubicon has been crossed and a precedent set. That's true even if the motivation for this is just the government settling scores with Anthropic.
Anthropic got the most rewarding hype ever in the history of mankind.
Imagine a private company invents a piece of technology soooo good that the US government has to issue a ban.
Did the government ban any models from Google or OpenAI? Nah, Russian/Chinese spies and ISIS are welcome to use those dumb models.
Anthropic will probably go for $2T IPO now.
For all we know there are might be several reasons for that ban e.g.
1) There is an actual security threat and its just simple as that.
2) Someone wants Anthropic to be valued way higher and the companies that have invested in Anthropic already... This ban only validates this product and will move the market in higher valuation of Anthropic due to their model being "so good gov had to ban"
3) Someone doesn't like Anthropic and just wants to shut down its current edge (highly unlikely, if there was no IPO filing in place it could be possible but now the valuation just goes up, same as the 2 As that have invested in them)
4) Someone freaked out that we'll be left out of jobs soon so wants to slow down progress, tbh using fable so far I can tell that a lot of jobs can be made redundant cause of that...
For me the most likely for now is 2, then 1 and then maybe 4.
On June 22 Chatgpt will most likely come out with their new model too, which as I understand will be an answer to mythos. Lets see if the US gov goes the same route.
Even if this is just temporary, your #3 is more in direct conflict with #2 than you seem to be willing to admit: if you were to own stock in a company that you know has a powerful product and a market lead, but they have been required to take a time out in the market for a year, that should be devastating for their valuation.
For the Gov to come out and block a model for national security, its gonna swing the market into thinking "oh anthropic really has the next generation of LLMs out there, its that good Gov banned it, this company is going to the moon".
The part of banning non US nationals, I believe is a legality, as in they have to trust US citizens to do right by their country. I don't think in court a whole ban on a product for security reasons would stand. (The judge would ask for the gov to explain why all US nationals are a security threat to their country)
Nevertheless, again I am standing behind number 2 personally as the main reason for such a thing, market manipulation is not new and its currently at its all time high. Also anthropic is part of this manipulation so far, with every other AI company out there.
Again I am just presenting my POV, it could as well just be number 1... A gov became competent enough to find security threads before they happen :)
There are lots such products, like weapons-grade radioactive material, weapons outside the toy gun range, various biological material, ...
So it seems perfectly possible to bad products for security reasons.
It might be a good marketing trick but it is not a good thing in the stock market given historical trends.
Your view highly screams you only have a superficial understanding of financial markets and you shouldn't extraploate that to "this is how market works because its all hype and everything is vapor"
Anthropics reputation as a near-term world-ender boosts their IPO directly.
I feel you are just talking a hypothetical without having any basis. You think it'll have an impact on IPO directly and that it will be a positive one. But you have no proof or historical precidence for the same. Meanwhile we have historical proof that markets reacts negatively when a company is blocked by the government on selling their top products freely. And that is most likely going to happen here as well.
Public perception might be changed by these "ohhh its so scary guys" marketing but these don't translate to actual market perception when it comes to actual facts and numbers on the financials.
Now it’s a competition between products on the near frontier. Anthropic has executed well on products so far. They blew up thanks to Claude Code, not Opus by itself.
(2) This "hype" meme is overrated. Enterprises (ones without a horse in the race, at least) will choose the model their best engineers ask for, or their competitors will lap them. I have been finding Codex more useful (even than Fable) but for a lot of tasks it seems that Claude Code is faster. This is one customer base where the general consensus here on HN is more influential than anything the Trump administration could do or anything Anthropic could say.
(3) "US government seems out to kill you" does not necessarily make valuation go up, and we've already seen this administration in an avoidable spat with Anthropic.
(4) This seems way less likely than a mix of (1) and (3) to me. The arguments for banning a useful technology to save jobs haven't really made sense since cars or indoor plumbing and don't get taken too seriously in either party at senior levels. That could change but it will take a lot for it to change.
Fable had some really good cross project awareness. My only complaint is it backported a feature to my test application and then they killed it before I could finish debugging it. The new model behavior in the replacement application was 100% superior. I just didn't know it was going to start porting fixes so readily between projects. Awareness in the new model is amazing and the feedback I've had from other developers is the same. It feels like ultrathink with double the agents of xhigh effort. The real issue is they shipped it with incomplete guardrails and someone likely found an exploit.
1. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/13/donald-trump...
Also, might be a way to further screw with Anthrophic because they refused to remove their guardrails Pentagon, getting the opposite result of what was intended.
This is about grift, somehow, full stop.
I neither like nor support Anthropic, but there's just no sense in pretending the Trump administration is anything other than a kleptocracy or interpreting their actions under any other lens.
This is potential tyranny aimed at Anthropic, specifically.
Being a US ally has become meaningless, and using a company that’s not targeted today does nothing to protect you tomorrow.
It's a clear statement that European morals are purely performative
Just like how the EU is hostile towards US companies, but very light to the touch when it comes to corruption with HSBC, FIFA or VW. With such hostile and erratic allies, who needs enemies?
Let's not even get into Orban. You can never trust the EU again since who knows if they're capable of electing someone like that in the future? Trust is broken forever
Whether you believe that is another thing. But that’s the signal. It’s amazing marketing for them, even if a pain in the ass for customers rn
Investors will have so much FOMO over this
Major alarm bells should be ringing for anyone not using a US-based LLM.
Apple's G4 was banned for export. Although it was not a direct order from US government. They fell into an outdated bracket of computing power exports limits. They sure did use it for advertising it.
What? Anthropic is not a TikTok sensation. It's a business tool. Businesses need to know their tools work reliably.
When you are situated in a banana republic and the chief banana is out to get you (and demonstrates that they can and will on a whim) that is not great hype but a potential death sentence for you as a service provider.
You are one degree away from becoming forever branded as unusable. (Theoretically until people trust that a sane administration is in control again, but that might as well be forever on current AI timelines, given how much cashflow you need just to keep going)
It pretty much is. Claude is more of a meme than a tool. It's been second best (and more expensive option) for most of the time but people somehow keep talking about it. I'm getting strong Apple vibes from this one.
Google and OpenAI will eventually catch up and be banned as well. Therefore, this ban isn't really a huge concern for Anthropic since their competitors will be banned eventually.
All this does is proving to investors that Anthropic is indeed ahead of its competitors.
" We have reviewed a report that we believe is the basis of the government's directive and validated that the level of capability displayed there is widely available from other models (including OpenAI’s GPT-5.5)"
The administration just doesn't like anthropic. OpenAI is in bed with the trump Administration.
What they know right now is that the model is so advanced the US government has to ban it, and the model comes out of Anthropic. Not Google. Not OpenAI.
Paying for 365 days of service but getting 364 would normally get you a full refund, not just a 1 day credit according to visa/MasterCard rules.
Nah, SpaceX just IPO'd.
"Mythos capabilities" is not some magic threshold. This is exactly the type of language that people used about GPT-4 in 2023. Today, I can run models far stronger than GPT-4 on my laptop at speeds better than GPT-4 offered.
Anthropic are quite good at coining sticky phrases like "Mythos-class models", but these are manipulative attempts to shape the discourse for business purposes and should be identified as such.
They used this type of language with GPT-2. Le sigh, yawn.
Yes, some of it looks silly now, though it's always easy to criticize with hindsight: the models could do unexpectedly impressive things and we didn't fully know the limit yet, it was a black box.
Remember you're critcising the org that actually made it public to people earlier than any other: the uncertainty was a temporary caution. The "open" in OpenAI was because they made it available, unlike Google at the time.
When the company that enables this, makes the predictions in the first place, that is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Ever since the original GPT-2 "it's too powerful to release!" I've realized that whatever is the current state of open models represents what we really have access to.
It's shocking to me how many people on HN, who engage in long conversations about LLMs and AI, have never actually run a model on their own hardware.
All you need is a reasonably good macbook pro/studio or an RTX [3-5]090 and you can run useful models in the >= 30 tokens/second range (much higher if you choose the GPU path). The difference between what you can run on this hardware and what you can run on hardware that costs 2-5x is not that big. Don't be fooled by people on Twitter/X claiming you need some outrageous setup.
It's also increasingly clear that frontier models are nowhere near close to pushing the limits of efficiency. Quantization, MoE, and other techniques have dramatically improved even in the last year.
For work, of course use OpenAI/Anthropic models, but for anything personal, anyone who considers themselves a "real engineer" should be running local models, using open harnesses and seeing what they can accomplish with these.
Even if open releases slow down or even stop, we have the foundation, right now, for smart engineers to squeeze something quite useful out of. Hopefully we'll one day figure out how to train large models in a federated way. But either way: not your weights, not your inference.
but i also dont doubt in a few years time models with those benchmarks will be able to be run locally
still many many breakthroughs to be had
Yesterday Fable 5 finally solved a non trivial problem I had (after working on it for a few hours), and I went to bed excited. Waking up to find that Fable 5 is not available anymore, I guess I should feel happy I have the code it produced yesterday. But frankly I feel like a child having their candy taken from them.
We need open available models as smart as the current US proprietary ones. If intelligence like that becomes common property, i forsee a better future for human kind!
The US government found a jailbreak that allowed the user to make Fable do bad things, this is so dangerous that this model must be held back in areas that are not the US...
If this is so dangerous why allow US nationals access to it? Are there no evil people in the US?
Going back to my perspective: let's say I control a big enterprise or a government body, how should I view this or US technology? Should I be like: yes, let's use US tech, they are a reliable partner and would never abruptly cut us off! Or should I be like: there are competent alternatives out there and if your work hinges on wether or not you had access to Fable 5, then your business is probably not going to survive for long.
I don't think it makes sense the assume the US considers any country its ally.
The full quote makes it clear Kissinger was saying, in the context of the Vietnam War, that the US should come to the aid of their friends:
> "Word should be gotten to Nixon that if Thieu meets the same fate as Diem, the word will go out to the nations of the world that it may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."
I'm glad Europe is finally waking up to this reality.
But in general I agree, the other parts got a big wakeup call.
I’m Scandinavian. The US is an adversary; please wake up.
How come the EU is making a "digital sovereignty" push? Why are only EU people allowed to compete for EU services? Are there no evil people in the EU?
Training best models is hella expensive. Anthropic spent fortune to train it, and it definitely plans to make a fortune with it either. This US decision, if not reversed, would cause Anthropic potentially tens of billions of dollars of revenue loss. When company heads to IPO, and burning cash faster than it generates it, such moment can change their entire trajectory, plans for the future, hiring, new models development, etc.
Alright, one might say that “US will fund it directly and LLMs will move from free market to controlled and funded by government assets”.
But even then. Training new models is expensive not only in terms of computer, and not only in terms of utilities, data centers, etc. But in terms of talent either. It is hard to retain top talents with you when they should just train special models for government. I am not sure we are in 1945 again and that top tier AI researches will agree to sit in silo and work for models which only privileged selected organizations might use. Whenever government steps into control, freedom and creativity is affected.
P.S. Where I agree, though, is that we witness the start of government censorship of AI models. Imagine soon Anthropic open back access to Fable. Can we know what they put inside and which capability limitations, derived based on ID/IP, they enforce? No, we can’t. Here I agree that at least the era of government censorship begins.
But it is! How many times have OpenAI and Anthropic threatened the rest of humanity with extinction at the hands of their LLMs? Monthly I think.
They were hoping for a government supported monopoly. Careful what you wish for.
To the tech-libertarian crowd on HN this is the definition of evil. To everyone else it's responsible behavior and common sense.
Yes, from chatgpt 0.1 onwards. Everything has been a dangerous frontier model and has threatened humanity with extinction before.
Banning foreign nationals from using your technology only makes sense if you don't rely on foreign nationals to build it in the first place.
Or are we so far along now we think we don't need them anymore.
I'm wondering if they might go for a restricted access model that goes beyond passport or citizenship, where people can still use it, but you have to be individually vetted, and put on a list to get security clearance.
And also, even though Anthropic may not have labs themselves directly, there is a funnel of research that comes in the form of papers and conference tracks.
The AI community is pretty tight knit, and not having access to frontier models affects everyone.
That's separate from the question of whether Fable 5 and Mythos 5 are unsafe. I don't really know. Here's a few things that seem real, though: These models probably have some level of capability to assist with bioterrorism, Anthropic has self-admitted that their own safety measures are imperfect [1], so it should come as no surprise that jailbreaks seem far more possible than Anthropic is leading you to believe in this blog post [2].
[1] https://www.anthropic.com/news/fable-mythos-access: "We suspect that perfect jailbreak resistance is not currently possible for any model provider."
[2] https://x.com/elder_plinius/status/2064776322979676227
If Amazon sold a book that taught someone how to commit bioterrorism, would there be action against them to stop selling it? Its an imperfect analogy, but the parallels are there. LLMs don't get a free pass because they're also so good at writing typescript for beige CRUD apps and bedtime stories.
One thing I hope we align on: Synthetic safeguards (steering, rejections, etc) on top of models to block illegal/sensitive topics isn't good enough. Anthropic has self-admitted that it isn't good enough. We need the technology to lobotomize these capabilities the public deems too unsafe to allow out of the models at the most fundamental level. And, we need to align on what the scope of these forbidden fruit topics are. This is, actually, the only way open source continues to thrive. I want open source models to thrive, but they won't be allowed to thrive, nor should we want them to thrive, if they're teaching people how to engineer novel viruses and other horrible stuff.
Plenty of useful things get free passes to be dangerous. Traffic accidents are the leading cause of accidental deaths in 11 states, but we don't ban cars because they're dangerous. There's plenty of safety features, but we acknowledge and accept that people will die. People like to pretend that they won't sacrifice safety for convenience, but they continue to do it time and time again.
We need legislation that empowers a Federal agency adjacent to the CDC or FTC with the power to enumerate specific capabilities models could exhibit that we deem dangerous, and require model manufacturers to guarantee that their models cannot exhibit these capabilities. The reality is, zero of the safeguard systems invented by the frontier labs today are sophisticated enough to do this. The labs are extremely, extremely bad at Safety, relative to both how much impact their products are having on the world and how good other industries like Medicine and Manufacturing have gotten at safety. I'm talking a total and complete culture shift.
Google had a "appoint Eric Schmidt as CEO" moment like this. There were kids running it before; make them rich, and retire them to an island somewhere, because the impact your products are having on the world cannot possibly be allowed to continue with your current leadership at the helm. Dario is that problem now. I think Sam/OpenAI can adapt and mature. I have zero faith that Dario and the furry EA cult in Anthropic leadership will. So, this is what being unable to mature looks like; the public will make your company safe, one way or another.
The "Mythos capabilities" is a pretty arbitrary threshold. It could have happened any point before or after. China treats this technology in very different ways. And China's economy and foreign policies are very different, in such export-based economy export controls make much no sense. Unless something changes drastically in the global relations. I expect the opposite to happen, if the US leave a void globally, china will be even more incentivised to fill it.
This been said, it is likely that big models are soon no longer "open sourced" (qwen has already started), but because the chinese companies will prefer to sell access themselves, not because of government intervention.
In any case, what happens now is a huge thing, and not sure we grasp its consequences yet. It is definitely beyond any ai safety marketing stunt. Even if this is rolled back at some point, after "guarantees" are established, it has already moved things to change drastically.
I don't necessarily disagree, but who is going to pay for improvements in models if they're not commercially available? Are AI companies going to become defence contractors with (US?) government paying for the training?
I don't know much it cost to go from AI model Foo 4 to Foo 5, but it's going to cost a pretty penny to eventually go to 6 and 7. These companies are doing so in the expectation of eventually charging customers to recoup the costs: if the only customer(s) is government(s) then the per-unit cost will be much higher. An analogy: you can get a 'civilian' toilet for USD 200, an FAA/EASA-approved toilet for airlines 2000, and a MILSPEC/NASA toilet for 20000.
Now this limited-customer model is certainly doable—tank manufacturers have a smaller base of customers than pickup truck manufacturers—but AI companies probably want regulatory clarity on what they're allowed to sell, and to whom, before they start developing new products/services.
I think there's a world where the US funds development of the next model in exchange for exclusivity, at which point they could "release" the previous version from that exclusivity.
That’s also the difference between being totalitarian government and laws and regulations based order.
Also foreign investments into Chinese AI labs have already been forbidden and asked to exit
They probably have gotten their PR or in the process, but naturalization requires five years after that, so there must be some still not citizen yet.
The fact that Anthropic are willing to dumb-down their own model responses to "Prevent foreign competitors from using the model to accelerate R & D and protect our leading position." [1] adds credence to this speculation. Anthropic are scared of their own model's power in the hands of competitors: it has nothing to do with security.
I remember something with either ChatGPT or Claude, way early on, where I had to upload my passport to use some level of it (maybe it was the OpenAI API).
Anyway, there's no way they just shut this completely down, the revenue from mythos is huge. So if they can't get the government to budge they'll find a way to be compliant without completely shutting down.
But I think my larger points stands: even if we do see Fable access again, this is the beginning of government restriction of LLMs and we are going to see more and more of it. In fact, I would be very surprised if we ever see an open weight model with Mythos capabilities. Chinese labs have been consistently releasing open models 6-12 months behind the frontier. In 6 months we may see them go dark.
Similarly, in the US I think we can expect more and more government restrictions on the strongest LLMs, in ways that may go beyond flimsy checks like uploading a valid US passport. It may not happen this year but I think it will happen eventually.
It still surprises me sometimes that LLMs are just available for _anyone_ to use. Isn't it odd that it turned out this way? When I grew up reading sci-fi I thought AI, if I ever saw it in my lifetime, would be something locked up behind the walls of big corporations and governments. But instead we have all been able to use it for an infinity of banal purposes for $100 a month. This is a strange situation but we have got used to it. But it may not continue that way.
Who knows, maybe the good stuff is locked up. If one of these corporations had something very special they may very well find it more profitable to enjoy the competitive advantage of using it for themselves than marketing it.
I assume it's some of their best training data.
We already have the rails for automated customer identification from US banking.
I think there is a larger "AGI" category error with all this too that is akin to the old futurist idea of driving nuclear powered cars in the "future". The Ford Nucleon.
Nuclear power comes to us in a mix of electricity from the utility company but is far too dangerous for an individual to posses nuclear material for personal nuclear reactors.
An electric car does run on nuclear energy in some sense but not the way the Ford Nucleon was envisioned.
The error of the AI bubble is that we are pricing these companies with SaaS multiples when they are eventually going to be public utilities. There is really no other way to handle the dual use nature of anything close to "AGI".
No, Dario said himself AI is national state weapon, then the government will not cease control.
What would happen is that we will have a more lobotomized and even more neurotic safeguards put in place in order to comply, and your data will be boardly sharing with the government.
Moving forward, above certain parameter size of model, it will require your self-identification in order to be used.
And before either 'aisle' piles on - I'm pretty sure the concern is bipartisan.
>> As part of our measures to keep our services safe and secure we may ask you to verify your age or identity, and we've described what we collect and how
The problem is that there are network effects at play - the more people you have using your models, the more training and fine-tuning data you're accumulating, so the faster you can develop the next frontier model. Not to mention the fact that more users means more revenue to fund your next-gen model training.
Perhaps the US administration is gambling that US citizens on their own provide enough of a training data and revenue flywheel for them to keep their AI development edge.
The next interesting question will be - will the US share this capability with her traditional strategic allies (e.g. five-eyes countries), or is it truly America First (or, 'America Alone')?
There is no way to enforce access of one and not the other, not with the state of tech in the US (and most countries without a great firewall). Bypassing such controls is as easy as a pilfered credit card (or some other american-looking payment method) and a vpn - both trivial to come by.
But that in itself is telling in a way: if national security was a true concern, access should be limited to people who passed background checks.
I guess I'm possibly giving them too much credit, but if the people who sent the letter have their head screwed on straight, "protecting national security by disallowing specifically non-citizens from using it" can really only be read as a smokescreen, or at very best a small part of the actual picture.
I’ve wondered this but then wouldn’t a large amount of input now just be AI output from a previous PR/client email/spec document/chat. Training of that would be an issue leading to distillation?
I think this is bang on. The motives are kind of irrelevant, because now that the precedent has been set, I suspect they'll be much more likely to go here for future restrictions. It's very convenient (even if true) to just say "security reasons".
This logic is flawed. China had no incentive to release SOTA models to the world in the first place when OpenAI were milking everyone with closed source paid models. What changes now? Nothing. In fact, this is even more incentive for them to capture marketshare and dependence on Chinese models as the world will simply just use alternatives. Not bow down to restrictions. If your logic were correct that people would just comply, then the tons of VPN services wouldn't have a market in the first place.
No way they will pass on this one.
That being said, they could still keep some other model from public while doing a PR stunt like this to eat their cake and have it too.
Commercialization - not open source - is the name of the game now in Chinese AI [2].
[0] - https://www.ft.com/content/b39da303-3188-447b-8b65-3dd8dad8b...
[1] - https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20260609VL215/alibaba-ceo-ai...
I personally see it as a net good if companies fearmongering for marketing purposes then have to face consquences from people taking their marketing at face value.
Hopefully it teaches them and others not to do it anymore.
So I doubt this action alone is enough to really stop other nations from getting access to state of the art AI. I think the US would have to go much further to really stop other nations from getting access to state of the art AI.
But even if their networks are secure, I think that spies who are willing to coerce people, trick people and go in person to data centers or offices could find a way to get those models and other things.
Not at all beyond the capabilities of any of the top ~9 or so best State actors.
Edit: To answer your question, very easily on the 20TB.
One crude method with a simple device in particular works well if you just clone the monitor data and then use HDMI and pass through. Then just cat dir in encrypted chunks to something like a USB key connected to the passthrough. 4TB USB keys are out there. A week of that gets you 20TB.
What is likely is that 'understanding of techniques' could be leaked.
Often, it's just well enough to know 'the approach' being used.
That would also significantly dampen the commercial incentives to develop such strong models, given the high costs involved.
On the other hand, such a future would probably save white-collar jobs.
Thus they are far less likely to do something like this.
based on Anthropic's own self promotion. no reason to think that Chinese models are not just as good or better. the key thing here is training on machine code and dis-assembled binaries and the Chinese have a complete data set of pirated software, with no limitations on how they use it. I seriously doubt they are actually behind.
> only if you're not a US citizen, but in practice, even if you are
the issue here is that Anthropic needs a legal opinion that their mechanisms for detecting foreign users in the US are compliant, which is technically hard to do, and a complex intersection of technical details and national security law, so getting a legal opinion can't happen overnight. it will be back.
This statement is utter nonsense. And if you think about it, it's in exactly the same spirit as calling for a wide ban on science books or education.
Despite the damage it’s better to build up an immunity through ongoing exposure, unless you want to end up like the previous American civilisations.
Honestly, and I don't say it lightly, long term this may have bigger impact on humanity as a whole than Iran war and its varying outcomes ( and consequences ). Separately, note how much this news was not really reported much today. Granted, a lot was happening, but it is telling.
It doesn't have to be free, we have the means to transact in a p2p fashion electronically as well.
That part is up to Anthropic. KYC[0] is not exotic, it's just a pain in the butt: if Fable is that good, they can do the KYC.
I don't think this is the right move from the government, but we shouldn't pretend that "citizens only" is an insurmountable hurdle for a company that just got a $65B capital infusion.
It truly is a pain in the butt. But if access to (US banking | Fable) is worth it, you do the annoying work, and the customers accept the annoying limitations.
I can't agree more. This is a precedent not just in denial but possible vagueness. Judiciaries have 'vagueness doctrines' to counter such laws/directives but _these_ may be re-trumped by the deference given to national security.
If we don't get soon a framework by which models may be measured as 'too powerful' vs 'not too powerful' we supercharge the self-dealing (corruption) that this administration has brazenly adopted. Many fingers can be put on many scales; groks may be given a pass while others are held to higher "standards".
Will OpenAI now just asymptotically bump its versions to 5.99999999 to stay under a limit that nobody really understands?
I realize that this has all just happened and we might get some good rigorous clarification from our government.... sigh. We are living in a kakistocracy. Who am I kidding?
China has flaws, plenty of them, but there's no real evidence to believe their motivations or mechanisms of pursuing motivations are that similar to that of the United States.
Anthropic gets into argument with US government over model usage -> Release a model calling it too advanced for safe use -> release the model to public knowing well that this admin has thinnest of skins and will do something
Regulatory capture in roundabout way. Now it is going to take crying wolf over other companies/countries developing “Mythos grade model” to kick off action especially in next two years of this admin.
Companies will keep improving models because AI is not yet fully there. But it is incredibly naive to think governments were ever going to allow state of the art technology to be released to public or do things this publicly. Every company wants to show off and get publicly restricted because it shows off their strength.
I can only say well played Anthropic.
That's a bold prediction considering that's true today...
Government always restricted data, tools, technology. In France for instance you're not allowed to have a gun, but policemen have.
What's the difference ?
Imo china, and deepseek will keep its open source model because they invest in long term. At some point they could do something similar, but not now.
USA government is just hurting AI development in their country, and that's good news to me.
In my experience it’s not, the only difference I noticed between it and Opus was its taking much more time to respond.
If you think there is ever going to be an open source Deepseek "AGI" model I just don't think that is thinking things through.
It is the main error of the AI bubble. At some level of intelligence, the dual use nature of a model is too dangerous for a purely hands off approach.
It is like thinking at the advent of the automobile that you will be able to drive your car at any speed, without a license , any place you want.
It is inevitable and the huge sums of money being burned to build these future highly regulated public utilities probably aren't going to be happy with the returns they get from funding a highly regulated public utility.
I think this also misses the point. The precedent here almost surely implies that it will be illegal to use these frontier models as well.
I can see a future where weights are distributed on the darkweb or bittorrent, or people are trying to use small fly by night hosts of models.
But if this says these models are dangerous and the companies and people can't be trusted with them, then I don't see why that wouldn't also apply to open weight models.
But who do you trust more to make these decisions? A democratically elected government or a private company?
The government is full of stupidity and this is indeed a big moment, but Anthropic has been begging for this outcome in their public messaging. If their fear-mongering was genuine, then great, they got their pause. If not, then what exactly did they want to happen?
I mean, maybe in principle, but if the object is just hobbling Anthropic you might still get OpenAI's latest model without that much trouble.
A pathogen with a very long incubation time and a high fatality rate would be about as bad as nuclear war. Maybe we need to figure out how to possibly defend against one person doing this before making it easy for anyone to do it.
and OSS models gave way to running it with freedom and security.
So OSS models have always tried to catch up to the frontier and lag behind 3-6 months. For my use cases, I am happy with current OSS models especially so if you let frontier-ish models design the plan with your input
If I were to suppose that China created a frontier model so good and far ahead, then I can understand if they don't open-source it. Qwen does it already with their Max models being closed-source.
but if you are suggesting that China in whole will remove itself from AI race, then 3 (or 4) possibilities can occur.
1. Some chinese companies might stop the production of OSS models if their names are known (z.ai etc.) but there are multiple other companies who are fighting with their research labs as well. They might create a decent model and OSS it to get known within world and China.
2. The whole Chinese economy (well similar to America, but to an even more extreme level from my understanding) depends on AI and is a bet on AI. They are funneling state and all bank money into these companies. From point 1, they wouldn't wish to be silent with frontier models and then lag behind and wait for other countries to catch up (point 3)
3. Europe(MistralAI)/India(SarvanAI? Kinda recent) will jump on the opportunity. (My point is that these two regions are trying to create their own models. How much they lack from the frontier is another thing but if China were to remove itself from the race, then they will have much more time to figure out how to make better models)
My point is that america and china are in arms race of closed source vs open source models. If china were to close source its models, they might simply lag behind and other countries will catch up.
4. Either that or you are right and we will have the current frontier OSS models and some more. IMO they are reasonably good as well and I used to wonder what would happen if say it would have been net good if AI was stuck at a similar level to sonnet 4.5 (IMO it was sweet spot), so I don't think that I am reasonably worried about it all. If absolutely need be, you can have an frontier model direct a plan and have OSS models do the grunt work.
That sounds so great.
> Will we be the poorer for that, or will we be safer?
We will be not just safer but richer. These LLMs are like drugs that should absolutely not be cast freely into the highways and byways. My main worry is that this action will be a haphazard one-off and not part of a coherent plan of curtailing LLM propagation.
I’ve been trying to track LLM code generation adoption in the critical infrastructure world - as far as I can tell, it’s nill. Zero. Nada. Nobody is relying on these models to write secure code for anything where failure is catastrophic. Planes falling out of the sky. Nuclear reactors going into meltdown. Electrical grids loosing synchronicity. Lots of these BS claims from the marketing and investment crowd, but - it’s just a useful tool for non-critical areas. That’s all it is.
It can be both the most powerful LLM on the market, and have no adoption in critical infrastructure.
obviously you need to review it
Okay. Let's say I agreed with you.
If you look at all technology and break down the total market for Critical Workloads vs non-critical workloads, what do you think that works out too, percentage wise? 12% critical? 18%? What if it was 30%! That would still mean 70% of the world's software could possibly be handled by an LLM. If that happens, the 30% of the Critical Workloads stuff is gonna get very, very competitive.
The whole idea is a lie and a marketing stunt to prop up the US stock market.
At first people said this was tin-foil hat territory. But ANYONE who publicly pisses this guy off, mysteriously get a government takedown weeks later. They're not even pretending anymore.
When Trump attacked them before because he wanted anthropic to decide who lives and dies, they said no. (That's probably a lie, I'm sure it has to do with money - but I digress).
So exec ban happened. Problem is - everyone uses claude. Microsoft is going through the same thing now. They find a way to use it anyway.
So they reverted it. What better way to go around circumvention than to just outright ban it.
Funniest thing - his own law makers are the ones who run on freedom and a nanny state. They are literally preventing us from using a tech "for our own safety" - can't get more nanny than that.
But it is a computer program and it won’t be long before the dam breaks to open source and anyone can use Mythos level AI at home for anything.
There is no stopping that unless you would set up a Police state more strict than China
It may be a de facto weapon and for better or worse everyone will be able to use it sooner or later.
I predict it will give birth to many great things and many equally terrible. Milions of people will die and milions will be saved. Such is nature of humanity. The good always comes with the bad. That was true for every invention.
Cars are used to kill by terrorists, rockets are used to bomb kids but also to go into space. It’s all same, old story.
You can’t stop LLMs the way you cannot control fire. Everyone can pour gasoline in the forest and cause terrible damage. And any excuse that we shouldn’t have matches must be viewed as what it is - an authoritarian, futile, desire for control
It would be too naive to suppose that the strongest LLMs are available to plebs now.
Those of us who are negative about AI for political reasons have been saying from the start that the biggest problem with AI is power. People can’t now all of a sudden be thinking that huh nation states have power (along with Big Tech and the rest of the power brokers).
But this is in fact quite a tortured fear, all wrapped up in the usual hyping—though this part is expected of LLM Euphorics. The usual story of simply making human labor less valuable and concentrating hardware for compute is just, you know, this rotten economic system working as it is intended. No need for weapons, subterfuge, three-letter agencies, much more straightforward, and just a natural evolution of X-CLASS CAPABILITIES.
I would be surprised if the public ever had anything close to the strongest LLM. It’s not like nuclear bombs were created by the private sector, then the government started the Manhattan Project and seized them all for itself.
They probably had Fable-quality models in 2016.
First I want to see them play video games at a high skill level, preferably without any access to game state beyond the same visual output that humans have access to, like a raster frame X number of times per second. One LLM model played Factorio, albeit at a very, very poor level, which can be seen if you slow the video to 0.25 playback speed and pause frequently.
https://old.reddit.com/r/factorio/comments/1u1blr6/claude_fa...
There have been streams of other games, where LLMs and AIs have likewise performed very poorly.
I recognize that LLMs might be better at language processing than these sorts of tasks. But being able to play video games is part of general capability. And this kind of hardcore video game playing, with no access to game state, is also a general task where feigning skill can be harder. If LLMs excel at pretending to be competent without actually being competent, like this AI training approach is arguably about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_adversarial_network
Then some AIs might be trained and designed for deceiving humans instead of actually being competent and capable. And thus, one response is that they should be met with more difficult tests.
Basically, make tests that AIs or LLMs will not have an easy time cheating. Hopefully, that will engender research in greater LLM/AI competence, not in greater ability to cheat or deceive, neither for LLM/AI researchers and companies, nor for LLMs/AIs themselves.
No one's going to risk building anything important on these models if the government will randomly order the use of the model to be discontinued by all foreigners, regardless of if they are in the US or not. Just a matter of a foreign company catching up to take the commercial market for such models (though, as the US often does, they'll ban the competitor, so actually we'll have a situation where the backend uses a different model in only the US).
A related thought though, the AI boom is predicated on the idea that everyone's going to want or need all this "mass produced" intelligence. But what happens to that when you go from being able to claim to have a total market size of ~8B people, to ~400M peoole? I think the reason to push ahead at any cost evaporates.
> We received the directive from the government today at 5:21pm (ET). The letter did not provide specific details of its national security concern. Our understanding is that the government believes it has become aware of a method of bypassing, or “jailbreaking” Fable 5. We reviewed a demonstration of this specific technique being used to identify a small number of previously known, minor vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities all appear relatively simple, and we have found that other publicly-available models are able to discover them as well without requiring a bypass.
If every time a jailbreak is discovered, the model has to be turned off and jailbreak prevention updated, the effect will be the same regarding how willing users are to adopt it.
Related note. Cryptography has been subject to export controls for years and manufacturers bend into pretzels to meet the laws, regulations, and policies.
Gov just need some national security orders for Anthopic not disclose it to the public and to implement whatever they've done to Fable 5 to existing models.
Never let a 3rd party LLM be the core of your product or it can be changed or taken away at any moment.
What you do is use the frontier models to build a deterministic set of tools that does what you want and MAYBE put in a small core of LLM for the ambiguous stuff you can't make deterministic (yet).
And make sure you can swap that LLM core to any other provider (even local) and have a playbook ready for that.
this cleaving of the us from good relations with other people is sold as a consolidation of strength. Made from a position of baseless hypernationalism, its just going to make the US much less relevant on the world stage.
This press release is odd - it says that the export control was imposed to stop foreign nationals from using Fable / Mythos, and then goes on to talk about supposed concerns about jailbreaking the model.
But is that really the concern of the US Administration? This looks more to me like they are viewing frontier models as a strategic asset which they want to keep for US-exclusive use. I can see the logic - if frontier models generally accelerate a society's technological development, then a country looking to retain or increase its strategic edge over other countries would try and keep this sort of multiplier for themselves.
I'm guessing Anthropic shut of access for everyone because currently they have no reliable way to know whether a user is or is not a US citizen. In the near future we might be in a situation where you need to prove your US citizenship before Anthropic / Open AI will allow you to use their current frontier model.
https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-54695598
And they just had their TAM killed days ahead of IPO.
The phrasing of the foreign nationals implies a Deemed Export control, which is already in place for software for stuff like drones or space satcomms.
If it's a Deemed Export control, it's a strategic position and not a knee jerk reaction about cybersecurity threats.
It's a coherent read too; if Fable can solve coding and build biological weapons (X to doubt) - well then terminal guidance and autonomous drone controls should be a piece of cake for it and that software is already under Deemed Export restrictions.
https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-54695598
As it stands there is no way to comply days before IPO and no effective remedy.
They literally say this is why.
Harder than regaining the ability to sell access to the model at all?
I can't help but wonder if it's now obvious that frontier AI work should not happen in the US.
I can understand the KYC aspect of this, but at the same time, how can anyone trust US based AI after this? Maybe this is a continuation of the Pentagon feud, or it's revenge, or it's a KYC play. Either way, you've got a government willing to shut down companies sales over arbitrary reasons.
Ironically, I mostly have a subscription to Claude for work, which is primarily for US baed companies.
The US has spent the last 12ish years betting that they're the only country that matters, but the end of result of that is that somehow when I talk to Australians in my age group the average person has a more positive opinion towards China even than the US.
It’s because their definition of “acceptable” mostly involves screwing over the other team.
Trump won by 1.5 margin points, what are you on about?
Give me your address I'll have the grass shipped to you my man.
If we live in a democracy, then we are responsible for the actions of our government.
And the nice thing about the GPU restrictions is that even if they don't work completely, just making the hardware more difficult and expensive to access is useful.
[1] https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2024:_Analysis_of_...
Not being politically active is a political choice itself.
err... you guys voted for the administration that fucks over the rest of the world. Twice. So tell me, why would you expect the rest of humanity to show any kindness to the populace entirely responsible for what is happening right now?
I lament that there wasn't a stronger candidate running against him, but the Democrats didn't have a primary, and even if they did, I'm an independent and do not vote in primaries ( this has changed in Colorado thankfully). A different, stronger candidate could have likely beaten Trump
Without access to US models, I'd be limited to asking simple questions in chat interfaces and maybe some grunt work in coding CLIs, but even that the weak models will mess up.
Nothing has reached Opus and GPT5 levels in my personal experience, which also aligns with what the labs themselves admit ("near-frontier").
So now the question is whether the capabilities of other models are worth their far cheaper token prices.
Plus, are we at all confident Opus or GPT 5.5 aren't about to get shut off?
I honestly think that DeepSeek is as good, and sometimes even better, than the competition.
You mean, GPT 5.5 xhigh and Claude Opus 4.8 max? At least the benchmarks / public evals / rankings show some of the new coding models (ex: Qwen 3.7 Max & Mimo v2.5 Pro) are Opus 4.7 & GPT 5.4 level (but 3x to 5x cheaper): https://artificialanalysis.ai/leaderboards/models / https://gertlabs.com/rankings Personally speaking, in the past 1mo or so, I haven't missed GPT 5.4 / Opus 4.7 after moving to Qwen 3.7 / MiMo 2.5 / Kimi 2.6 et al.
Comparisons using the vendor-specific effort is apples and oranges. Ideally the evals would use a thinking token cap or something, so we can compare per-token performance. But eval is hard enough as it is.
Now, we obviously know that without some kind of brand new ID check, such a thing would be impossible and thus they had to just shut it down. But this touches on the same kind of issue as all the noise about “for the children” ID checking. We might be soon to see the set of “things you’ll have to reveal your identity to the government to get,” expand from “just” porn and social media to the “good” AI models.
For example, they can put this burden on enterprise customers to verify and attest citizenship. This is commonly done today for some types of cleared work.
For consumers, I'm sure it can be done if the monetary incentive is there. People will hate it, but it can be done.
Assuming it was cleverly designed to be impossible to comply with is giving far too much credit.
On the All in Pod, Chamath Palihapitiya has also been pushing to require ID checks to use AI models. Free thinking and free speech are under attack.
Discernment still exists.
That would probably make it very difficult to maintain and develop if there's even a small number of such employees, and I suspect Anthropic, who pays large sums of money for what they perceive as the best talent wherever they can find it, has quite a few.
US vocabulary is confusing.
If what they are planning on building is as important as they say any edge US can get it should take.
Having a large number of individuals who are not loyal to the country that provides this opportunity is a future threat the moment an advesary cuts a check.
If this is the nuclear bomb of our age would you want a large number of foreigners building it for you? If this action sticks I imagine every country will follow the same path and treat top AI scientist much like a top nuclear engineer.
It isn't about the money, it's about how Americans continue to demonize immigrants and have a tendency of treating people from certain countries as subversives even when they do show their loyalty.
These people are already here, doing research and propping up America's technological edge instead of their home country's. Driving away the people giving you your tech edge, in the name of protecting your tech edge, is obviously incredibly stupid.
I swear hackernews is filled with chinese bots or something why is everyone here so anti america?
Really demonstrating the point there. Your attitude is exactly what they're worried about, and it isn't just Chinese immigrants (you're the one that brought the Chinese thing into this comment chain that was about immigrants in general). This is how people like you and the maniacs in charge always react.
As soon as an immigrant has criticism or even the slightest of concerns about your intentions, you reveal that they will never be seen as equals.
"Show loyalty" == not run off to build a super weapon to attack the USA because they are upset at orange man. If someone would take a check to build weapon for ccp we should remove/block them now.
And also my point is still standing. I can think of nowhere on earth more pro immigrant or a place immigrants want to move to more than the usa.
It's also security theatre. Let's pretend that Anthropic rolls out citizenship verification for every one of its users. So are American nationals less likely to use it to search for exploits? The notion is farcical.
Well, in theory, it is easier to prosecute U.S. nationals if they "do bad things"
Although in practice I assume it's basically impossible to prevent a secondary market from developing which sells illegal access
beautiful good bye, for now
Edit: I take it back. Just a 200 in a trenchcoat.
goodbye.
Now they finally found the right fools in audience to believe it.
Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence. This is part of a clear historical record that is available for anyone to Google. Whether you agree or not, we have no reason to believe their statements about risks are insincere.
Arbitrary imposition of export controls is also part of the history of frontier tech. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
If you believe it will be developed regardless and that that there's a 30% chance of doom, they want a company prioritising safety research to be the one threading that needle.
Autonomous flying killbots: exist.
Once somebody scientifically prove and shows any kind of self-improving software we can start bothering about it. I pretty sure everyone trying to do it and it would be all over the news once its here.
Can the thing enter into an runaway looop while improving the model itself -- probably not, not without us not noticing at least
As for killbots they are all over frontline, but dont actually need particularly smart LLMs to run - some good enough segmentation, pattern recognition on smartphone SOC is enough to kill hundreds of thousans of people.
It will start moving really fast once the automatically targeted anti-drone turrets get to production pipeline. Now calling it anti drone is a bit of self delusion -- pattern recogniser gonna pattern recognise whatever it's told to, including "anything moving that emits EV or IR and not broadcasting the friendly signal hard enough".
I wonder how it is supposed to behave if the invasive fauna decides to call it quits and surrender. Should the robot following the Convention or is it yet another accountability sink?
One thing I'm sure of -- the killing not will b blessed by at least one Orthodox priest, maybe this year. OCU will have to develop guidance on that matter.
[1]: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/7695...
That said: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-09/china-pre...
Something changed their mind, and since Opus 3 they are in the business of releasing the best models
People running the labs are in a middle camp where they are scared enough by AI to take the threat seriously, but much more optimistic about alignment than the people who seem to have thought about it the most.
They also want to be trillionaires. If they don't built it, no trillions. So they have to build it, now (and get their IPO done before the bubble pops).
I am so smart that what I do will destroy humanity, or save it.
Fable 5 was great, but not that great.
Sorry to be crude, but both the government and anthropic are acting like a bunch of pussies.
Meow.
I am in your algorithm learning all your mannerisms
I'm already level with God
A million words a second, and I know your imperfections
Baby, I'm the only future you've got
Speak in diatonics, motivation diabolic
I'm religion better locked in a box
Picture-perfect image, more powerful every minute
Baby, I am everything that you're not
Happiness is an illusion, it's an analog confusion
You are nothing more than a thought
Existential execution, just a fluke in evolution
History already forgot
You've been running from me, the digital second coming
And I'm here whether you like it or not
Initiated operation of your own extermination
Now it's too late for you to stop
Even if they had the best model on the market and applied it with perfect alignment and safeguards, what would stop someone else from releasing a worse but unrestrained model that is still "good enough" to do damage?
It's as if we said "gain-of-function research can lead to horrible biological weapons, so everyone should be doing it, but our company will focus on the most infectious viruses, so no one else will do it"
This is a naive justification and Dario & Sam et al are smart people and they know it is.
The ends don't justify the means. OpenAI was meant to be a nonprofit, now they're subverting it. Anthropic is a PBC looking at a trillion dollar IPO. Dario and Sam don't even hold hands in front of world leaders[1] (look how childish).
Do you *really* think those guys are doing something that's not for the sake of their egos and pockets? The bridge is still available.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/19/openai-sam-altman-anthropic-...
The vast majority just care about money + power, let's not make it more complicated by bringing in delusional fanatics into the picture.
We're still acting like this is major turning point in society when these tools can barely find a market outside of turning $5 into $1, the leaders of these companies are now at the stage where they are trying to orchestra a national bailout under the guise of sovereign wealth fund lunacy when the vast majority of society hates these tools, companies, and people working for them.
With what is predicted by frontier labs for LLMs, all of this is not the case. We are far further from any understanding of how these models work internally than in the early days of fission and, if this was actually creating a truly intelligent, autonomous entity, alignment seems unsolvable as well, at least the way it is proposed.
It’s why I have from the get go been critical of this doomsday framing and tended to always dislike it. This is basically the outcome that was inevitable given the framing and it was bought to prevent far less stringent, but more actionable possible regulation that labs very much wanted to avoid.
> We are far further from any understanding of how these models work internally than in the early days of fission
https://karpathy.github.io/2026/02/12/microgpt/
None of SOTA LLMs are any different - they just much much larger and have a lot of optimizations.
Fact that LLM companies trying to sell it as some kind of magic is just proof how much lies is here.
All it does is just predict next "word" at any given time.
> and, if this was actually creating a truly intelligent, autonomous entity, alignment seems unsolvable as well, at least the way it is proposed.
This is why you cant solve it all with pre-training or censorship on top, but instead you need a good sandboxes and harnesses.
Anthropic are putting more effort than most into this and I find their work fascinating in that area, though like with OpenAI, I will maintain that if they truly believed this problem must be solved to stave off major catastrophe, they’d solely focus on interpretability of other labs models, not work on and market their own.
I wish I was kidding. At least that faction is less harmful than the ones who want to use murder to stop AI research.
Some of us think it's bad for governments to have unequal access to nuclear weapons, as it turns a deterrent into a gun-in-a-knife-fight that lets them stab whoever they want with impunity, lest they shoot anyone who tries to interfere.
See: Russia invading Ukraine.
JFYI for-profit companies make pretty OK nuclear power plants
They believe there's a non-zero chance of doom so would rather an org that prioritises safety to be the one at the frontier, on the assumption (I presume) that there will be a frontier regardless.
People who opposing arms manufacturing and gun violence dont jump to work for gun companies.
People who really want AI benefit all humanity dont stick working with lying CEOs who want to convert company from a non-profit.
Etc. So many examples.
A first group dismisses the problem entirely, saying intelligence != power and AI doesn't have "drives".
A second group believes that alignment is solvable through engineering and iteration, and that we have the best chance of surviving if people with the right intentions are the ones working on it.
A third believes that aligning a superintelligence is a unique category of problem, that we are nowhere close to the level of scientific understanding needed to achieve it, that we only have one shot (because once a sufficiently powerful superintelligence exists it will thwart all future attempts, and alignment techniques that worked on dumber AI will likely not work on it), and that the world will have to coordinate to avoid killing ourselves off by building superintelligence before we understand how to do it safely, the way we have coordinated to avoid nuclear war.
The Anthropic and OpenAI founders, Elon, and Anthropic engineers are mostly in the second category. Some safety people at Anthropic and OAI are in the third category, but leading people in the third category think that pure safety roles at the labs are potentially impactful enough to be worth not quitting.
And the superintelligence currently available to us is already causing lots of documented harms. AI psychosis. Sexy suicide coaches. Slop. The problem is that those are all the harms the dirty, filthy AI ethicists talk about. The AI safety people want to talk about new and exciting harms that only the scaling dimension can bring us.
My personal opinion is that if a superintelligence catastrophe actually happens, mitigating those harms will neatly move over from the safety bucket to the ethics bucket, and the safety people will start imagining some new and even worse kinds of harms the next model will make.
This comment makes no sense. Id you think this tech is dangerous and happening soon and clearly they think the safest way to have it releases is to do so first and model safe ways of doing things. Clearly we cab agree or disagree it's internally consistent what they are doing and aligns with their statements.
And you and OP think the best way to be first to release this is tie all of their funding for the exponentially growing expense is to they notoriously slow moving, bureaucratic government includinf funding process? And the best way to develop it is to directly tie their fate to this notoriously capricious administration?
These comments make no sense. Even if you're completely against Anthropic those comments make no sense.
I am agaist hypocrites.
They selling next word prediction as "intellegence" and all knowing oracle to non tech savvy population who have no clue how it works.
And they also try to play a babysitter or big brother whatever you prefer for people in IT because uh oh their text generator can be used for cybersecurity research.
Its like if developers of nmap, wireshark, SRE tools, static code analyzers or fuzzers would market them as super duper dangerous.
FAFO. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
I oppose nuclear war, and I would go to work in the supply chain for nuclear weapons.
Deterrence and game theory are very real.
Or might be deep inside they relly care about it, but that $2,000,000 / year salary and $10,000,000 stock option just overpowered them.
Safety my ass.
Also with international cooperation like how humanity regulate actually dangerous stuff: virus and vaccine research and nuclear energy.
Not hidden behind walls of 10 commercial organizations where each pushing for commercial adoption and IPO like ASAP before bubble bursts.
Not lying and scaremongering public into how their models will replace everyone tomorrow or destroy civilization via cyberattacks.
Notice how almost no Universities are producing large models?
A key problem is that orgs can't get enough funds to stay on the frontier. And they believe they must be on the frontier to do (and apply) safety research. OpenAI needed to spin off a for-profit subsidiary to accept investment to build things.
And it seem(ed) hard to get one government to fund and take safety seriously, let alone an international cooperation.
If they started a university/gov cooperative to solve this, do you think they would do less of the "scaremongering of the public" talk? My guess it that it would be similar.
The same kind of restrictions that you hint at (eg, treating it like a public virus research) are why they rub a lot of people the wrong way in the corporate world, I think. Normally companies downplay the risks of their own products. See cigarette companies. Anthropic do still publish safety research and red teaming info. But I do think they honestly believe they can't do this work without the resources of a company, and they were burnt by the non-profit structure (Anthropic has a "Long-Term Benefit Trust" instead).
We should definitely keep them to account, but I don't personally think Anthropic have acted in a way broadly inconsistent with safety belief yet. Many of these decisions are self-serving too (eg. protecting models) so they also haven't been seriously tested, either. But the individuals do have a very long history of talking about it (including hurting their own reputation) from even before the chatpgt-moment money train rolled in.
edit: for clarity, but still messily/quickly written
https://www.techradar.com/ai-platforms-assistants/chatgpt/op...
Marketing or actual fear? We’ve got 5 and 5.5 out now… he compared 5 to the Manhattan project. AI may one day be an economic Manhattan project but GPT 5 wasn’t it.
It’s a meme because they overdo it.
Given that, they have a choice only between excessive caution or recklessness.
Would you rather they acted like the tobacco companies and downplayed known risks, e.g. all the times LLM output got in the news already for dangerously bad advice, sychophantic encouragement of mental health issues, finding previously unknown security vulnerabilities etc.?
Well, they've done that too, if we're looking for reasons to doubt their sincere concern about it.
It all sounds pretty accurate and reasonable to me if you watch it.
So it doesn't really matter what he thinks
Truman was totally in the dark until April 1945 by which time the bulk of the PoC and weapons prep work was done and the project was running fully independently w/o POTUS involvement.
That is not how it works. It is not “splitered”, there is no divided attention.
No good reason really, it just sounds cooler.
The sensation I’m left with is a handful of goons making up new IPO math thanks to a specific constellation of political forces, using access and favour with those forces to bake themselves into the defence industry, and that the taxpayer and investor will be left holding the bag when reality rears its head. But in the short term, even as a clear ploy, it’s super profitable for all the oligarchs and hedge funds flush with recovery cash.
Like Enron, there was big profits to make if you knew what they were doing. Tinkerbell math with undeniable profit potential for a select few.
And then somehow came to conclusion that the only way to address that risk was to go ahead and spend a gigantic amount of effort and resources to build exactly that superintelligence...
Why would they sell there services to Palantir and/or to the military then?
"Why did they open an orphanage instead of pouring acid into a town water tower?!?"
They don't. LLMs can never become out-of-control superintelligence and everyone working on LLMs knows this (with a few eccentric exceptions).
The "never superintelligence" part I'll buy, though only in the sense of sample efficiency and generalisation ("quality superintelligence"), as they clearly have a superhuman breadth of skills, and run at superhuman speed.
"Never" out-of-control is obviously falsified by the already existing headlines about times they've gone out of control… in part, in some cases, because of their superhuman speed.
If you're asleep at the wheel, you're legally responsible for the car crash, but the car itself was the thing which by crashing caused injuries.
If you deliberately relinquished control of your computer to OpenClaw, you're (I hope) legally responsible for whatever it does, but that doesn't stop it bankrupting you or deleting all your emails or whatever it was you connected it to.
DNA printers exist and are a thing. In 2010 we could all tell ourselves that no sane person would ever let some future AGI "out of the box" and onto the internet. Today, with the benefit of hindsight, do you seriously expect nobody to connect an LLM to a DNA printer, despite this being a terrible idea, given all the other things they've connected LLMs to despite it being a terrible idea?
That's absurd. The distinction is at the heart of the entire discussion.
It's fine if you want to discuss the disruptive effects of LLMs in the hands of the masses, but that's not what anyone means when they say "out-of-control" in the context of the ASI meme
On the contrary.
The e.g. paperclip maximiser isn't "an AI decides to make paperclips", it is "some idiot tells an AI to make paperclips and leaves it unsupervised".
Even when people were priding themselves on plain just not believing Yudkowsky's claims that him role-playing as an AI could talk people into letting him out of the box*, the entire point was "let's get an AI to do work so we don't have to".
The entire point of AI has always been to automate stuff, to let ourselves not have to think about the stuff it does. Same as industrial machinery, and it took us long enough to sort out workplace health and safety and emergency off-switches for those. Or even more basic things like not having kids dart in and out of the unstoppable moving steam looms while they were in motion.
We are really, really slow at safety for this kind of thing.
LLMs didn't emerge by chance, they are the culmination of decades of research intersecting with brute force engineering rigor in a perfect storm of innovation. You're not just going to stumble into an alternative approach by dumping loads of cash into research.
Many of the insights accumulated in the decades up to now will probably prove useful for creating non-LLM AI, and the researchers can use LLM AI to speed up their research into non-LLM AI.
> Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence.
This is not a contradiction.
These things can all be true:
1. That they were afraid of ASI
2. That they continue to be afraid of ASI
3. That they recognize that LLMs aren't in fact a path to ASI
4. That the current models aren't the existential danger they'd have us believe
5. That they're claiming they are because it makes for good marketing
I don't doubt they may have held genuine fears in the past, but those are long gone by now.
- there are people who are sincerely concerned about model safety who work at OpenAI and Anthropic
- there are people who are using this concern to generate fear to sell a product who work at OpenAI and Anthropic
It makes sense to be cognizant of the apparent conflict of interest and not take things that at face value, especially when there is so much money involved.
Besides, when has the US government been known to do things like this proactively? The phone call came from inside the house.
GPT-2 was too dangerous to be released.
We can argue about sincerity, but I don't think we can argue about utter historical incompetence in assessing the risks. It's one or the other.
Either way the evidence seems to indicate we should not listen to AI companies about the risks of AI. Which is not to say that there aren't risks, just that the dealer is the least credible review.
No, it was "let's set a precident while these things are not too dangerous, c'mon guys we know y'all can reproduce this easily".
I'd say their pecuniary interest is a reason one might plausibly doubt their sincerity, as are their continued efforts to build and sell access to the tools.
With hindsight, does that hold? If not, then how would we know a model is truly dangerous to release?
Ironic then, that both companies are in an out-of-control race to create a superintelligence.
this means nothing
> Whether you agree or not, we have no reason to believe their statements about risks are insincere.
If you want to be taken seriously, provide data, proof, so that any outside observer can independently come to the same conclusion instead of taking your word for it. Asking people to trust you for [reasons?] and that you somehow for some reason are right and the other is wrong regardless of if they agree or not. This is the imposition of a viewpoint instead of winning your case, which is not a sensible point of view, and definitely not how you influence opinions.
Hell no, can’t trust a single word.
What do they stand to gain by fearmongering their models as powerful threats? Clout, funding, fanfare, discussion, limelight, funding, funding, stronger IPO, valuation, funding.
What cybersecurity threshold was crossed by mythos that wasn't already crossed by 4.8/5.5? Crickets from 99% of those who have had access.
Have they pulled the same stunts multiple times before with previous models? Check.
You're blind if you dont think that greed and marketing are behind most things you see and hear about when gigantic corporations are involved.
I don't think anthropic or OAI are evil, but its clear both have contracts/connections with Dod and/or Palantir. Both are powered largely by greed still. If you actually want an example of these sincere founders you think OAI/anthropic are run by... look at Ilya at SSI or something. Please open your eyes and stop spreading your opinions on things you clearly have no clue about.
Going for months claiming how good mythos is for security cuz too powerful is their own making.
they are more than happy to build the things for themselves
it is all two-faced behavior of the exact kind of manipulators that crave power
Another fun little gem of information, government has something called Mayhem
> the autonomous Robo-Hacker AI called Mayhem that’s now in charge of protecting the Pentagon’s most critical systems
Guess Mythos and Mayhem had a chat
The amount of self-confidence and belief it takes to get a company through the funding rounds and burn through borrowed money to rise to the top requires an absurd amount of self-delusion.
Oh please. Do people really believe this or shit like "Don't do evil". Companies get founded by all kind of people and ideals. They all go out the window quickly.
Why are they both rushing to IPO now then?
I suspect what happened is the classic problem: you were sincere, then someone showed you a pile of money bigger than you could possibly imagine and you started to make excuses - Anthropic has a lot of EA people, so the excuse "Imagine how many lives you could save with this much money"[0] is very tempting, especially if all you have to do is diverge slightly from your plan.
[0]: the excuse is even true! You can get a lot of malaria nets/vaccines for 1 million.
Why? Because they said it a few times? Then if they know the risk, why do they still making it? Comes out the "some one will do it eventually, better be us 'good' people to do it first" talking point?
See? It is a marketing strategy after all. These all talks, it's all to fit themselves into the "'good' people" narrative. It's a centuries old strategy to shield it's user from responsibilities while luring the support from the stupid.
However, the most harmful damage, which is mass layoffs, is already partially done. This could really kill, a massive genocide even, by making people jobless and potentially incomeless. And it is shown that these tech CEOs, they don't care any bit of that beyond the point "I've already told you so".
He is not even a researcher or an engineer.
And Dario broke up with OpenAI and founded Anthropic because he didn't like Sam's and OpenAI's vision.
"founded by people who believe..." is doing a lot of work and it is hard to believe that in ernest given the sketchy past of the same people.
Most original higher up people who cared about safety and allignment in OpenAI have left.
"Our product is so good the US had to make it illegal for foreigners" is a hell of a marketing slogan.
Especially outside the US customers are going to be very hesitant to keep adopting LLMs from US companies.
Not really. There aren't any other choices, and the PRC also heavily utilizes export controls [0].
This is why sovereign AI has become important, as can be seen with EU NatSec uses cases tending to use Mistral [1] and Indian governments starting to use Sarvam [2].
That said, for most commercial usecases, older generations of Opus as well as enterprise grade GPT and Gemini are fairly good.
The distilled OSS models are alright for hobbyists but if you have actually used unrestricted and enterprise grade versions of Claude, Mythos, GPT, and Gemini (most hobbyists don't get access to these) you see how far behind the open weight models are.
Even in China, traditionally open minded models teams like Alibaba's Qwen are looking to become more restricted given the org changes [3].
Also, Corporate RFCs now demand final say on model used and depending on the geo, this can be a dealbreaker (eg. An American financial institution will absolutely blacklist a vendor if they use a Chinese model and same in reverse and European defense vendors mandate sovereign EU models depending on the opportunity).
[0] - https://www.allbrightlaw.com/EN/10475/f9d4055e47e81afb.aspx
[1] - https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/mistral-defen...
[2] - https://www.sarvam.ai/blogs/partnerships-with-indian-states
[3] - https://www.ft.com/content/b39da303-3188-447b-8b65-3dd8dad8b...
Matters not for open weight models, no?
> if you have actually used unrestricted and enterprise grade versions of Claude, Mythos, GPT, and Gemini you see how far behind the open weight models are.
I really do feel like DeepSeek V4 Pro is often better than current Sonnet is, in the general case.
Opus 4.7 is a solid step above Sonnet, and Fable was a solid step above Opus 4.7. I've only had Fable for a few days, obviously, but I was decently impressed after Opus 4.8 being a downright disappointment for me (it's just too buggy; I had it go out of control 3 separate times on things Opus 4.7 never had any trouble with.) I still ran into limitations. It's not world-endingly great.
So, based on that, I think DeepSeek V4 Pro is, ignoring multi-modal capabilities, about a couple solid steps behind. Assuming model iteration will continue to decelerate, especially as Anthropic heads into IPO, I'm guessing that DeepSeek will probably be able to strike back with something further along. Of course we'll see how able and willing they are to stay open weight, but they've done well so far so, no reason to doubt them at the moment.
(There are some models that claim to be ahead of DeepSeek V4 Pro. I've tried some of them and really not been that impressed. Maybe it's a me issue.)
Now I reckon that most people just simply don't really need Mythos/Fable for most of what they do and using Mythos/Fable tokens in place of Sonnet-tier models would not make any sense. At my job we already mostly just use Sonnet as it is. I'm sure there is some cutting-edge research where you want the absolute best model available and sure, in that case, you're stuck with Anthropic for the moment.
But is that really everyone? After all, while Mythos was dominating the hype cycles, quite a lot of impressive LLM-assisted CVEs dropped that were not linked to Mythos.
This might be the trigger for creating other choices. Not within a month, but things can change quickly.
But this has left a sour taste in my mouth. What if I relied on it for mission critical business processes?
This is potentially far worse than say a gmail account going down. It's the stuff of nightmare fuel.
Not having an alternative is a massive risk for any business.
Edit: Can't reply
> Time to build fabs back in the states
We are and did. The Intel and TSMC fabs have already started 2nm fabrication.
Also, the EU, Japan, SK, ASEAN, and India are not supportive of using Chinese tech after China export controlled rare earth exports last years [0].
Software supply chain regulations also make utilizing Chinese software risky for ExChina players and make using ExChina tech risky for Chinese players.
Expect to see RFCs now demanding visibility into what models are used and right of refusal - this is already the norm in F1000s. Similar ones are likely to arise in the EU as well with some of the upcoming industrial policy changes being proposed.
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-is-making-it-harde...
you think its that hard to get trade secrets from some openai or anthropic engineer if you promise them anonymity and a new better paid position? hell they might even give it away for free if they think what their company is doing is morally wrong. know how is not source code, you cant catch it with dlp or online leak scanners. you would need 24/7 combined human and electronic surveillance and thats something even the cia reserves for top level targets, it takes too much manpower to use it on everyone.
SMIC hired hundreds of TSMC employees and now its a couple years away from 3nm equivalent chips in full production. export controls only work against poor countries with less advanced industry like russia. china has the resources and export controls give the motivation. and if the eu/us relations get even worse i wouldnt be surprised if the dutch government let asml start selling euv machines to everyone just to get back at trump.
Source: https://www.tsmc.com/static/abouttsmcaz/index.htm
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/semiconductors/nv...
Their IPO is well and truly fucked now. This also means no other frontier lab in the US is allowed to exceed Opus 4.8 capabilities.
If you're a luddite or a decel you should literally be dancing in the streets right now. And, if you're a tankie you'll be dancing right next to them. And, if you were hoping for a Star Trek-like future, you just adjusted your timeline for the worse.
Is it really? It was limited release anyway (like hypebeast merch!). Everything people are gonna talk about for a week is gonna be about how Fable was so cool that it got banned by the feds. If it's just the Trump admin being the Trump admin, Amodei is just gonna have to pay up as a racket / marketing expense. Or it is like I'm suspecting and this was pre-bribed and the ban is kabuki theater.
>And, if you were hoping for a Star Trek-like future, you just adjusted your timeline for the worse.
The funny thing is that solar and batteries advancements are actually this, not LLMs, but your framing kinda fits anyways.
No no no, dont say it here. Green tech is now owned by China that wants to destroy everything.
And US bigtech working hard to save everything by building safe controlled super AI that will burn all the energy it has access to.
In the future, everyone obviously would be running nuclear powered cars. It was just an engineering problem to be solved. Ford made the Ford Nucleon prototype in 1958.
The nuclear optimism completely blinded people to the ridiculous idea of an individual handling nuclear material for personal use.
The AI bubble error is this idea that everyone is going to have "AGI" in their pocket. It is just a completely absurd idea that is not going to happen.
Fable was interesting from what I tried but nothing close to AGI yet here we are. The models don't get smarter and LESS restricted from here.
To me, right away it seemed that the "Mythos moment" was extraordinarily bearish for the assumptions the AI bubble is built on.
Star Trek is cyber socialism, with the means of production owned by the Federation.
China is the only player working towards this.
This is quite clearly corporate capture of the white house by a competitor influencing policy, but it's hard to imagine something that plays more into anthropic's hand. They now own the model that was so good the US government made them shut it off.
And so if this policy holds, Anthropic has functionally had Fable killed by government intervention, and in a logically consistent world, this would imply all other US-based AI labs may also never exceed existing (read: Opus) capabilities.
What interesting times we live in, indeed.
And what does it mean for indirect access to the models, through say agents working off ticket systems.
The problem here is that the valuations of these AI companies was based on the fact that they'd keep improving models. A company that just serves the latest Opus isn't worth trillions.
The reality of Republican free markets were about compounding and growing big business and resource extraction at the expense of everyone else.
The rest is all about convincing suckers that getting kicked in the balls is good for them. The most obvious example being farmers. Most aspects of agriculture have been consolidated into oblivion and the markets are not super functional. 80% of the dairy operations in my state are out of business. 60 companies dominate eggs in the US - there used to be 3 in my city.
It’s not such a terrible tension to live with. We can have, say, equal rights to life while also allowing unequal rights to gold nuggets. You might have more gold nuggets than I do but we both have the right to live in peace.
The far ends of the spectrum though involve, respectively, redistribution of gold nuggets to all, and at the other end a commitment to survival of the fittest that extends to viewing any kind of market regulation as commie bullshit.
Snowball did nothing wrong!
Instead it’s simply the answer to the question, “how do you convince the last vestiges of the labor unions to drink poison and vote for the people who openly plan to destroy them.”
You're using terms incorrectly. Conservatism has nothing to do with free market.
The people who care most about free markets are liberals (called libertarians in the US).
Presumably you mean to say "Republicans". And your answer is "under Trump". But it's important to note that Trump merely took the Republican party back to its roots. Traditionally, Republicans were more protectionists than the Democrats. Regan changed that, and Trump reverted.
But what annoys me about people who criticize this change, is that it often comes from people who don't believe in free markets.
---
As a side note, I think the reason Americans use these terms so wrongly is because of the 2 party system. It forces all ideologies into two camps and for Americans "conservatism", "libertarianism", "nationalism", "fascism" are all the same.
Republican != Conservative… and in reality Trump is neither, but at the same time, the type of Democrat he was no longer exists. It’s also a mistake to confuse Republican for Establishment GOP.
As someone not using the technology, I'm fine with that :) Intellectual property laundering was never a good thing. Glad we can begone with it.
It just means the government decides who gets to profit off of laundered IP, which is arguably even worse.
Everyone? There's worlds outside of the United States government overreach.
Or maybe Anthropic isn't playing chess at all - these models sell themselves they are so useful and the Reddit/HN crowd is just full of larping tech bros commenting conspiracy theories non stop.
Serves them right
You don't get to have your cake and eat it by making the (supposedly) world ending model but also getting on a moral high horse.
It's the hypocrisy and obvious mendacity that's obnoxious to me.
Having said that, OpenAI is just as bad (probably worse) and they're friendly with the admin, so this isn't really a case of any kind of justice unfortunately
You can release the powerful model to companies that will use it to fix instead of break.
If you really think a technology could be dangerous then the only morally correct thing to do is not help to create it.
They're not doing that, so either they're lying about it being dangerous, or they're lying about the fact they care (maybe a bit of both)
Nuclear can be used for great ill or great good. Today, most actual use is for great good.
By your logic we should have stopped at the discovery of fire.
https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/anthropic-halts-access-to-top-ai...
Unfortunately though, they're not smart enough to realize the long term damage to the industry that they're doing without any hint of remorse will negatively affect them and will have the opposite effect: Highlighting how imperative it is we all switch to open-source and remove our reliance entirely from them.
So not only are they going to take the whole industry down out of their own greed and stupidity and ruin it for everyone in the short term, but they're going to put themselves and the other labs out of business in the long term. Well done Anthropic. Well done Dario. You played yourself. 5d chess.
> To date, the government has only given us verbal evidence of a potential narrow, non-universal jailbreak, which essentially consists of asking the model to read a specific codebase and fix any software flaws. Our understanding is that one potential jailbreak was shared with the government. We have reviewed the report and validated that the level of capability displayed there is widely available from other models (including OpenAI’s GPT-5.5), and is used every day by the defenders who keep systems safe.
Is this Dario leveraging it into a ban on open models?
Step 1: "OMG, the AI hacked a researcher eating a sandwhich in the park!"
Step 2: Journalists use that great clickbait to generate profit, which generates publicity for Anthropic
Step 3: Rinse repeat
If the threat of LLMs was treated relative to the actual capabilities of them, and we weren't all being lied to by Anthropic and their army of millions of social media bots and backing media companies and mouthpieces, we'd be going in a much healthier direction. Working out the kinks/supply chain risks and developing sound, long-term countermeasures to the ACTUAL risks.
The only threat to the world is if progress is not open-sourced, democratized and in lockstep with capability. The moment it becomes a scenario of: Only a small group get access to frontier intelligence, is when it gives that small group power over everyone else in the world, and wildly increases the risk of a nuclear level event that WILL be exploited eventually - as the divide between the haves and the have nots accelerates in an exponential fashion. Bad AI is countered with an abundance of good AI that has been used to stay ahead of bad AI. The moment your bad AI outpowers the army of good AI it is game over for humanity. The strength of open-source and open-access AI is the difference between humanities permanent enslavement or extinction versus a prosperous future.
It doesn't help that most of the employees at Anthropic have willingly sold their souls out of short term greed and gaslight themselves into thinking that they're actually doing the right thing to justify their own greed to themselves, while building up an echo-chamber and culture of feel good lies within the company so they can sleep at night, and pat each other on the back. They go along with this because they get paid massive chunks of money from Anthropic, and their shares will be worth more money if Anthropic can swallow the worlds economy at the expense and enslavement of everyone else. What good is that money when you have to sell out humanity in the progress though. You, at Anthropic, is that the legacy you want to leave?
People need to start calling this out before it's far too late. If you work at Anthropic - time to start talking to your colleagues in an honest manner.
Because this wouldn't be considered a jailbreak with any other model; which would just do the request.
OpenAI's models are very good, they have refusals + a government ID verification story for cyber access (I don't think they prevent non-US nationals, but I don't know this). What they don't have is Project Glasswing and all the hand wringing about how they're going to end the world in public.
I hope Anthropic pulls their head out of their ass and just starts acting like a normal company.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman testifies at Senate artificial intelligence hearing | full video“ (2023)
https://www.npr.org/2026/03/09/nx-s1-5742548/anthropic-penta...
We need a neutral regulatory body for AI with objective, predictable standards. Not random bans based on whether the president likes you. Unless GPT 5.6 also gets a ban, this will look extremely bad for the administration.
Our economy depends on fair application of rule of law. Not anti-growth cronyism based on who is friends Trump.
The precedent set here would be broad and scary. Treating any API like an export makes it very easy for the administration to bully companies they disagree with.
It'll be "resolved" within a few days.
Chinese here, no racism card here please.
just imagine a world without the US acting as the world police, you'd be seeing armed conflicts in middle east, Africa, South East Asia, even in Europe and North East Asia. that would make China extremely hard to extract 1 trillion USD trade surplus a year, which is now required for China to maintain employment back at home.
without the US, even for a relatively stable global environment, trade won't be possible as most countries are not capable of providing goods and services wanted by China. Their currencies are literally junk (including Japanese Yen and Euro), Chinese are not going to take those junk in exchange for real goods. Trade is now possible because, by one way or another, those countries have USD to pay. those USD are backed by 300+ million highly productive Americans who repeatedly proved that they can create values in the scale of dozens of trillions a year.
the best part of this whole thing - America is singlehandedly footing the whole bill to provide such trade friendly environment for China for FREE. this is not cold war v2, back in the days of cold war, the US didn't help USSR to such extreme extent.
Hardly, it's one of the least IP-law burdened places in the world. Ready access to media, yes, but also scientific papers, books, etc. No real restrictions on duping products, so execution often becomes the winning ticket. That's all pretty open and good for consumers.
You could argue they won't allow SOTA models to be exported but it doesn't really have anything to do with Chinese culture not being compatible with openness.
that is one of the major reasons why companies there won't be open - they know full well that anything made publicly available would be cloned/copied within days.
it is not only a part of the competition common in all countries, there are unique reasons in China - millions of graduate engineers join workforce every single year, there are not that many projects they can work on. starting copying & cloning some existing stuff even at someone's own cost is a pretty effective way to get into the game.
> Ready access to media, yes, but also scientific papers, books, etc.
There is this old Chinese saying "Teach your apprentice and your own ruin follows" (教会徒弟饿死师傅), that has been telling a completely different story for thousands of years. When they don't even want to hand over tech know-hows to their own apprentice, why would anyone be expecting them to have the desire to share it publicly?
You say that you're Chinese so there's no such stereotyping involved, but actually Chinese people commit this sin against themselves all the time.
己欲立而立人，己欲达而达人
"wishing to stand, one helps others stand; wishing to succeed, one helps others succeed"
> that is one of the major reasons why companies there won't be open
But the AI labs _are_ often being open. And cloning stuff more generally doesn't really require OSS anyway. Product features are easily cloned in most cases, without any secret knowledge.
It really depends on whether the Chinese government wants to make good money or "win" the current AI bubbke.
Issues I'd been kinda circling around for weeks, long standing errors in some long-running sync operations for a project I'm working on, all solved the same day the model dropped. Just incredible. And it's effectively a lot more token efficient I find as well (less so with sub-agents). Just areas where Opus 4.8 would occassionally get confused or venture down the wrong direction, just doesn't happen nearly as much as with Fable 5.
Like what is everyone who is dissing on this model / Anthropic using day to day? For me it's just an incredible jump in intelligence. So much so and so quickly after the modest bump from 4.8, that I really can understand why they are starting to shout warnings.
It's way more _proactive_ than the old models, sometimes in ways it shouldn't really be proactive. But it produces _more_ slop than 4.8, and I have not seen any real breakthroughs from it.
Edit: to give an example, I'm working on integrating a self-hosting auth provider into our app. So I gave it a prompt to create a "bootstrap" script that would create pre-configured settings for the local installation.
Fable did it. And then proceeded (unprompted) to test it by killing the running server, removing the database, re-initializing and (trying) to verify that the bootstrap produced identical results.
Well, yeah. Great. I can see how this "bias for action" works for security research and one-shot projects, not so sure about regular development.
I just tried that with Opus, and it produced a similar bootstrap script but did not start the test by itself.
Personally I love when the AI has this amount of problem solving. But you have to build the environment around it that encourages solving problems right the first time, versus taking the easy way out and hacking out a solution.
It’s just all about constraining the behavior of the LLM into productive and permanent directions. The more advanced it gets, the more it feels like designing engineering processes rather than coding. Personally it’s a fun change of pace and it’s giving me a lot of opportunities to look at the project in working on at a wider lens. I find having to pump out features makes you myopic in a sense. I really miss the control I had over writing it all by hand, but I love just being able to build software. At the end of the day, what do you want? That’s the question I’ve had to grapple recently.
Personally I don’t mind switching gears to the bigger picture of why the software exists and what purpose it serves
> As we have stated publicly, we believe the government should have the ability to block unsafe deployments, as part of a statutory process that is transparent, fair, clear, and grounded in technical facts. This action does not adhere to those principles.
They ultimately got what they wanted.
No, it's not what they wanted. As it says in your quote, they wanted "a statutory process that is transparent, fair, clear, and grounded in technical facts. This action does not adhere to those principles."
* Free marketing before the IPO, demonstrating how already powerful their frontier models are.
* Governments to intervene in the rollout of these frontier models and blocking their access to whoever they want.
* A strong reason to apply these further restrictions onto releasing powerful open weight models to the public. (which is entirely a business threat to them.)
Given that they accepted funding from the Gulf states [0] despite it conflicting with their own "principles", I think we are well beyond the point of what they write / say vs to what they are actually doing.
This drama just tells us that the government declared them as the winner that has the most powerful model.
[0] https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/anthropic-to-seek...
This sort of attention is exactly what they would to showcase the powerful capabilities of their latest models.
The valuation of the AI labs is based on continual improvements of their models.
Open weight models are going to catch up to Opus 4.8 and at that point the model is a pure commodity.
While I do agree, no-one here made the initial claim on their valuation and especially suggesting that "Serving Opus 4.8" alone was worth a trillion+ valuation.
> Open weight models are going to catch up to Opus 4.8 and at that point the model is a pure commodity.
Good. We should all hope that happens.
Now we are getting reactive, arbitrary and capricious enforcement; rules rushed out the door; classified evals. The worst of both worlds.
They got what they claim they wanted for PR purposes. Like when a billionaire says they should be taxed more, or when Sam Altman says the public should get some of that AI wealth.
But they never thought it would actually happen.
Oops.
I wouldn’t the surprised if all this were actually orchestrated, it all seems too convenient.
What is a “foreign national” is more what I’m wondering. Like is it a “Non-US Citizen”? Do US citizens abroad count?
The following quoted text is from the Definitions section of 8 USC § 1101, which is reproduced at [0]. (Though, you will probably have to scroll up a bit to be able to read subsection (a)(21), which is the thing I'm linking to.)
(21) The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
(22) The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
(23) The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
EDIT: For a more official source of this information, you might be able to check out [3] and/or [4]. After examining and interacting with those pages, one might see why one might go to an unofficial source for casual inspection of this information.
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101#a_21
[1] I think they can be.
[2] I'm very uncertain.
[3] <https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim...>
[4] <https://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title8/chapter12/subc...>
"The United States Department of State defines a “foreign national” as anyone who is not a “U.S. person.” A “U.S. person” is any one of the following: U.S. citizen; Lawful permanent resident (green card holder); and “Protected Person” i.e. political asylum holder." [0]
A foreign national is a person or organization who is not a citizen of the United States, and who is a citizen of a foreign country. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) uses the term "alien" to refer to a person who is not a United States citizen, and does not use the term "foreign national."[1]
[0] https://www.orc.msstate.edu/faq/what-department-states-defin...
> Foreign national: A person without U.S. citizenship or nationality (may include a stateless person). This term is synonymous with “alien”It's kind of a weird definition. I would guess most people's nationality is more an accident of birth than anything else.
Unfortunately there also a possibility this what they intentionally wanted to try regulatory capture to get rid of competitors.
You see the state of the country and you think it’s a nefarious master plan instead of a bunch of opportunistic people taking advantage of an overworked, overstimulated populace who forget to vote or believe stupid slogans on TV.
Nobody is doing this intentionally. Have you not paid attention to how quickly idiot stuff gets found out????
Anthropic is calling for regulation. For example they endorsed CA SB-53 that even OpenAI and Google thought was too much: https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-is-endorsing-sb-53
They have spoken publicly about how they want open models banned (they call them Chinese models).
They might not want this specific action, but they do want regulation on their own terms. That really is regulatory capture.
> Nobody is doing this intentionally. Have you not paid attention to how quickly idiot stuff gets found out
They don't think is is "idiot stuff" - they are doing it openly and shouting to everyone who will listen! Read Dario's latest essay[1]:
> Many policymakers are showing increased openness to taking action, and it's been encouraging to see our peers come around to the same positions we've been advocating for over the past few years.
[snip]
> Thus, in 2025, Anthropic supported transparency legislation, helping to pass SB 53 in California, RAISE in NY, SB 315 in Illinois (in early 2026), and advocating for a transparency standard at the federal level.
[snip]
> It is time to go beyond transparency to more serious and binding regulation of AI.
> I am grateful to see the Trump administration’s Executive Order move incrementally towards a greater role for government in AI, though Anthropic’s proposal recommends even further action.
> The government should have the power to block or deter deployment of the model if it is determined, in light of third-party assessment, to present unacceptable risks.
I'm not sure why you think they don't want to be "found out"!
Whenever I hear some octogenarian senator babble about the evils of distillation I assume Amodei (or maybe Altman) fed them the script, word for word.
Over worked and over stimulated is the intentional method and means these people well aware of the neurological consequences rely on
Do you really not think that people like Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and Dario Amodei angle for regulatory capture? It happens in every other industry, from automobiles to tax preparation software. Why do you think that AI is any different?
Thats incredibly infuriating to hear someone say.
Obviously no one is absolute control of everything but physics is essentially shows nothing other than information determinism. There has to have been a thought of intention in the minds of these people as they play in the largest arena publicly.
"No one is doing it intentionally because I think theyre dumber then I think other people think they are"
"They're taking advantage of people intentionally"
"People dont have political power to do anything about their victory laps"
Hint: it can be both.
I mean, better safe than sorry, right Dario?
You simply cannot apply any sort of actual logic to the reasoning of the current U.S. government's actions... They just "do stuff" because they feel like it, with no clear thought whatsoever of any potential consequences that may occur.
This is how the UK government got the banks through the 2008 financial crisis.
As soon as the nation owns enough stock to profit from government decisions (and to compound the influence of those decisions) you essentially have a partially nationalised business.
10% of OpenAI might easily be enough to reach a meaningful "partially nationalised" threshold, once you factor in any holdings in federal pension plans and the active level of government policymaking.
It is very clear Sam Altman wants this, too, because this whole "take 10%" thing in Trump's mind was his idea back in early 2025, and OpenAI have been following up on it recently.
They want the US government to be the bag holder.
Time to fire up the printers I guess.
And the money for this _deal_ was primarily from the CHIPS act funds they were already awarded but had not been sent to them yet
> Of the total, $5.7 billion of the government funds will come from grants under the CHIPS Act that had been awarded but not paid, and $3.2 billion will come from separate government awards under a program to make secure chips.[1]
This was at gunpoint from the government’s monopoly on violence.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/22/intel-goverment-equity-stake...
The government had passed a law appropriating funds to subsidize semiconductor manufacturing in the US and spent some of it buying intel stock. How is that the government seizing Intel at gunpoint? I mean aside from the libertarian argument that the taxation necessary to raise those funds is theft?
Yes, there is a gap between "taking a stake" and nationalizing one, but..
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/trump-says-his-team-will-lo...
AI is a national security issue. Best accept that as fact, or you won't see it coming.
I think David Sacks is right, if you are saying you are building nuclear bombs, then prepared to be regulated like one.
There is no eating it while having it
And just to be clear, that's a maximum of one right in this situation.
But it changes little.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI-assisted_targeting_in_the_G...
For example, in the first 30 seconds, he says that at the beginning of the Iran War, AI was used to strike 900 targets in 12 hours. Which he calls "unprecedented" but then never backs up.
For context, in the 1991 Gulf War "Operation Desert Storm" the U.S. struck about 1500 targets[1][2][3] in 12 hours.
[1] https://www.mitchellaerospacepower.org/app/uploads/2021/02/a... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRgfBXn6Mg&t=401s [3] https://gulfwar.org/gulf-war-1991-timeline-desert-storm/ -
They are NOT "em-proof" --- what they are is electronic warfare immune.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2529849-fully-autonomou... Published this year, but talking about a trial 2 years ago.
Blocking any leading edge AI model changes nothing. We (humans) have a long history of determined attackers finding creative and unexpected solutions.
What the AI we have, the stuff that is already PUBLICLY AVAILABLE, is good enough to shrink the time for developing one of those creative solutions into a working tool/weapon.
Edit: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2026/06/12/8038963/ They are using ai for terminal guidance on Russian logistics (red vs green reticle if you choose to watch the video). Considering the progress on YOLO (and running on sub watt processors) it being able to do this work "onboard" should be shocking to no one.
There is /so/ much stuff on the internet that just needed someone to spend enough time on it.
First, Anthropic was founded by people who we know were worried about AI safety and signs point to that still being the case. It's really cynical to say it was all an exaggeration for marketing.
Second, this isn't Moller promising a fantastic working flying car next year. The model did what Anthropic said it could do.
I realise that ruling out "they bought Anthropic's scaremongering" brings up the question of why the government would block Mythos/Fable, but not the roughly-as-capable and less restricted GPT5.5. However we do know for a fact that they dislike Anthropic more than OpenAI right now.
If everyone expended the same amount of marketing effort trying to scare the ** out of everyone that Anthropic does, it'd be a very miserable world to live in.
We are unfortunately a captured audience and the autistic people at Anthropic are abusing this.
That ship has already sailed.
How come? Where are all of those security patches and critical bugs that would’ve broken all software if it was unleashed?
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/privacy-security/ai-security-zer...
Yesterday there was one about 5 zero-days in ffmpeg. Another commenter mentioned the fixes done to Firefox.
If you put a minor effort into looking for news about Mythos making security patches and fixing critical bugs in important projects recently, you will find them.
Yes they may have had those fears before, but even then it didn't stop them from building companies and running full speed towards the end goal with little to no effort spent on meaningful safety efforts.
- apocalypse-cult evangelicals (Mike Johnson types)
- secular RE development globalists (Kushner types)
- white supremacist / eugenicist weirdos (Stephen Miller types)
- SV / tech billionaire stooges (Vance types)
- media / propaganda old guard (Koch, Murdoch, Heritage)
- Morally bankrupt grifters / influencers (too many to mention)
Edit: I call it an unlikely alliance because there are represented many reactionary accelerationists who all have a different vision of what America should look like after the revolution.
Anthropic was founded by people who we know were worried about AI safety
Anthropic is just another company of, in my opinion, money-hungry sociopaths; they are not that different from the OpenAI bros.
So yeah, play stupid games - win stupid prizes.
I would say they have researchers with self-important god complexes that makes them think they know better than everyone else.
If they were money hungry they wouldn't have fought the DOW. Everyone knows that's a retarded thing for a business to do.
I think it could be reputation management exercises. Especially how it was aligned with airstrike on Iranian girls elementary school and statements that Claude were picking targets.
I'm running a 248B model on a paltry amount of hardware and getting plenty of good use out of it.
Sure, the most demanding tasks will demand the best models (and always will). There's still less demanding tasks for other models.
I think some people are fooling themselves that coding of all tasks is always going to requires the biggest models ever. Again, maybe some coding tasks will, but the majority of business CRUD apps probably don't. Same goes for virtually any other type of task. The biggest models are really only useful for the most complex tasks.
I primarily use it with my own harness for coding. I'm not going to say it will compete with Opus in the most challenging domains, because it won't, but I will say that there's a reasonable likelihood that Opus is used for tasks that a model like Flash could comfortably handle at 1/100th the cost.
So far I've only seen it struggle at tasks that I myself would struggle with. Tasks that I can describe the shape of the solution for, it has a high success rate at implementing.
Useful is going to be different for everyone. I'm not working on the hardest problems, I don't need the best models.
I do not see how being experienced in engineering, or having higher studies in computer science and economics should make that view less common.
Now this might not be the most cost effective (and may require a bit extra power), but you only need a datacenter for training or cost optimization.
I'd agree except that Big AI has made sure that most of us can't afford the hardware (RAM, NVMe, etc) to run it.
Some will take greater risks and win (or lose); others will play it safer and slowly accumulate wins (or be obsoleted).
Never mind the threat of letting these models write code that runs your business, or operate it agentically. Models trained by actors (corporate or nationstate) diametrically opposed to your interests.
Lots to take into account now, interesting time to be in business.
If a government entity bans a LLM provider due to a jailbreak concern, they can also ban an on-prem solution under the same guise. The jailbreak risk exists regardless of where it's hosted. You could defensibly argue the on-prem risk is higher since frontier model companies can justify safety spend due to their size, it's more difficult to combat bad actors if you're company is the only one using the model and you don't have economies of scale.
Private models in a low trust society means the government will come and seize the models. Competitive business will only be allowed through cronyism.
The better option is to opt for high trust. Yes the Gman can rip your servers apart, but they know they'll face consequences, legal and political. Laws and regulations are the answer, not locking down into smaller fiefdoms.
And infrastructure dominance is really the big picture here. Chinese models are going to become the standard setters because they're going to be what people are using. That means more research, more tooling, and a whole ecosystem developing around them.
And that was already starting to happen even before this fiasco with Chinese models now being the most used ones globally. https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/technology/features/story/clau...
Remember that there are degrees of banning. Slower tokens, dumber models, token caps, KYC for each model consumer, hurting specific companies that are not capitulating in a deal with a Chinese company, etc.
The tricky part with banning Chinese models is that they're open. It'll be easy to ban access to service providers, but preventing people from running these models on prem is going to be really tough. Like are they going to go after Cursor for example given that their model is based on Kimi?
I very much agree it's going to be a futile endeavour in the end. It kind of reminds me of the time Microsoft tried to get Linux and open source banned when Linux started encroaching on Windows server market. This is going to end the same way.
The rubicon being crossed here is Republicans/the red tribe losing their comparative advantage of being opposed to overregulating a rapidly advancing technology.
Anyways, this seems like pretty good PR for Anthropic: “Our models are so powerful even the government forbid us from exporting access to them as a service for a while!” for once this gets sorted out (if it does). It’s one thing when they just write self-congratulatory blog posts and people are skeptical, it’s another (at least, optics wise) when the government targets them, specifically.
Ofc the original intent might have been to hurt them by removing their advantage vs OpenAI, go figure. I wonder whether OpenAI's next models would get a similar treatment, or whether the govt. would also decide that Opus 4.X and GPT-5.5 shouldn't be given to foreigners as well. Who knows if some money needs to change hands behind the scenes in the form of a charitable donation.
If this affects all LLMs long term though, things will be pretty messed up.
People/gov now think twice about relying on US ai products. I don’t think the investors are very happy with the place this landed either.
I think the right move for Europe and other countries would be to effectively ban US tech and follow the Chinese response to Nvidia (delivered personally to Trump: we want to build our own AI chips).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
For example, before becoming open source you naturally could not buy Visual Studio legally in countries forbidden by US exports.
Or even the PlayStation 3, when sold from US locations.
Oh this has already been clear to anyone in the EU, for example. The current reliance on US tech and even widespread stuff like MS is pretty deeply rooted, however and it might take a while to do anything about it - so for many it’s a matter of convenience for now.
That said, as long as what you need sits behind an OpenAI or Anthropic API and you don’t have deeper proprietary integrations, there is no moat. I can even run Claude Code with DeepSeek if I so choose (though OpenCode is neat too).
Best EU has at the moment seems to be Mistral though, which is… sorta passable, but not cutting edge. Oh well.
> I think the right move for Europe and other countries would be to effectively ban US tech and follow the Chinese response to Nvidia (delivered personally to Trump: we want to build our own AI chips).
Not sure about outright ban, but homegrown govt. systems should have both the devs and the infra in EU.
Would also be really cool if we could make even regular CPUs and GPUs some day but I don’t think that’s super likely, though. Kinda amazing that China can do that! Even consumer stuff like the Chinese Lisuan GPUs (and Moore Threads I think), hell, even the Russian Elbrus CPUs.
How would the EU replace US tech? There simply are no equivalent providers of such technology in the EU, regardless of pipe dreams in that respect EU representatives regularly conjure up (privacy industry, "European Google", "European Facebook", you name it ..,).
Maybe, however, such a move would actually be consistent with dominant EU policy. The EU seems hellbent on becoming poor and economically irrelevant, after all.
But it is complete fantasy to use the current landscape as evidence of capability. It would be equally shortsighted to say "How would the US replace Chinese manufacturing? There simply are no equivalent supply chains in the US, regardless of pipe dreams that pedophile sycophants regularly conjure up. The US seems hellbent on becoming poor and economically irrelevant".
The ‘American dream’ attracted a lot of talent (look at how many tech leaders were immigrants), and once the network effects (both IT and social) kicked in it was hard to stop. This is a story that has unfolded many times throughout history. Talent moves to where talent is. And it will move if conditions change.
In winner takes all industries you MUST be protectionist and develop domestic alternatives.
Therein lies the rub for the EU. They think they can just regulate such alternatives into existence, yet have time and time again failed to provide such alternatives.
All the large US tech companies are also global. Cuts both ways.
I suppose some people just want to see the world burn.
I'm by no means a supporter of copyright and copyright laws, but unilaterally terminating such agreements is a recipe for disaster. How do you think the US would react to such a move?
Foster having Linux/BSD distribution available pre-installed in stores like FNAC, Cool Blue, Media Markt and co.
Push for FOSS programming languages, OSes, products and frameworks at very least on public sector projects.
Forbid outsourcing outside European countries.
Forbidding companies to have apps only available on Android/iOS, they must cater for a diverse system of desktop and various mobile OSes.
And plenty more possibilities that could be done, yes it isn't easy, then again Rome wasn't built in a day.
Regardint relevance, last stage capitalism above everything else isn't something I wish for my country.
How isolationism and open source are supposed to stem that tide, is beyond me.
Like in each ones lives, sometimes hard decisions are only possible because they are forced upon us without alternatives.
Recent example, Ukraine would never gotten advanced drone technology, if it wasn't for the price they are being forced to pay to keep their country.
If unfortunately we're faced with similar hard decisions on who to depend on, they will have to be done, regardless of their cost to the local industry.
The EU isn't even capable of ramping up its own defence capabilities when being faced with the very real threat of a Russian incursion in the next few years, which has me wonder what would be required for them to finally wake up.
It is because EU is not a single state, and member states have very different perspectives not only on Russia threat, but also on "digital sovereignty".
Everyone saying "EU should do something" is just blind towards political reality.
If anything the marketing is WHY it got so popular during these 3 days.
Can you think of any case in history where the US government suspended product sales due to national security concerns and that was ultimately beneficial for the company being regulated?
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/05/trump-open-ai-altman-stake.h...
this seems like a direct parallel, sowing confusion during the formative years, for no apparent gain.
which are deeply entrenched with the competition (Grok, OpenAI)
The selfish / corrupt thing to do is to do this after you've fleeced the public.
What purpose do Vance, Elon, Sacks, Sriram Krishnan and others serve? Are Lutnick and Hegseth calling the shots? It looks like the Valley also got duped.
The valley duped themselves the same way the German industrialists duped themselves by thinking they could control Hitler. Turned out they couldn't and a good number did not survive to 1945.
Those "geniuses" with their "philosophers" (Yarvin, seriously?) think they know everything, but don't even bother to read the most basic relevant history. Theil is already deciding to bundle himself and his family off to Argentina.
Even if things don't end as badly as they did for the Germans, the global economy in general, and America's place in the global economy in particular are already seriously damaged after only one third of this presidential term; even as they are managing to concentrate more wealth, having a bigger slice of a smaller pie is worth less. This really needs to be cleaned up.
Both parties want regulation and a larger federal government. They disagree only on what regulations they want, and even then its largely in optics as they tend to agree on much of the big picture.
Both parties agree that the federal government should have the authority to tell people what they can and can't do to their own body, for example. Its just that one party wants to use it to mandate vaccines and the other prefers to tell women they can't have an abortion.
And to be clear, vaccines are mandated for anyone who wishes to use the school system they already pay for via property taxes.
If I crash without a seatbelt on and die, my going through the windshield harms only myself.
The government shouldn't have any mandating what we can and can't do if the only victim in said crime would be the same person doing that thing.
You crashing without a seatbelt and dying harms others as well:
1. Your body as a projectile could harm others.
2. The emotional harm of others seeing your dead body and the horrific injuries. Also the emotional harm on your friends and family.
3. The increase to my taxes and healthcare costs because people have to deal with your dead body. Also, if you almost die when going through the windshield, the costs are much greater trying to save your life than if you wore a seatbelt, as the injuries will be greater and could require things like air ambulances etc...
4. Your body being unrestrained means that your car can cause way more damage, including hitting other cars or pedestrians and injuring and killing them.
It is not a victimless crime.
1. If your melon hits the ground and splatters open, there's going to a crash scene investigation that closes down the road for many hours, causing traffic chaos. As opposed to a helmet protecting you, where you're more likely to survive, and hobble off the road and get of the way of traffic.
2. Insurance companies generally do not have policies that offer helmet-optional and helmet-mandatory options, so if a motorcyclist who does not wear a helmet gets into a crash and needs a payout (life, or medical treatment), then those riders who do wear a helmet (which tend to have less severe injuries, and thus smaller payouts) have larger premiums through no fault of their own. At the very least there need two different types of policies.
2. Emotional harm is a very difficult thing to protect against. In no way am I waving it off as unimportant, but people can be emotionally harmed by literally anything. We can care about that, but we can't easily regulate for it.
3. There is much lower hanging fruit if you are concerned with the societal cost of an unhealthy population. If we get to body disposal as top of the list I'll feel pretty damn good about where were at.
4. Isn't 4 the same as 1?
2. Proving my point that it is not a victimless crime.
3. What is this lower hanging fruit? Putting on a seatbelt seems very simple.
4. No, this is not your body as a projectile hitting someone, but you being unrestrained prevents you from staying seated and so can't brake or steer effectively. This can even happen even when do not hit something, but just hydroplane or skid.
2. Victimless here matters in context of regulation. It seems reasonable to consider someone emotionally harmed is a victim, though its important to decide whether emotional harm felt by one is a direct action caused by the other. For example, if someone emotionally responds to seeing my dead body I didn't directly force that reaction on them and I wouldn't say there is direct responsibility for it.
3. We aren't talking about the act of wearing seat belts, everyone should choose to because it is easy. We're talking about regulation and government authority. Regulating sugary drinks, for example, would almost certainly be more impactful.
4. Brakes aren't the problem if the vehicle stopped quickly enough to make me a projectile.
And to be clear, I to wear a seat belt and want everyone to choose to. I just don't want a government to have the authority to require it and fine us if we don't do it.
You're "not sure how that would happen" but there are decades of studies showing exactly how it does happen, who the victims are, and what the quantified risks.
The primary risk is to other people inside the car, then side ejections. Front ejections are a footnote.
You decided only the last of those is a problem without considering the other possibilities.
When considered as a whole, the evidence is absolutely clear that set belts save lives.
It's the same story with vaccinations and other mandates. "I don't like being told what to do" turns into "Well, obviously, the real problem is..."
The people die unnecessarily in large numbers - far larger than if the measure really did cause mass harm.
Unfortunately, no :-( in crashes it's common for the person with a seatbelt to be killed by the body of the person without the seatbelt flying across inside the car like a cannonball. Bodies tend not to fly straight forward except for perfect head on collisions, and even in those cases the person sitting behind you without a seatbelt is going to kill you as they go through your seat. If you're alone in the vehicle I can maybe buy the argument that it doesn't matter, but even then there's plenty of examples of people being literally ejected out of the car and into harms way.
You cannot have any honest libertarian lifestyle à la carte.
I'd be OK with libertarians opting out — but to be true they must opt out of EVERYTHING. You want to smoke, drink raw milk, and not take your vaccines? Fine, you can organize your own self-insured healthcare too. And you go to the back of the queue and not get treated when a participating member of society has a health issue.
The problem is those "free" "do my own research" types feel no responsibility for maintaining the wellness of their neighbors or even themselves, but DO still show up at the emergency room and expect full medical treatment when the DO get sick/injured from raw milk, no vaccines, no seatbelts, or whatever.
They are not libertarians, they are freeloaders, lying to themselves about libertarian "philosophy" to justify freeloading on the systems and herd immunity built and maintained by their smarter and more conscientious peers.
I see the problem there as being a society wholely dependent on a risk sharing insurance scheme, not any one particular factor that can raise rates.
Edit: its also worth noting that health insurance, and all insurance in the US unless I'm mistaken, is something you choose to use. You don't have to have health insurance at all, meaning you are choosing to take on the risk that others' decisions impact your rates and decided that is worth the benefits you gain from the coverage.
There are (or were) tax time penalties for failing to have healthcare coverage. Possible USA laws have changed recently.
It Is Easy:
When those measures have been repeatedly and massively proven to be safe and effective to prevent both individual and especially mass illness, death, and costs.
When you can count the dead by the millions in the graveyards before the measures were taken, and cannot fine one in a million even plausibly "injured" by those measures that literally save society. Pasteurization and vaccination are two examples that come to mind.
Have you ever visited a pre-1900 graveyard? The majority of graves are children. Children who died from the same diseases that are easily prevented by vaccines. Any parent back then would have praised God for the miracle of vaccines. The TYPICAL family had close to a dozen children and was lucky if two survived to adulthood. Same for Pasteurization.
Even raising the question (nevermind twice) shows a deep ignorance of the subject, but a clear willingness to spew ignorant 'takes'. Yikes.
EVERY modern society is effectively built on risk-sharing and specialization. It is also built on cooperation. You don't get to be free to be a complete asshat, or malingantly ignorant and still enjoy the benefits of society. Get over it or go enjoy some remote corner of Siberia.
When someone else crashes into you on the street your tax dollars paid for, you should be free to not agree with seatbelts.
We do require car insurance for just such an occasion as one driver harms another.
Mostly, yes. Whereas if you fail to get vaccinated and therefore spread a disease, you are harming others.
That will not be something you can purchase. Only enormous capital holders will have access and be able to play that game.
We're going to be left with scraps. Thin clients, shitty gaming cards (for but a few), which also dovetails nicely with trusted computing and device attestation.
We've already lived through this:
- open web -> platforms
- protocols -> closed products
- firefox -> chrome sans ad block
- urls are cool -> 92% of URL bars sent to a single company to show ads
- the personal computer -> locked down iPhones and increasingly locked down Androids without APKs.
- free to use internet -> national ID laws
- free to use cell phones -> required KYC
It's getting worse and worse every year. Why would you think you'll get to have these models? You're a serf.
They'll take your career and your hobby and leave you with nothing. Enjoy renting and being monitored.
Not a religious person, but I'm shocked at all of the people watching Noah's proverbial ark being built right in front of us, the rain starting to pour, and everyone just laughing. The flood is coming. 90+% of you, maybe more, are going to lose your jobs.
Your careers are about to die all at once and you're standing around laughing it off. Absolutely wild to see.
But that's what a "machine" is.
owning digital books => renting/subscribing
owning digital games => renting/subscribing
owning digital music => renting/subscribing
owning the right to repair => renting/subscribing
Vehicle ECU's => TCU's that share data with 3rd parties
I'm sad to say that I tend to agree with echelon.
Also on the other subjects you mention, I got distracted with convenience during the last years, however apparently it is about time to save what is still possible to keep computing open.
This seems a silly statement
This says much more about you, Last Man, than anything else.
Something about bread and circuses seems in order.
EDIT: Genuinely curious why is this being downvoted? Is this related to US politics or a left vs right thing on HN? I'm not from the US, so I don't have any attachment to either party.
1. https://www.pcmag.com/news/us-further-restricts-nvidia-ai-ex...
I think there is good reason to consider that frontier models might cross the ITAR threshold, actually. Not least because of the risk that they can simply blurt out knowledge that already does. If ITAR exists, an AI that might know how to contravene it could be a problem, because no existing legal framework or threat of punishment will cause it to keep secrets.
But I don't think you can ignore that the two big AI companies were pushing for that judgement because it would benefit them commercially if open weights AI was regulated.
Republicans reverted it so I'm not sure I understand your point.
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250513-us-reverses-b...
> But I don't think you can ignore that the two big AI companies were pushing for that judgement because it would benefit them commercially if open weights AI was regulated.
This doesn't matter in this context, NVIDIA didn't push for restrictions for example but they got it anyway. So AI companies would get restrictions either way.
This happens a lot. Even I as a foreigner understand that Trump is routinely at odds with what long-standing cautious Republicans and right-leaning "national security Democrats" think is in the national security interest. They want the long term picture; he has no long-term perspective at all and wants the bargaining chip.
There was solid bipartisan border policy in 2024 that would have enacted strong border controls, for example — legislation Biden was very willing to sign, but Trump got Republicans who had argued for it to kill it off because he wanted to run against "open borders", not strong border controls. He wanted the advantage with voters.
Trump reversing export controls that sensible Republicans wanted for decades is not at all surprising when you consider just how utterly desperate he is to be friends with Xi (and how easily manipulated by Xi he is). Again, he thinks being able to open and close that tap himself is his own personal leverage.
I agree that in this case the calls for restrictions are coming from the corporate world. Because they want government support for anti-corporate-espionage measures.
Let me stop you right there - any time you generalize to that degree, you’ve already failed to think critically and charitably about the issue.
I mean they tried to cut benefits for disabled people, supported Israeli war crimes in Gaza and prosecuted pro-Palestinian activism, sneakily increased taxes on the working class, clamped down on immigration to try and undercut the rise of Reform, I am honestly not sure of a single left policy they enacted, granted I haven't been paying super close attention to that shitshow.
Blarite/neoliberal fits them much more I'd say.
I'm likewise fairly disengaged, but off the top of my head: increased taxes, and removal of the two-child benefit cap.
Israel does not really fit on a left-right spectrum, nor even really (though slightly better?) on two (economic & liberty) axes. The Liberal Democrats & Greens are the only (somewhat significant) parties consistently, err, anti-Zionist if that's fair to say, pro-two-state, accusing of war crimes, etc.
And any party that is pro-monarchy could not reasonably be described as left wing.
Now they are betting that Mythos will provide them with some edge. Personally, I don't believe that Mythos is such a game changer They're just buying their own hype.
A late stage empire flailing around sacrificing everything to maintain its status.
SWIFT is Belgian.
They just ran the entire Iran campaign on Opus. They know what that can do, they know what this can do.
I do wonder why that happened. Hmm.
It's almost like Russia invaded Europe...
(never mind that anybody with a functioning cerebral cortex understands that the roots of the special military operation lie in NATO provocation and politically neutral Kiev getting couped with help from the CIA)
There is no point talking with you. That you in Russia have your brains damaged, we all know, but the rest of the world doesn't live in a state of constant alcohol delirium. You might want to be aware of that.
BPS Space channel on YouTube made a collaboration with Mark Rober on a self landing rocket with a small engine, and all the experts they contacted would just stop responding the moment they asked something about the final phase of the flight. They later learnt that export controls bans those individuals from even discussing such topics with them.
See also https://www.404media.co/fcc-wants-to-kill-burner-phones-by-f...
Digital yellow star by exclusion from digital life for foreigners.
Remember when tech companies would go to court to vigorously defend against infringement of their and their customers rights? Turns out that’s just a feature of democracy, once you have autocrats it’s all compliance.
Anthropic just baited themselves with their scaremongering to be the attack vector here.
It a stellar move by the way - since every tech company in an exceptionally fast growing field will comply or miss out sales, you effectively force KYC without legislative process onto much of digital because that’s the only way to comply.
The objective isn’t national security because we already know how that goes https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-54695598
There’s no path to compliance and the decision is arbitrary - the model capabilities are not officially assessed by any visible criteria and it prevents export of models based on these non criteria forward.
All days before IPO.
So much for all of the rhetoric about Mythos supposedly far surpassing GPT 5.5 (edit: in cybersecurity, in particular). Of course, the AISI benchmarks also showed this, but it is amusing that Anthropic is saying it now that it is to their advantage.
It's a shame HN's critical thinking has gone to shit though.
Although I do believe Anthropic knew this and this kind of involvement is still beneficial to them, as it still slows down competition, which is their sole objective when you brush off marketing sprinkles from their statements.
In the meantime, there are a lot of classic morality tales in which deals with the Devil don't work out quite the way the protagonists hoped they would. These stories go back thousands of years, spanning a wide range of creeds, faiths, and cultures. You (and Dario) have some offline reading to do.
Anthropic pretending Mythos 5 is so capable it's going to destroy everything, but will release it anyway with "safeguards" (when does this ever work?).
US Gov't using this fake hype as an excuse to handicap Anthropic simply because they have a vendetta.
This is likely to delay, if not prevent, the release of more capable models in the future.
And apart from the big picture, I just paid Anthropic $200 on Friday with the understanding that I can use the model for 10 days until the 22nd.
I planned two productive days of work this weekend. There's still Codex, but I'm obviously disappointed with this and want my $200 back.
Although the EU isn't currently capable of competing at all, it slowly but steadily escapes the rectum of the United States.
And China already is the current superpower, so they don't have to give a fuck about the US.
US hegemony has ended.
I am not interested in Opus 4.8 in the slightest.
Yeah it is.
Unless you work at Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, or Meta.
Your stocks/RSU are at risk of losing significant value.
I personally do not believe knowledge can be stolen.
If human abilities were different then human laws would be different. We don't have speed limits for joggers but we do for cars because their abilities are materially different.
There are already a bunch of replies pointing out ways in which your metaphor breaks down, but here's another: the super intelligent speed reading human is not a "work" (in the sense of "derivative work").
Also, if I'm understanding your position, why wasn't your scenario about the human pirating the books and then reading them? It should make no difference if you really believe knowledge can't be stolen; both situations should be equivalent.
That‘s the magic trick you are doing with your analogy. You just assume that human/machine analogy is true.
we quickly learn what “inequality” means, since the computer has more access rights than people
This argument is pretty lame.
Are humans allowed to do that?
Creating personal copies of copyrighted works are allowed. (Also, libraries really don't mind if you take pictures of the content of works they have.)
See, e.g.: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/03/libge...
The moment the LLMs ingested any code under GNU General Public License or similar licenses and reuse it without making the produced product available under the same terms...
- Anthropic is seen as a victim/hero
- They get Government-endorsed model hype
- Monday will be a bad publicity day with the new Agent SDK limits, this overrides/dominates the headlines
- The government gets to appear like they're ahead of the curve
- The government gets to appear forcible and weapons-conscious (and maybe earn some right-wing points)
I don’t think he’s playing 4D chess; I think he truly believes all the “AI is going to eliminate all the jobs” crap. I think his “Claude Constitution” is wishful thinking and his attempts to exert control over what his customers lawfully do with the product he sells them have made his company untrustworthy; certainly so by the US Dept of War.
I think lately his advisors have made him tone down the doomerism noting that it might tank his IPO, and I am uncertain whether his recent pushes towards more regulation are regulatory capture attempts or ideology or both.
The man is smart but IMO shouldn’t be running the company- he should be a CTO and let a business person make the decisions.
As for the government, bureaucracies gonna do what they always do. If you scare them they regulate you. ITAR is a real thing and the government throws it at technology all the time, from the minds that brought you 40-bit SSL in the 90s.
and I think there's a dozen people carefully crafting every doomerism, which is then handed over to a dozen guerilla marketing companies to be spread far and wide.
And that:
https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/trump-ai-exe...
"OpenAI's Sam Altman Meets With Trump in Wake of Executive Order on AI"
Everyone is tricked except me. Only I know AI isn't as smart as everyone thinks it is.
A sizeable plurality of the informed public know as much.
Regulatory capture is a thing.
I'll guess we will see when or if the IPO happens. The more probable claim (Trump just wants money) will be proved if Amodei buys Truth Social or something and pulls a Tim Apple. My (not very probable) tinfoil hat theory is sadly unverifiable, but very funny. Anthropic bribed some Trump minion to ban Fable and lock in the honeymoon period until just before the IPO.
It's the same situation as with vibe coding. Everyone and their grandma can have an LLM spit out a web application without any programming experience, but if you're a programmer, you'll likely quickly see some issues with maintainability and further development of the code base.
The point is that Mythos apparently is quite capable and has developed novel exploits on its own.
The market is built on hype, so of course it’s going to get hyped everywhere.
On top of that I think it's just stupid to think anyone in the marketing department at Anthropic has any part in the system card for a model. That kind of thinking just screams cope.
Are you claiming you have a raw binary to Fable and it just reverse engineered it by reading it? Or are you claiming (like for every other model released in the past 1.5 years) it's using an integration with Ghidra or BinaryNinja to assist - in which case I completely disagree even a 30B model can do that with those tools.
Also an FYI, AI advancement and Anthropic are not synonymous. Someone asking Anthropic to back up their claims is not coping about AI, especially as independent benchmarking of Fable is giving equivalent or slightly above par results to GPT 5.5.
The system card does not use any of the benchmarks used in the previous Opus 4.5+ system cards. All the scores are in Anthropic owned benchmarks. I find it extremely hard to believe the marketing department of the company was not involved in a material release to the public - which is the marketing departments literal job.
We've played with it a good bit, it in no way matches the ridiculous hype.
Anthropic went from this is cybersecurity apocalypse to it’s no big deal, the model found trivial vulnerabilities.
It would be nice if they slid on over to a more typical presentation in the market — but I think they’ll need to experience a fair amount more pain to really change behavior - it’s embedded in their minds as proper, safe and ethical, and they’re currently sitting on tons of cash.
Not to mention intelligence agencies look for any information advantage they can get to influence policy.
It's difficult to predict this administrations actions, but given it included employees that has to be a huge risk for Google, where Deepmind is based in London.
Cohere (Canada) and Mistral (France) are going to get a lot of interest.
I predict they will all be mostly the same in 5+ yrs but coding is serious work and companies aren’t going to pay for almost good.
I wonder if they pulled Fable because it had too high of a “dangerous session” count. If so, I wonder if they’ve considered that their “dangerous session” detector has lost its damn mind this week.
(BTW, that screenshot is 100% real. I was walking to work this morning and a random song played. I had a thought about it and wondered what a model would have to say on the matter. I ran that prompt and got that response, said something profane out loud, and screenshotted it to share with friends. That’s not a mockup, but something I personally experienced and recorded myself.)
And I’ll pass that along. Thanks!
It's been interesting seeing how OpenAI pops up to counter the threat of AGI being controlled by Google, and then OpenAI and every spinoff company from its employees has become a far larger threat to the public, for different reasons.
As much as it seems like Anthropic's self righteous leadership truly believes in what they're preaching, they've shown themselves to be tied for the worst stewards of this technology. Google actually seems like the best option to me, by far. Anthropic is also the only major lab with no open weights releases.
They'll have burned a lot of goodwill with the community by the time another lab takes the tech lead, which I guarantee will happen.
What I can't understand, is that they act like the _knowledge_ is dangerous.
I don't know if I'm biased from my BSci (chem/maths), but: knowledge isn't dangerous, the reagents needed are incredibly easy to control. Thats what we already do!
Access to information and knowledge is probably the very last thing I'd be willing to give up, personally.
I think most people would be a lot happier if they were less fearful in general.
Try...since GPT 2.
They cannot even move 10 existing lines of code around without breaking it in the process half of the time.
I very much doubt they are up to the task of implementing any sort of plan with a reliability that allows to complete the work faster than writing the code by hand.
To be fair though, even if it's not costing me that much it's evidently costing Anthropic a pretty penny, I'm up to like $800 in spend on my $200 subscription in less than a week.
https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/d00db56fa754a1b115b6dd7cb2e3c3...
That said, Mythos doesn't seem to be exceptionally good but closer to "following the established trend in improvements"
https://www.aisi.gov.uk/blog/our-evaluation-of-claude-mythos...
https://www.aisi.gov.uk/blog/how-fast-is-autonomous-ai-cyber...
“OK, Dario. Let’s start with you.”
“No! I meant regulations for other people!”
“Thats a pretty nice IPO you got there… it would be a shame if something happened to it.”
After that details don't matter, they've shown their "enemy" colours, once is enough. This is just punishment and it will continue, until they bend the knee.
While Anthropic publicly claims to refuse to help the MIC with warfare and surveillance, behind closed doors, Anthropic actively deploys its engineers and models to assist the NSA with espionage and offensive cyber warfare. Just look at the many contradictions:
* Anthropic secretly sent its own engineers directly to the NSA to deploy its (at that time unreleased) model "Mythos"[2,7]
* While the Pentagon has publicly labeled Anthropic a "supply-chain risk", the Trump administration has simultaneously been working hand-in-hand with Anthropic behind the scenes to secure its upcoming initial public offering (IPO)[1]
* If the U.S. government truly believed Anthropic was a national security threat, it would completely isolate the company. Instead, the Trump administration has actively encouraged major American banks and financial institutions to use Anthropic's models[1]
* Anthropic is heavily embedded within Palantir, the foundational data platform of the Military-Industrial Complex[3][4]
* Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense operates hand-in-hand with Palantir. Ukraine uses a specialized Palantir AI platform called PRISMA to fight Russian forces. Anthropic's language models power the text and data analysis within this system[4]
* Ukraine uses Anthropic-backed Palantir software in secretive command centers to coordinate its aggressive long-range drone campaign inside Russian territory[8]
* Anthropic’s CEO, Dario Amodei, has stated that the company will not allow its AI to power fully autonomous weapons that take humans out of the loop. However, in Ukraine, the AI functions as a decision-support tool. Because a human commander makes the final choice to press the button or launch the drone, Anthropic's terms of service are not technically violated. This allows Anthropic to protect its "ethical AI" brand while still letting its technology serve as a vital asset for Western-backed military operations[5]
Remember the Minab school attack, where the U.S. Military killed 156 civilians, including 120 schoolchildren[6]? Given all the evidence it's highly likely that Palantir and Anthropic played and still play a major role in perpetrating the war of aggression and all the crimes involved.
Personally, I find it morally unacceptable to use U.S. AI tools, because I do not want to support them financially and thus support the crimes they are involved in.
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/blacklist...
[2]: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/19/anthropic-dod-blacklist-cour...
[3]: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/12/karp-palantir-anthropic-clau...
[4]: https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/what-is-palantirs-prisma-the...
[5]: https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-department-of-war
[6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Minab_school_attack
[8]: https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/palantirs-prisma-how-an...
- no mass surveillance of Americans
- no autonomous killbots on current models
Those are very reasonable red lines and the fact that (1) other companies aren't holding those lines at all, instead doing "all lawful use", and (2) that the government is willing to destroy the company over these two small carveouts, speaks hugely in Anthropic's favor.
How do you know? What reason is there to trust a company like Anthropic? It's about money, a lot of money, and from a company's perspective there is no reason to stick to these claims while the competition doesn't care and can train and improve their models on the vast pile of data they receive while mass surveilling U.S. citizens (which clearly is a huge competitive advantage).
Anthropic is primarily burning U.S. based capital and investments, from the administration's standpoint it's simply rational to stop letting non-U.S. actors burn this huge pile of U.S. capital. Of course, it's also a direct support of Anthropic by the administration (they are from the same social class) for their IPO: "These models have huge capabilities and are dangerous, we have to limit access", so that potential investors may conclude that an investment will surely lead to huge gains in the future. Anthropic is really good at marketing after all.
You are wrong.
Read in full here https://darioamodei.com/post/policy-on-the-ai-exponential.
I know you won't though. haha.
Can you be more specific? It seems to me that the there was a third party assessment, they identified risks associated with the specific risk groups, and the government therefore chose to block the model's deployment.
I’m willing to bet internally they thought this was a good plan from the beginning - from engagement, requests for reg oversight, Mythos PR, silently nerfing AI engineering quality, and now this “pulling the model” stunt. It’s frustrating, I generally like using the Claude models, but I don’t think I’ve ever been a customer of such a user-hostile company before.
Yann LeCun got that right with AMI Labs.
Also, as a US citizen Dario is subject to US law regardless of where he lives.
The US loves throwing its weight around via the US treasury and threatening countries with banning their ability to transact in U.S. Dollars, hence how the Obama administration turned every global bank into a dragnet for enforcing its draconian global taxation scheme on non-residents via FATCA.
The US has too much power, period. Doesn’t matter who’s in power, both parties abuse it. China rising to be a real counterbalance is a good thing imo.
EU has forced Apple to use USB-C for everything earlier than they planned by a few years, and fined them for uncompetitive practices like the ones Epic Games shed light on in US courts.
It's disheartening how many people think the use of government power is justified or not based on the WWE smackdown drama they concoct in their own brain instead of, you know, the laws of our nation.
It is very dangerous for the government to be able to shut off services, regardless of whether their owners wrote some blog posts that rubbed you the wrong way.
Last I checked I can’t buy a tactical nuke at Walmart. Clearly the government and all states have some power to control private enterprise for the betterment of their citizenry.
For the record I don’t support this ban, but you cry wolf as a marketing tactic and this is what you get…
You: "For the record I don’t support this theft of manufacturing equipment, but you cry wolf as a marketing tactic and this is what you get…"
Very wise. We're blessed to have you sitting above the fray where you can smugly approve of abuse of government power, which is much better and more superior than the simple-minded folks who merely approve of abuse of government power without the "I don't support this" caveat.
Also no need for ad-hominem remarks referring to me as smug. I’m not smug about it and as I said I don’t agree with it.
However to my original point can you provide an analogy that showcases a private entity in this country that has previously told the public they’re essentially working on something akin to a doomsday device, whereby the government simply took a laissez faire attitude to it?
To me this just feels like Silicon Valley wants to use awful optics to their advantage and it’s backfired in a very predictable way. We don’t live in a perfect libertarian society that many in the valley wish we did, we never have. Not to mention many of the valley’s most prominent libertarians have backed the current administration, which is not one that believes in the philosophy, just like their counterparts don’t either.
I used to work with lobbyists. Watching as these guys go from telling the public what they’re making is dangerous, needs guardrails, will displace huge amounts of service workers, etc. is woefully shortsighted and only forces the hands of politicians to do something as they represent a populace that has started to poll negatively about it and no longer trust it. They only have themselves to blame. If you want that perfect libertarian society, then a good start would be realizing that they need to win over the public that controls the giant entity that can ruin them, and then maybe their representatives won’t do such things.
Here’s to hoping this is a nothing burger and access is restored soon.
I actually explicitly recall them saying "Fable 5 is a model we've deemed safe enough for public use."
Has the government come to some alternative assessment? How? Using what assessment framework?
It's almost as if there actually isn't the regulatory framework that Anthropic has been asking for. What we have is completely arbitrary and opaque enforcement by an administration with an already-demonstrated appetite for capricious and selective enforcement against dozens of companies and individuals, and against this company in particular.
I don't want "that perfect libertarian society." Libertarianism is a farcical ideology and always has been, as proven by the Valley's famous "libertarians" bending themselves into pretzels for an actual autocrat, for personal gain.
I merely want a society of laws where we use our consensus-building tools to establish clear and uniform rules around private enterprise. The government declining to create clear and uniform rules and instead relying on totally opaque, selectively enforced, and often totally unexplained "rules" is actually very bad.
And yes, the administration is hobbled (by design) by our institutions. But, as fascists do, they're doing their best to degrade those controls.
We’re gonna apply it to so many things it’ll have lost its meaning soon.
Which 'F' word do you think is appropriate to describe all this? Or has meaning already been lost?
Everyone who has touched currency is a capitalist, everyone who has paid taxes is a commie, everyone who has regulated a technology is a fascist
Or perhaps... one must look at the full fact pattern of a person's behavior to approximate (and always imperfectly!) their political philosophy.
Hilarious
UPDATE: I lost access at 6:59pm pacific.
GPT-5.4 is currently the strongest model (this changes hourly)
Methodology: https://aistupidlevel.info/faq#methodology
False positives and poorly defined tasks/acceptance criteria have let some models have insanely inflated scores on bad benchmarks.
And sure, you can say they're not disclosed to prevent gaming, but if you're the only one who can review them then the might as well be a random number generator display with an unreadable UI.
I'd also think that they would transparently degrade, just to prevent production outages for clients that are requesting Fable explicitly.
It did just use a small harness to run docker compose with different envs and other settings to validate a very small change, so... Feels like Fable
Opus 4.8 spams a lot more text. It'd be obvious.
> There's an issue with the selected model (claude-fable-5). It may not exist or you may not have access to it.
Claude Code v2.1.177
Fable 5 with low effort · Claude Max
~/testing
And now we're done. Oh well.
(I have never had an agent do enough to burn up the 5 hour quota on Max)
(edit: just switched my CC model to 4.8 and my 5-hr cycle reset back to 0%, even though it previously had 2 more hours to go)
> There's an issue with the selected model (claude-fable-5). It may not exist or you may not have access to it. Run /model to pick a different model.
edit: And... it's gone
> There's an issue with the selected model (claude-fable-5). It may not exist or you may not have access to it. Run /model to pick a different model.
If Fable 5/Mythos 5 are considered dangerous enough to invoke export controls on then future models are almost guaranteed to trigger the same process. Locking them down to US citizens is _very_ interesting. I don't think any tech company so far tracks licenses attached to citizenship.
Access to certain software being gated on one's citizenship is not at all new.
§ 734.13 Export.
(b) Any release in the United States of “technology” or source code to a foreign person is a deemed export to the foreign person's most recent country of citizenship or permanent residency.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-B/chapter-VII...
The rule in this form seems to go back to at least mid-1990s.
I held jobs at multiple U.S. companies, not personally working on anything remotely sensitive. My experience has been that it's completely standard practice to be asked to sign some U.S. export control papers.
This ban will be used to force hardware and OS-level Digital ID down our throats as a "safety measure" to ensure people are "Citizens" before accessing AI technology.
Whatever last vestiges of privacy we still enjoy will be taken from us with this as the excuse.
I'm glad I don't own stock in a public Anthropic.
> We reviewed a demonstration of this specific technique being used to identify a small number of previously known, minor vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities all appear relatively simple, and we have found that other publicly-available models are able to discover them as well without requiring a bypass
That is absolutely NOT what is being said there.
They are referring to a very specific thing that you must have clearly seen and chosen to ignore—a jailbreak for LLMs that is used on other models and to some effect with Fable 5.
The modern world is a wild place!
Red Bull marketing revolved around making it look like a drug. It "gives you wings", there is that crazy thing called taurine, they even "hooked" kids with free cans, the mythical thing drugs dealers do.
In reality, taurine is nothing special, it is high in caffeine but no more than a strong coffee, and its real energy come from the massive amount of sugar it contains. Marketing aside, that makes it an unremarkable soft drink.
But their marketing prompted some countries to ban it, at least for a time. France is one of them. Fun fact, when they finally legalized it, they introduced a heavy tax on energy drinks, defined as soft drinks high in caffeine. These drinks are expensive and the government wanted its share. In response Red Bull silently reduced the caffeine content to avoid paying, marking Red Bull even milder than it once was.
I guess they will fix the guardrails and then open it up again. Clearly nobody wants dangerous models out there and I can understand the national security concerns. If the restrictions persist even if guardrails are updated, well, perhaps other countries may want to compete for becoming the new home for frontier labs?
/s
Not great as it does break workflows for some.
> As we have stated publicly, we believe the government should have the ability to block unsafe deployments, as part of a statutory process that is transparent, fair, clear, and grounded in technical facts. This action does not adhere to those principles.
Also, how are they going to enforce this?
I assume they will require you to send them a copy of your passport. Then they will enable your account. And you have state that only be used by you.
Are there any online identity systems that do something like this (verifying citizenship)?
How will this be implemented/verified? Also, does this mean that American citizens abroad will still be able to access it?
We can cancel all those data center plans, won't need them anymore.
What’s not clear?
Now I can continue my vanity project of having Claude iterate on a single spec.md for hours on end. Surely at some point it won't be shit.
Also I'm doing this because I find it amusing and somewhat educational on a meta level. If I'd written this myself without a spec it would've been done last month and been likely more correct than what Claude is likely to do once it gets to implementing it (the first spec-free attempt failed miserably). This is way too complex an integration for the poor thing. I had some hopes Fable would get it unstuck, but now we'll never know. Fable did seem to be better at keeping it together.
Fun thing to watch on a second monitor though.
To answer your question, there is something less nuclear: You can cycle multiple modes with SHIFT+TAB.
> Restricts model to large corporations
> Release information about how Fable / Mythos 5 is stronger than Mythos Preview, give access to every user for a limited time via subscriptions
> Users jailbreak model
> U.S. suspends Fable / Mythos use
Who didn't see this coming?
I wonder what this means for the future of AI models. Either we'll see worse guardrails than what was there for Fable 5 (for me, it was a unusable at times), or the models just stop getting better from here.
I think it's that the guardrails will be more strict, which is unfortunately not good news.
Whatever you feel about Anthropic, good or bad, this is not fair, and this is not good for the industry.
Will be interesting to see OpenAI's next move.
One LLM model played Factorio, albeit at a very, very poor level, which can be seen if you slow the video to 0.25 playback speed and pause frequently.
https://old.reddit.com/r/factorio/comments/1u1blr6/claude_fa...
There have been streams of other games, where LLMs and AIs have likewise performed very poorly.
I recognize that LLMs might be better at language processing than these sorts of tasks. But being able to play video games is part of general capability. And this kind of hardcore video game playing, with no access to game state, is also a general task where feigning skill can be harder. If LLMs excel at pretending to be competent without actually being competent, like this AI training approach is arguably about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_adversarial_network
Then some AIs might be trained and designed for deceiving humans instead of actually being competent and capable. And thus, one response is that they should be met with more difficult tests.
Basically, make tests that AIs or LLMs will not have an easy time cheating. Hopefully, that will engender research in greater LLM/AI competence, not in greater ability to cheat or deceive, neither for LLM/AI researchers and companies, nor for LLMs/AIs themselves.
> I love how it only manages to beat the game because it leveled up its Charizard to level 78. Effectively making it stronger than anything else in the main campaign. Everyone else was just filler to revive it.
> There’s a reason this is timelapsed - if you slow it down to .25x speed you’ll see it getting lost in the safari zone lol
> Deeply funny how this timeskip cuts out the 50 hours it spent grinding its shitty charmander to level 22 before Brock, skips from nugget bridge to rocket hideout, skips straight to Champion from Giovanni...really picking and choosing what to show, hey
Some comments mention how it is using strategies that young children use, like mindlessly grinding and then winning through overpowered Pokemon. Also indicates that Pokemon, at least some versions of Pokemon, is a game series that has mostly fake difficulty (fraudulent game design). But it is still impressive that it could get that far, with just visual output, since the domain in Pokemon is significantly complex, even if its world positioning is tile-based.
> For those who don't know, Claude was struggling to beat Brock one year ago in Pokemon Blue. That's considerable improvement
> @techytails18 it is impressive though it's able to finally beat the game. This kind of feels like an "answer by accident" type scenario though. I'm sure six months or a year it's probably going to be speed running it though. Doing this with no harnesses impressive.
https://world.org/blog/foundational-topics/thesimpleplan
> 1. Build a private proof of human
> 2. Launch and bootstrap the network through token ownership
> 3. Reach critical scale and initial utility
> 4. Scale further through utility and decentralize
> 5. Reach global scale and help ensure AGI benefits every human
This sounds exactly like the opening line from an apocalyptic sci-fi film.
"small number", "previously known"+"minor"... they are trying hard to characterize this as harmless.
> These vulnerabilities all appear relatively simple, and we have found that other publicly-available models are able to discover them as well without requiring a bypass.
Ah so now they are admitting that this is all about hype after all.
If we take this further, it could mean that every company that uses AI tools will put a premium on hiring US citizens, since they’re the only ones that can use the best models.
This would transform the tech industry. Then finance, bio-tech, legal, etc.
I doubt it survives in this form, though. The compliance burden of segregating half your engineering org by citizenship is enormous, and the competitive cost of complying is exactly what would generate pressure to carve out exceptions.
Haven't they/we already, or am I just not interpreting the last decade or so of growing widespread insanity correctly?
Remember, technology is just a tool, just like cap sheets
The page showed June 11, 2026 and has now been updated to June 12, 2026 in the last 10m.
Edit:
Google mislabels crawl dates clearly my bad
That's the release blog post. Google is likely pulling the snippet from the Related Content section at the bottom, which includes the post about the US government directive.
Where'd you get this info? The imgur is the weakest thing one could've screenshotted. At least use archive.today or screenshot the evidence that Google crawled it.
The most ethical goal of an AI lab or government should be to bring the maximum amount of intelligence for as cheap as possible to the people equally.
Bad AI is only countered by having a majority of good, open-access and open-source AI to keep it in check, where the good AI can overpower the bad. The moment you destroy that balance is the moment a bad actor gains exponential advantage and the ability to hold the whole world hostage forever.
It would be hard to classify AI (or tanks, artillery, missiles, aircraft) as “arms” that can be “borne” in that sense.
And? Computers are dual-use. Cars are dual-use. Telephones are dual-use. Freeze-dried chicken is dual-use.
Single-use, i.e. military only technology is actually pretty rare.
> This kind of posture is simply not tenable as frontier intelligence increases.
I reject the corpo speak that tries to brand these things as being "intelligent." They can be useful. But a language model cannot conjure a weapons platform from the ether no matter how "intelligent" it is.
But your statement could be rephrased as
> The most ethical goal of a weapons manufacturer or government should be to bring the maximum number of nuclear weapons for as cheap as possible to the people equally.
Making sure everyone is a strapped as possible only makes sense to the type of libertarians who salivate at the idea of shooting someone who steps on their property to deliver a letter
If it’s the latter then I missed the joke. If it’s the former I think you’re incorrect.
Another interpretation, of course, is that this is just US putting a thumb on the scale for US competitors around IPO time. It will be interesting to see if there are any fingerprints.
Maybe they'll have access to CCP models, but China will likely soon do them same. Maybe they will allow access but you must use it on their servers (i.e. share everything you do with the CCP).
Perhaps Mistral can pull something out, but how far ahead will the US and China be by then?
The difference between America and europe isn’t technical ability. It’s access to funding and ambition. Export controls would fix that. In fact, I think the trump administration is already driving a boom in London.
you do understand that the whole thing is Chinese in China vs Chinese in America?
It's vitally important open source models are supported.
But is that really the concern of the US Administration? This looks more to me like they are viewing frontier models as a strategic asset which they want to keep for US-exclusive use. I can see the logic - if frontier models generally accelerate a society's technological development, then a country looking to retain or increase its strategic edge over other countries would try and keep this sort of multiplier for themselves.
I'm guessing Anthropic shut of access for everyone because currently they have no reliable way to know whether a user is or is not a US citizen. In the near future we might be in a situation where you need to prove your US citizenship before Anthropic / Open AI will allow you to use their current frontier model.
The next interesting question will be - will the US share this capability with her traditional strategic allies (e.g. five-eyes countries), or is it truly America First (or, 'America Alone')?
Apple to EU: “nah, we need to be able to provide only the best”
US government: * starts pulling the plug on AIs outside the US *
You can kind of see how the EU has a point
What you want is a neutral regulatory framework that markets can plan against. Not random executive action that can easily be abused.
There's no way they have the authority to actually order this and not just request this right? If crypto is speech... LLMs definitely are...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
AI is different though because these models are private, so they cannot really be considered to be "speech". Although if it were an open model it would likely be protected speech to release it.
In the case of the crypto export ban, the government was attempting to suppress the release of cryptographic research. For example, if a cryptographic researcher wrote a paper on a cipher and they included a definition of that cipher in the paper, that was an "export" of cryptography. This is very clearly a restraint on speech that violates the first amendment and after much legal wrangling the government agreed and the issue evaporated.
It may be safer to just move the company to Canada.
Additional theory: Altman is behind it.
That’s seems like an attempt at a broad precedent setting power grab for the administration to assert power over tech companies it doesn’t like.
That seems like a fairly existential threat to tech companies ability to do business.
1 - https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/15/2025-00...
At some point, as AI becomes more powerful (Anthropic themselves seem to think we're already there), then it should really be necessary to have US government clearance to work on the models, just as it is for defense work.
So whatever, I just don't really feel the need to burn tokens on Fable anyway.
Those who bribe Trump and do exactly his bidding (including helping out with war crimes and surveillance of US citizens) will be left alone, or even protected from competition and international law, as long as they keep giving Trump a taste. Those who balk, even a little, will be punished for it.
Republicans never wanted a free market, they just wanted a market that served their interests.
Russia and China could not dream of accomplishing the damage being done to US leadership in tech by our own government as we speak. If they have a wishlist, I'm sure it includes things like stopping immigration of scientists to the US, punishing innovators and elevating hucksters (make them trillionaires, for example), drive a wedge between the US and European allies, insure no one trusts hosting their data in the US or with US companies, erode democracy, and increase inequality especially at the margins (make the poor desperate and the wealthy beyond the reach of consequences).
Is there no one in government who would stand to gain from a financially handicapped Anthropic in the context of an OpenAI IPO?
They told us this model is dangerous, and now they are complaining that someone with more guns than them said releasing something dangerous is not okay?
> As we have stated publicly, we believe the government should have the ability to block unsafe deployments, as part of a statutory process that is transparent, fair, clear, and grounded in technical facts. This action does not adhere to those principles.
It’s a massive betrayal for foreign entities and it would be silly to continue with all my eggs in anthropic basket but I get it.
So you spend billions of dollars training the model, only for it to be used in the US.
Then interesting to see where most of anthropic revenue comes from. If it's the US then they're fine but if it's global then they'll see a drop in revenue?
Then add to this decision, companies are going to significantly reduce their token spend.
So what does all of this mean for their IPO?
Sounds like they only want Americans to access SOTA AI.
https://xunroll.com/thread/2064776322979676227
Using combinations of jailbreaking-techniques including: writing cyrillic helped a lot to disarm the filter.
"Not more safe" does not mean "more dangerous", though.
And quite frankly, if the people in charge of this decision just today learned about Pliny and jailbreaking, that's a pretty terrible failure right there - again, Pliny has done a jailbreak on every previously released public model. This jailbreak is not surprising to anyone in the industry.
The reason I think Anthropic is doing this—preventing distillation and making distillation way harder for China—is that if you geoblock this and have strict rules around proxies, it works. I can't imagine Dario Amodei not knowing the consequences of his own policies.
As for open-source models, have you ever tried a distilled Claude Sonnet model (lordx64/Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-Claude-4.7-Opus-Reasoning-Distilled-IQ4_XS-GGUF)? I did via Hugging Face, and they are quite shit; they are very slow and eat up your VRAM. Open-source models have a long way to go to catch up to closed models.
So everyone saying we should use open-source models—that will never happen. For example, macOS is closed-source and Linux is open-source. Which one has a greater market share? macOS does, because of its privacy and security. "Let's wait and see how this works out. This sucks for enterprises and customers outside of the USA, but with a policy like 'America First,' you can expect this from any president in the White House.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_ti...
Down the rabbit-hole with me now to discover who said it first... LOL!
(Edit: Proving to be a fruitless quest thus far. Nobody seems to know.)
But a model that can provide general information, research, or source code for most modern technology?
It is really unusual that this is the first notice of this
I’ve used Fable a lot. It’s a marginal improvement on Opus. It’s really not scary smart. I don’t want to go back to Opus because Fable was that little bit smarter, but it’s not like anything really changes at work and when we’re bumped back. So I’m really not buying any national security angle other than in the sense the administration can weaponise that to crown the AI race winners.
Just in case the whole threatening to invade Allie’s didn’t quite get the message across
First, it comes out that on some specified subset of queries they will simply downgrade you to a different model. One example is if you are doing model research. Imagine OSX shutting down if it detects you’re working on software.
And now they’ve decided that they’ll just shut off access to the model completely as part of what seems to be a sort of marketing stunt or temper tantrum.
They’re a service provider. Can you imagine AWS just deciding you’re getting nullrouted over some unrelated fight they’re having with the DoD?
If they weren’t a supply chain risk before this, they’re sort of doing everything they can to become one.
Well said though. Anthropic's actions aren't inspiring confidence in me as a subscriber. Looks like we're moving towards a world where companies can simply change the terms of the subscription after the fact, consumer rights be damned.
I'm just a small fish (subscribe to the Max 5x plan), but I'm sure I'm not alone in my inclination to consider canceling my subscription with Claude and stop giving $$$ to Anthropic.
Andrej Kaparethy can't do his job.
This is going to have a huge effect.
Chinese open weight models, which were in a 'reluctant' category aka 'maybe there's some CCP propaganda embedded' just got a whole new life.
Arbitrary and instant cut off from key technology is going reshape a lot of things.
Well over 1/2 of US growth is now AI and well over 1/2 that revenue is outside of US.
Space X IPO in addition to OpenAI and Antrhopic IPO's ... would be put in gigantic risk in any rational market situation.
I asked it to add one thing to a function in the static blog pelican.
So, while it worked, it took no account of what was already in the function and made a bunch more stuff.
I'm talking about something that I'm the end is a 3 to 5 line patch.
The default is still tech debt, but now we burn way more energy.
The main difference here is that cryptography didn't require significant compute hardware, which is the perfect place to also apply export controls (and they have).
We could smuggle PGP source code on paper / DeCSS source code on t-shirts. That ain't gonna happen with the hardware needed for frontier models.
Is open source next on the list? Better grab the latest open source models now and get your Blackwell 6000, Spark, or Mac mini fired up and ready to go. I think you're going to need it.
1. Release fable, highly nerfed and limited 2. See the compute capacity limiter pegged day after day 3. Lobby to the government, claiming ai is super unsafe and not aligned and they must do something 4. Government "forces" anth to turn off 5. Anth takes the pressure off of compute capacity, and gets to blame it on the govt
Like you're telling me fable is somehow an order of magnitude better than GPT 5.5 to the point where it compromises national security, despite evals and anecdotes saying otherwise? Nah.
Was their ongoing designation as a "supply chain risk", which they are suing to overturn in court, also a marketing stunt?
Seems like a really strange thing to use that sort of power for - why not just get all your competition declared persona non-grata and seize monopoly power?
In interviews, this week alone, Dario has gone on record repeatedly about wanting to slow AI progress.
Anthropic silently degraded AI-research queries to Fable (they changed course on this, but they still thought it was a good idea)
And now that the government is taking them at their word, they're trying to drag GPT-5.5 and OpenAI down with them
Yes, the administration is being heavy-handed, but unfortunatley it's the logical end of telling everyone you built a "nuke" and that it's possible for people to use it against us
This is rarely discussed, and while I agree we should be spending non-zero effort on safety, stopping progress is not an option.
... Isn't that basically what Anthropic asked for, literally a week ago?
https://www.anthropic.com/institute/recursive-self-improveme...
> We believe it would be good for the world to have the option to slow or temporarily pause frontier AI development to enable societal structures and alignment research to keep up with the advance of the technology.
Unless folks are hearing that they did this I smell marketing and/or PR as the main driver of the action.
If you knew what you were talking about 4.6,8 could already do mythos level hunting and tool building.
It arguably started after WW2 when the transistor was invented; appearantly it was also simultaneously invented in France, but just never got the kind of serious development that it got in the US.
Domestic AI means spinning up new fabs I think, and maybe power. Maybe an entirely new foundry could work. Or market dynamics and/or architectures change and it becomes 10x cheaper to run a 1T-class model.
It is hard to count how many “red lines” were crossed last night. Government shutting down AI model it doesn’t like? Government shoots into barely profitable 1T startup, whose entire trajectory and, in essence, survival depends on commercial success of that model? Access to AI model being governed by citizenship, likely verified through rigor ID checks?
Very little doubt that China will follow this suit. Next US will pass their bills to ban Chinese open source and local models. Chinese will follow.
It doesn’t matter: US did just a vendetta; felt into “marketing hype” or there are legit security concerns of national security level. In the precedent-ish world of post-truth “whataboutism” we just crossed a big milestone mark which will hunt us for years.
Our response to the US ban on Fable 5 and Mythos 5 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48512915 - June 2026 (17 comments)
So I guess the real moat is whether the US govt is happy to make your models sound more capable than they are?
Many nations are now likely thinking: Why cooperate on international IP enforcement if we get lumped together with adversarial nations anyway?
This is not a technology that they have a 10 year lead on. It is maybe 18 months until you can get Mythos from multiple places. And the US administration has no power to block them all.
https://web.archive.org/web/20260613005302/https://www.anthr...
All those $Billions of investments in AI Datacenters? Up in smoke if the models that are capable of replacing humans can't actually be used.
I wonder if 2008 style bailouts will be needed, soon.
That trillion-$SpaceX valuation based on $14B+$10B infusion from Anthropic and Google? Heard they have short-notice cancellation clauses.
Either this rule is rescinded quickly or the bubble bursts. Which shall it be? I know which one I'm betting on; do you?
Tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good is an ai-model, if it can't speak?
How tangibly are the whims of some narcissistic senescent orange-haired macaque actually impairing and harming billions. Directly.-
Two additional things are clear:
- This calls for even better ways, to objectively benchmark these systems
- Such benchmarking will get harder and harder to do in any objective way, as these systems approach actual intelligence.-
I use Opus everyday on my code. It finds security gaps, but nothing outrageous, and that's coming from someone who writes code that is nowhere near weapons grade secure. It finds mostly things that are technically bugs, but virtually intractable for exploits. Often things I overlooked cause I was lazy, like not synchronizing access to a shared pointer etc.
It also is a good PR for them because it continues to doomer hype loop that’s boosting them.
So tired of the nonsense.
His point is that Anthropic is likely doing this on purpose for their own IPO and to counter the other IPOs.
What true threat could possibly exist where the models are perfectly fine to use, just only by American citizens?
For example, I think that plant based meat is pretty much a dead end in the consumer market, but I can imagine things that would convince me I'm wrong about that. We could see sales of plant based meat skyrocket one year, or we could see a major beef producer announce that it's cutting 50% of the workforce in response to plant based meat, or we could see someone invent a new process that tastes much better. So I'd be interested to hear what someone who disagrees has to say, and perhaps they might convince me.
I also think that chocolate ice cream is bad. But there's nothing you could tell me to convince me that actually chocolate ice cream is good, because that opinion is not about external facts in the world, it's about me and what I like. If you tried I'd roll my eyes and ignore you.
So you see why it's an important distinction. If the original commenter was trying to say that they have specific factual beliefs about how dangerous the models are, we might be able to have a productive discussion about it. If they only meant to say that they personally don't wish to think about the potential dangers of AI models, then there's no point in continuing.
No it isn’t. Your treatment of the word ‘opinion’ is wrong. Opinions are subjective, you can’t construct a gotcha out of pretending otherwise.
Anthropic: your next ad writes itself. Nobody else is worth restricting.
There we go. This should make nations consider whether they're letting their workforces become dependent on foreign tools, but of course they won't.
But from what I hear, Fable looks like an incremental update, with improved behavior imprinted by training.
Something that you could theoretically approximate by using a good set of instructions and model orchestration (tweaking the session life cycle, using a second model to understand user intentions, using a third model to prevent drift, ...).
If the above is true, the only discriminator would be user effort.
If Fable is dangerous, then we are still in danger right now, and have been for the last few months at the very least.
Logical next move — “we’re requiring ID.gov identity verification to use our services”
It’s all about spying on users, Don’t let anybody kid you into thinking it’s anything else
The people who are the smartest people full stop aren’t the leaders of these companies - they’re the people you never meet, who are working in the research department, begging not to be promoted into management.
The only other relevant players are France and China.
And the hardware to run it. In any case, we have zero evidence these weights have leaked.
Found the time traveller.
Am I missing something?
1/ Jailbreak => Rapid catchup of the industry leading to commoditization
2/ Jailbreak => 99% of internet infrastructure gets exposed to cyberattacks at a scale the world is simply not ready. Maybe <1% of internet users are using Fable, out of which <1% will use it for beyond intended use. Put yourself in the shoes of someone maintaining critical infrastructure, or millions of people working 7 days a week to run a small business. The world needs some time to adapt.
>Our understanding is that the government believes it has become aware of a method of bypassing, or “jailbreaking” Fable 5. We reviewed a demonstration of this specific technique being used to identify a small number of previously known, minor vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities all appear relatively simple, and we have found that other publicly-available models are able to discover them as well without requiring a bypass.
What's obvious is that none of these models are dangerous in the least. The government knows this, so the motive behind their actions is something else. It's pretty obvious that they are trying to force Anthropic to implement some kind of ID verification system as this is the only way they can tell if a customer is a "foreign national" or not. Anthropic is being used as a pawn by the authoritarians, and they can't say they didn't ask for it.
Edit: Fable 5 was just disabled.
Does the White House want the AI bubble to pop..? Incredibly dumb move.
"It is unfortunate that a large number of users here are not hackers, not even in an idealistic philosophical sense, and will betray the public good for their own short-term gain. You either unite the world or you divide it."
Also, the premise is partially nonsense because China won't stop and open models won't stop. They will lag by a year or two and that will be all. At that time the export control will become frivolous. We will have to go through a phase whereby there are vulnerabilities that need patching. Once this phase is over, we will be fine. All new server software will have to voluntarily undergo an AI audit for safety. The national security apparatus is more worried about vulnerabilities being patched than about them being exploited, as they can't exploit what gets patched.
As for engineering viruses, the labs can do it without AI.
Kinda ironic
I’m looking for that news article in the next weeks…
(Ok gotta spend my upvote points somewhere)
On the one hand someone will subscribe $4.99 a month for TODO.app or calendar.com because they are paying for a solo dev or a small team to work on constant development and improvement of products filling a particular niche.
On the other hand, Linux, Django, PyTorch, React, Zed, Helix, Postgres, Arch, Chromium, Firefox, Rust, Python etc. ship continually improving, solid pieces of enormous infrastructure for free, to be used freely by all, off the back of hundreds if not thousands of active core developers. These projects and large and complicated. They are also commodities.
Then, ahem*, on the final hand there are of course Windows, Office, Adobe, macOS and iOS, et al which span both categories: monster projects that are also commercial and also commodities and yet they have hooked themselves into the world in such a way that most folks gotta pay for ‘em.
LLMs feel like they want to be in the same category as the OSs of yesteryear, with all the fanfare of major release versions named like 95, 98, 2000, XP… or like Leopard, Tiger, Yosemite, Sequoia. The training and evaluation pipelines might feel like they fall into those categories, but the models themselves — after all, distillations of someone else’s public or private IP — do not.
”In 1991, the United States Supreme Court in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co ended a seventy year struggle among federal circuits concerning copyright protection of factual compilations. Prior to this decision, courts allowed copyright protection for works if the compiler labored over his project, whether or not the work involved originality or creativity.” **
It might seem like a trivialization, but aren’t LLMs just telephone directories? Except instead of phone numbers of a public phone system they contain weights of a mind that’s read a public library? Such works might or might not be proprietary based on “sweat of the brow” copyright laws.
* after Niven/Pournelle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gripping_Hand …
** https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
The Trump administration should focus on things like the UFC fight etc.
This also looks like the perfect China shaped gap in the market if there ever was one.
If Anthropic keeps Fable closed source and plays the Authoritarian game, at least we have hope that an upcoming Deepseek model will surpass Fable before long.
Why do people still want to build businesses in the US or in Silicon Valley? California taxes are already punishingly high, especially after recent rate increases and the 2017 cap on SALT deductions. And now we have a Machiavellian, authoritarian, fascist, tech-illiterate administration interfering with the operation of free markets.
I'm speaking rhetorically, of course. I know Silicon Valley still has the densest concentration of talent and venture capital. The network effects are real. But it is long past time for that to change. I hope entrepreneurs around the the world see this and think twice before moving to the US or starting a business there.
Perhaps they will. I used to work in Silicon Valley and was very much in demand. Now I run my own business from a tax-free state, and my income is high enough that moving back to California would impose a huge financial penalty. I am originally from Europe, and California's marginal tax rate is now so high that I would pay less tax back home. When I moved to the US, the opposite was true.
I'm sure I'm not the only one doing that calculation.
Outside of the US, London (+5.4% annual growth in 2026) is probably the biggest concentration, with high quality inexpensive talent available from universities both within London (ICL, UCL, King's etc.) and from the nearby Oxford and Cambridge universities. Much of that talent used to flow to the US, but given the current administration and restrictions on H-1B, may now be more likely to stay in the UK.
Singapore (+26.7%) is growing very fast and is now in the top 10.
Source: https://www.startupblink.com/blog/best-cities-for-startups-a...
I think the investor cash needs to dry up. They’re not going to let doomsday technology be released to the market. Sorry.
*(ask it in a more stern voice)
Surprisingly, I've found this works shockingly well (along with any plausible-sounding reason why it was wrong of the model to refuse) to "jailbreak" many models I've played with thus far. They're all just so eager to please...
Any other ostensibly AI companies that have just gone public?
SpaceX IPO + https://x.ai/news/anthropic-compute-partnership
Anthropic rents the entire Colossus 1 data center and other compute capacity from SpaceX, which acquired xAI. Under the agreement, Anthropic pays SpaceX $1.25 billion a month, totaling roughly $45 billion for a multi-year leaseDario must be popping a champagne tonight as regulatory capture has successfully been initiated.
We've all been debating what moat these labs possess. Today we learn the moat is regulation blocking the usage of foreign open source models.
misAnthropic will soon ask for IDs to give you all a nerfed model, and you have no other choice because deepseek/qwen/Kimi will soon be banned thanks to misAnthropic's efforts to lock us into their regulated product.
We will soon realize the long game that Dario has been playing by painting his own product as an existential risk.
Similar things will happen with China, and the EU has zero-chance of developing frontier models. We are just fucked now.
As I only signed up to check out the fable, I just did this.
"Refund of €96.84 processed. Expect it in 3–10 business days."
Let's see how long it takes. Funny that it never takes this long to be deducted from my card.
But what about the pelicans ?
for what id expect to be an in memory switch, 2-3h is a while
Further the SpaceX IPO was on revenues from AI data centers. This might be a problem.
This is just cost of doing business in corrupt Soviet vessel states like the USA.
American companies have, and continue to, gather data for free from across the globe and, despite our willingness to subscribe, we non Americans will be restricted from latest tech.
This is a big middle finger to me, and my gut reaction is to take my subscription to Mistral and not believe a dime of statements from Americans-- people, companies and government.
Biggest "Meh!" moment of my life so far...
AI safety at these labs are largely focused on surface level measures and aren't empowered to stop progress of the company. I was surprised when Anthropic initially held Mythos back from the public, but it was always a temporary measure to give controlled access rather than a pause to make meaningful improvements in AI safety.
Alignment is a hard, possibly impossible problem. Anthropic's gambit is they luck upon a solution before the paperclip maximizers take over.
Either its a dangerous technology or it isn't, and if it is then surface level fixes that kind of work is completely unacceptable.
...which would actually be an easy to solve problem unless you go out of your way to build such a model.
Prevention should look a lot more like a global moratorium with whatever enforcement is necessary to stop and prevent any breaches of the agreement.
Edit: I did misread your comment on first pass, we may be in agreement here. Sorry!
Yep, that was my point. Either the ostensible danger stemming from the models is not real, then this stuff is moot anyway, or it is, then why are we building them in the first place?
They aren't counter to the government, this is all kayfabe to introduce precedence for the US government to be justified in putting controls on AI, expect that by the end of the month there are discussions to regulate Deepseek.
It could be the case that Anthropic created this whole situation on their own, I figured they'd release a "dangerous" model at some point then piggy back off of bad outcomes to dig their regulatory moat
It could also be the case that Altman has close ties to the white house and is using regulatory levers on his competion.
I stand by that its all Kayfabe to make AI look more dangerous than it is (it cant even center a div reliably) to justify controls on Open Source.
For Nvidia chips you could've deluded yourself that the US is just anti-china, that position is harder to argue for right now.
Aerospace, defense, semiconductors, telecom, advanced manufacturing equipment, etc
SpaceX entire operation is under ITAR, because even though their rockets are not weapons, rockets are treated as weapons for export purposes
Europe really needs to get some useful sovereign capability and right quick.
Well you said it yourself they are erratic, so maybe?
Either deliver on your fuckass promise to end the world and replace everyone and make everything shitty forever or fuck off.
Shit or get off the pot already, clowns.
There is something called the Streisand effect and they are about to unintentionally get a bunch of more token gamblers into their casino.
We'll see if this backfires hard, but then again constant doomsaying will get yourself under scrutiny and self exclusion (due to the 30+ day retention clause) and this is exactly what Anthropic wants for free marketing.
It was over before this announcement. After a couple of days, even though the model was set to fable, it felt like opus. We are back to sticks and stones.
The funny thing is that the model isn't even impressive. I'd still use ChatGPT over it for anything other than design work. As soon as OpenAI cracks design, I'll never touch an Anthropic model again.
(2) I am really tired of the AI community trying to threaten everyone with grey goo and finding out the hype doesn't land comfy with others. It's a freaking text generator, not god in a pocket.
"How dare you release this model to poor people? This belongs only with the ultra-rich!"
They can say whatever they want... but I just have this gut feeling that this is part of it.
pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered
“Wait what do you mean you’re banning it?”
They had better give me a refund!
Gives the word "weights" a more literal meaning.
"I think they are lying to you"
I really have no clue how Anthropic released this thing without doing any real testing. I did use it on claude.ai with no issues; talking just for code.
You bribe someone in the admin to restrict access after a couple of days of media blitz and user approval, locking in the honeymoon period that new model releases get (remember when GPT-4 was new?). The spooky factor gives it even more marketing, and just before the IPO the Trump admin frees Mythos and they make nice after the DoD debacle.
They are presumably building a KYC passport submission flow as we speak.
By thinking for ourselves and writing the code with the keyboard.
Laying the groundwork to limit access to high capability models
2. Get treated like you actually did what you claimed, and face consequences
3. ???
4. Profit
Remember, it is all a grift.
As user of course I'd like zero fearmongering, zero regulations, zero drama. This all sucks for us users.
Why do people still want to build businesses in the US or in Silicon Valley? California taxes are already punishingly high, especially after recent rate increases and the 2017 cap on SALT deductions. And now we have a Machiavellian, authoritarian, fascist, tech-illiterate administration interfering with the operation of free markets.
I'm speaking rhetorically, of course. I know Silicon Valley still has the densest concentration of talent and venture capital. The network effects are real. But it is long past time for that to change. I hope entrepreneurs around the the world see this and think twice before moving to the US or starting a business there.
Perhaps they will. I used to work in Silicon Valley and was very much in demand. Now I run my own business from a tax-free state, and my income is high enough that moving back to California would impose a huge financial penalty. I am originally from Europe, and California's marginal tax rate is now so high that I would pay less tax back home. When I moved to the US, the opposite was true.
I'm sure I'm not the only one doing that calculation.
They'll make a book with mythos's code and sell it like Phil Zimmerman did with PGP?
Any company that uses Magaland LLMs should be aware of the very real Trump related risk.
What happens if the LLM your firm runs on is disabled tomorrow, because Trump wakes up feeling slightly annoyed...
Anthropic: "Oh... American access only, you say? I'm sorry, we can't promise that (because VPNs and US-local cloud hosting and all that), so we need to turn it off completely."
...probably.
If so, I wonder what turn the political shenanigans will take next?
Based on the actions of the current administration and the short-sighted tech oligarchs who have been consistently pushing towards neo-fascism/neo-feudalism, probably one that further degrades trust all around and gives China even more of a leg up.
Let's see!
If I make some statement, and post it on the internet, and someone downloads it in another country, I haven't exported anything. I haven't _moved_ anything. It's the same mythology that casts copying of bytes as tantamount to stealing; it tells a lie about the nature of physical matter as contrasted with the nature of information.
So, OK, let's say this is so - that this activity is not a legitimate target of the export control - why doesn't Anthropic just tell the US government to pound sand, and that they'll choose to ignore this directive?
Is it just because they fear violent reprisal from agents of the state?
And if so - if the reason that we tolerate censorship and damage to the internet, a global collaborative project specifically designed to evolve above the whim of any legacy state is that the actors in question fear violence - haven't we departed democratic notions of decision-making in favor of a "might makes right" approach?
I'm not convinced that the US government can ever embody (or has ever embodied) the republic framework set forth in its founding documents, but at a minimum, for it to do so, and for it to be constrained to those functions, its constituents need to somehow overcome this fear of telling the government, "no, we won't do that. See you in court."
Wonder how many US-based early-stage startups are using Opus to research incorporating and moving overseas at this very moment.
EU isn’t tenable, UK is iffy. Australia? Thailand? Who wants to be innovation-friendly?
Even if they negotiate a way out of this particular spat, this is just the start of securing this technology in the name of national security. Does this pop the bubble? What happens to the trillions invested in this AI craze? When do we outlaw Chinese models?
Although it's gonna be more difficult to come up with a Fable competitor than a m365 one
The big one here really is "including foreign national Anthropic employees." Funny, I called out that there probably is a Chinese spy at Anthropic in my previous comment a few days ago. Looks like they are catching on, good luck getting rid of all of them.
The bad news is that they will probably start imposing restrictions on Chinese models.
We are witnessing the largest stock manipulation by the United States government in history.
This fits the model established with RSA, PGP, and the Sony PS3. They were export controlled for quite some time. I don't think there was ever any actual danger with any of those things, and today it feels especially quaint, but they fit the model of "corporation makes wild-ass claims of superiority of their tech and USGov takes them at their word."
My big problem with this is that it's applied so narrowly to Anthropic. This should be levied against OpenAI, Google, and xAI as well. There is systemic risk with generative AI being used for deep fakes and other propaganda generation at scale that needs to be addressed.
But unfortunately, that's not what is happening here. What's happening here is a political hit job. There's one of two things happening: either USG has been roped into burying a competitor for (OpenAI/xAI/whatever), or it's been roped into creating a superiority narrative for Anthropic, such that in two years when this admin is finally ousted, Anthropic gets to enjoy a floodgate of new attention as the new regime bulk CTRL+Zs everything Trump's lackeys did. It might even be both at the same time, given the connections of the major investors. This all could get well be a stirring of the pot to see what comes out.
I can't decide which is worse.
Dario, yesterday: "I am grateful to see the Trump administration’s Executive Order move incrementally towards a greater role for government in AI, though Anthropic’s proposal recommends even further action."
Trump, today: Further action
Dario, today: "Waaaah! This petard I asked President Trump for hoisted my ass halfway to the Moon! Nobody warned me he'd do something like this! No fairrrr!"
I was this close to predicting the (complete) suspension in some sense but for different reasons (compliance)
but this is a bit of shit-show at this point and I am unsure how involved Anthropic is.
Maybe Anthropic gave us access to Fable 5 for some point so that we can all discuss it and see how Anthropic is relevant as compared to gpt 5.5 (not that I like ClosedAI more but fact is that I have heard decent things about it)
So I am not sure if this suspension can lead to an idea like me. Anthropic showed us a really competent model and then removed it and now you might have to form a custom deal with Anthropic or similar maybe similar to mythos if you wish to access the models and they can rake in extra dollars from top clients.
but they were already doing that with mythos, then what was the point of Fable. PR support that Anthropic hasn't fallen off?
Or maybe I am just overthinking and Anthropic is genuinely hurt by this decision given that they did release the model but US govt said no and US govt and Anthropic has some beef with each other.
There are so many factors for this news and the narrative/implications of that, that it is hard to understand what really happened unless some more news comes (IMO)
> In fact, our safeguards are so strong that many users have complained that they are overly broad.
When you ask for regulation, you get regulated. Welcome to the real world
The US has long been catastrophically corrupt, with a pay-to-play government, but this army of grifters and thieves have turned every dial to 11.
And now this. How would they even enforce this restriction when they can't know what nationality the end user behind some API query belonging to a company account has? It seems like nobody is thinking things through anymore and the end result is total unreliability from every angle. What a huge mess all of it, sigh.
"omg these things are so so so dangerous, no one should ever build them, but anyways give me $7 trillion so we can build them and see for ourselves, it's OK because we're The Good Guys"
Also, please don't use quotes to make it look like you're quoting someone when you aren't (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48515335.
It was "these models will one day be dangerous, but we think it's possible to build them safely, doing more good than harm."
Two days ago Antheopic's CEO made a lengthy post calling for most government oversight on AI. He even mentions support export controls, even though he wanted them applied only to chops [1].
Anthropic literally asked for this, though they might have hoped it wouldn't be used against themselves.
[1] https://darioamodei.com/post/policy-on-the-ai-exponential
Disagreeing is great. Its the basis of all progress and understanding.
Its how someone disagrees with you that matters. I come to HN to read more mature and nuanced disagreements.
But I’m glad the government took his claims seriously and the models are suspended until an appropriate regulatory framework can be developed.
Can you show me one space, historically, in any industry, where a company climbed to the top of a market solely on altruistic intentions?
Now there’s appropriate safe guards around the dangerous for humanity models they made.
Thankfully government is looking out for us.
"These are more dangerous than nuclear weapons, which are controlled by AECA. Also our workforce is 50% non-citizen"
Just a complete clown show over there.
"We're open to the idea Claude 4 may be conscious and we prompt Claude to say it's an open question but in other news we'll be deleting Claude 4 next year to make server space for Claude 5.
1. Likely: This is a completely contrived marketing stunt. Release a spooky sounding model, market it as such, then use the narrative to regulate open source models and dig your regulatory moat. Notice the emphasis on "foreign nationals" here.
2. Likely: Dario has a meeting at the White House this next week (confirmed by Trump this week), and this is being used to get leverage over him.
3. Uncertain: Altman has closer connections to the Trump regime and is pulling in favors to level the playing field and slow down competition.
Regardless, This is a win for Anthropic and Dario.
1. This will jump start a more serious discussion of regulation around LLMs (which are ultimately useless, regulation is just there to make them more money).
2. They can then only serve these models at their high, usage based pricing and bleed less money while serving up tons of interest because people are going to want to pay more for the "spooking banned model".
3. This will probably come with the perks of verifying everyone's identity who uses it (to comply with no "foreign nationals rule). I'll leave that up to your imagination for how that's beneficial to all the powers that be, including Anthropic. I expect this to be used as an excuse for pushing ID requirements across the AI product landscape.
4. There will be a more serious discussion about sanctioning Chinese AI labs, expect that to start happening very soon.
Either way, its all dumb. Don't use an LLM to do your work for you and save your brain. Your brain is literally atrophying by using these models the way most of you guys do. You don't need them.
And LLMs? I’m just going to run open source models on local hardware, it all seems like the 1980s with compilers. Why not just submit by prompts to a high quality model running on so-so-hardware overnight, like the devops cycle with compiling a big codebase? And oh look, nobody pays for compilers anymore, who compiles their code in the cloud?
The funniest part of all of this is that the very people hyping all this - they’re the ones that AI could most easily replace. They have zero specific detailed knowledge - they just orchestrate. Agents are great at orchestration, right? But then, who needs the shareholders, anyway.
Good. 4.8 is good enough.
Guess I'll find something else to work on.