Weren’t they claiming their party is opposed to over regulation and critiqued EU for that or something? Funny, that.

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.

Larry Ellison, Softbank, and OpenAI invested a lot of money into project Stargate. Would be a shame if Anthropic took a piece of the pie.

Neither party in the US is opposed to overregulation, from my perspective that died a good twenty years ago.

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.

> led by an adult toddler and his sycophants

which are deeply entrenched with the competition (Grok, OpenAI)

One day a few million dollars in tokens will enable you to mint an entire AWS or iPhone.

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.

>The rubicon being crossed here is Republicans Republicans/the red tribe losing their comparative advantage of being opposed to overregulating a rapidly advancing technology.

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 opposite party would have outright banned AI. Just listen to the left commentators, they all want to ban technology and, similarly to how they did it in the UK, destroy the whole IT sector altogether.

I am saying this probably is "silly behavior by a government" and it is a milestone that points towards what the future may look like. Why can't it be both?

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.

I still remember when Netscape had outdated ssl for a few years because more advanced cryptography was classified by the US gov as armaments or something. Basically used export restrictions to prevent better security technology from being adopted into commercial products.

> This is an administration that seems to be keeping track of who its friends are and aren't

This seems to be an administration that is dead set on antagonizing every single part of the world. Either enemy or ally.

I think we should see this as simply silly behavior by a government. ... We saw some of this behavior in the last administration too.

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.

GEO blocking is not the same as blocking based on nationality. I'd like(?) to think someone in this decision chain realized "restricting to US nationals" meant effectively restricting it to all and chose this route knowing Antrophic would need to just pull the model (so engaging in censorship without calling it that, possibly less susceptible to court challenges).

> I think we should see this as simply silly behavior by a government.[...] 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.

"Silly" is a silly word for corruption.

Every F35 is exported with a killswitch. and you think this is a silly decision? its not silly, its gatekeeping, iam sure this will get much strict in future, where even developing a frontier model can get sanctions from US. IMO Every country need AI sovereignty and its right time to form a group or consortium of nations to fund and build an equally capable frontier model that is accessible to all others. AI should not be confined to certain nations, the way nuclear capabilities are restricted.

We need to stop making light of these things. Governments don’t do ‘silly’ things. When you wield that kind of power over people’s lives, everything you do is deadly serious.

> silly behavior by a government

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.

It's also possible that they literally are too dumb to realize they asked for something infeasible. For example, the same main character who apparently gave up a career as an extra in made-for-TV WWII German movies to become a very high ranking government official.

Nineties called and they want their shitty export grade computing back. Anyone still remember OpenBSD?

VPNs won't work when they do document (passport) verification.

Agreed. This is no different from the US government attempting to control SSH, or restrict the sale of the Apple Power Mac.

10 years from now we’ll look back and laugh at how silly it all was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars

Or that would be even a better excuse to ban the usage of VPN than csam

"effective tool for controlling a consumer facing technology developers everywhere want to use (see:VPNs) "

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.

> We saw some of this behavior in the last administration too.

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.

I think this is also overly naive. We live in a world of hardware attestation and passkeys, the baseline requirements to use new models can increase to cryptocurrency-levels of KYC. If this becomes the new norm (which it easily could), then the best models will impose increasingly restrictive requirements.

I don't see your point why export control is a silly tool. There's a difference between a VPN which I can prop up on my home server or a $5 VPS, vs a Mythos-scale closed source model running on millions of dollars of hardware

Silly or not, precedent matters and labeling it silly is rhetorical. The impact is going to be critically important.

> We saw some of this behavior in the last administration too. US voters deserve better.

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)

silly or corrupt?

Yes! I mean everyone is speaking about this in a boxed manner.

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.

Imagine a private company invents a piece of technology soooo good that the US government has to issue a ban.

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.

This is signaling to non-US companies that Anthropic cannot provide reliable access to their models.

> Anthropic got the most rewarding hype ever in the history of mankind.

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's only rewarding hype if the ban gets dropped. If "foreign Anthropic employees that live in the US can't use Fable/Mythos" stays it harms them, if they don't drop the ban and Fable/Mythos stay limited to "every single person who uses the model must individually provide their ID to prove American-ness" it harms them.

I see what you mean, though ITAR restricted software has been around for decades. It classifies some software as "munitions" :)

Most valuably, they have a plausible excuse for hitting a financial brick wall before failing to deliver on years of over-promising on real-world business utility.

It’s a marketing stunt, I’m calling it and Anthropic will “fix” it very soon

Anthropic got out a slightly better model (which is what two companies were doing for more than a year), but at the cost of not being able to provide it within subscription. It build out an inordinate hype around this model. And in the end it was saved by this hype because it doesn't have to admit now that it's never gonna be able to provide this model in volume because gov forbade them from providing it.

> Anthropic got the most rewarding hype ever in the history of mankind.

Nah, SpaceX just IPO'd.

“Banned in Boston”

It wasn't a magical threshold until today. Now it surely is a magic threshold, set by the US government.

Disappointingly, it still works.

They used this type of language with GPT-2. Le sigh, yawn.

Back when Snowden leaked all of the spying information, the only thing the States cared about was whether they spied on their own citizens. The fact that they spied on the citizens of their allies, including yes, the EU, barely made the news.

I don't think it makes sense the assume the US considers any country its ally.

> I'm a European, the EU is supposed to be one of the closest allies of the US.

I’m Scandinavian. The US is an adversary; please wake up.

>If this is so dangerous why allow US nationals access to it? Are there no evil people in the US?

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?

I believe that restrictions like these: "only for US nationals present" are also to facilitate prosecution if needed

lets be genuine here: those local models are no where near the capabilities of true modern llms like codex 5.5 and fable 5

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

Deepmind and OpenAI have offices in Europe. But I don't think Anthroipc does?

> LLMs don't get a free pass because they're also so good at writing typescript for beige CRUD apps and bedtime stories.

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.

I wonder what will happen to Chinese employees of Anthropic/OpenAI/Google Gemini? Given the ubiquitous Chinese names in AI papers there must be quite a few.

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.

Do you have sources? I would like to read more about that.

that is to avoid having them arrested by the US under "US national security concerns".

You may be right, and I actually agree with you: I think that in this case the most likely outcome is that Fable becomes available again at some point, albeit possibly only to a restricted set of users within the US.

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.

Perhaps a little tinfoil hat, but I don't think there's a legitimate concern here to address. An empowered populace is antithetical to the current political paradigm, which is what I suspect the actual grievance to be.

And before either 'aisle' piles on - I'm pretty sure the concern is bipartisan.

I think some of the commenters are naive to think government intervention is silly and TACO.

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.

I feel like a very minor tweak to comply specifically with whatever the issue the directive stated and release it under a new name (since the directive specifically names Fable and Mythos, not Opus or Sonnet) while the courts sort it out is reasonable.

Anthropics latest amendment to their privacy policy stated that there are very likely to be asking for ID verification in the near future.

>> 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

Human user usage data is probably a tiny contribution to improvement of the models--it's mostly RL on environments

> 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.

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.

> 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

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?

It's a great opportunity for China to earn some soft power points even if there was no direct economic benefit. See -- Americans are too afraid to go full speed into the feature, but we, the enlightened people, are not and will share it with you for your own benefit.

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.

This is why Alibaba canned the more idealistic Qwen members [0] and now has the AI group directly report to Eddie Wu [1] (the CEO of Alibaba).

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...

[2] - https://m.guancha.cn/economy/2026_06_12_820253.shtml

> I find it worrysome how often people value revenge over good.

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.

I would agree if it wasn't for the fact that extracting that volume of data from a properly secured corporate network should be hard. It should raise some flags if a such a high volume of data is downloaded to a user's local machine from the training or production environments.

It's highly unlikely that actors have access to model weights etc..

What is likely is that 'understanding of techniques' could be leaked.

Often, it's just well enough to know 'the approach' being used.

> AI proliferation is more dangerous than nukes proliferation

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.

nobody ever raised money for nukes from public/private markets on the premise that nukes will bring the world into an age of abundance. AI companies have done that. This comparison of AI and nukes is so silly.

Sure, but what if that "known good customer" proxied access to someone else?

They just received a massive PR opportunity on a silver platter: our model is so good the government forced us to shut it down.

And just imagine the true capability of AI if Fable and Mythos are the models known publicly. We can only imagine what is behind closed doors.

It's not like every French person can carry a gun, a non french nationals can not. This is a nationalism thing.

> is fable that good?

In my experience it’s not, the only difference I noticed between it and Opus was its taking much more time to respond.

For some workload, yes the difference is big

China is going to have the exact same problem, it is just lagged by x months.

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.

Fable IS that good, I can tell you. At least, for physics.

For 3d engine stuff yes it's a lot better. It managed to replicate crimson deserts occlusion mapping stuff. 4.7/8 was not

Working on my codebase (~100KLoC across multiple Python modules) I felt that Fable was head and shoulders above 4.x series. It was just relentless and always hell bent on testing and proving its own work. It just tore through problems like an animal. I never seen that behaviour in 4.5-4.8. I can't speak for OpenAI models as I don't use them but Fable was in a different league. Especially when tasked with long horizon goals that involved reasoning at a high and low level to solve the task.

I don't understand the point you're making.

It can be both the most powerful LLM on the market, and have no adoption in critical infrastructure.

i know someone who works on nuclear power plants that uses codex

obviously you need to review it

> it’s just a useful tool for non-critical areas. That’s all it is.

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.

Fair enough, there _could_ be powerful models that are hidden from the general public, but I wouldn't call it "naive" to think the current capitalistic incentives are such that the only way to produce such models is to do exactly what we see out in the open with a handful of companies each trying their hardest to outcompete the other

Yeah a bit like I’ll be impressed by a humanoid robot that can fold a shirt from a freeform state (i.e. thrown as a ball on the laundry chair, or straight out of the dryer). Just like repeatable movements an balance are the easy(er) parts of robotics, text processing is the easy part of AI.

No. It doesn't.

Obviously their statements are insincere, because they are building the bloody things. If they were sincere that AI is like nuclear weapons, then they would be devoting all their cash and energy into lobbying the government to nationalize them and treat AI like nuclear weapons. They would not be attempting to IPO and they for sure would not sell their weapon-like thing to the general public.

“OpenAI's CEO says he's scared of GPT-5”

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.

> Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence.

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...

People don't get that big labs actively want government regulation, not because they are genuinely concerned about AI misalignment. But because it is the 101 in how to achieve and crystalize oligopoly. What they want is "only the government and the big guys can work on AI", for the rest of us it would be illegal.

I put very little weight behind any of those fearful statements made years ago. I assume leaders of those companies are fairly smart and rational, and there's no rational explanation for them running companies building the very thing they (supposedly) genuinely believe could kill us all.

I don't doubt they may have held genuine fears in the past, but those are long gone by now.

I believe some people at these companies are sincere sure, but the CEOs, the investors, your sam altmans etc, the marketing talk.

Hell no, can’t trust a single word.

> OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence

Why would they sell there services to Palantir and/or to the military then?

> The idea that AI companies scaremonger to sell models is a silly meme.

> 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

> Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence.

They don't. LLMs can never become out-of-control superintelligence and everyone working on LLMs knows this (with a few eccentric exceptions).

Of all the frontier labs, Anthropic has been the most creative in its marketing. I really, really don't put it beyond them for this to be one big crazy stunt.

Besides, when has the US government been known to do things like this proactively? The phone call came from inside the house.

> we have no reason to believe their statements about risks are insincere

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.

Not at all. The writing is on the wall, and they want you to be locked into paying absurd subscription rates for neutered models while they internally use all of that money to run the unrestricted models to clone all of our businesses and swallow the economy. It really does not take a genius to see the long term play by Anthropic. They're a scummy company and have done everything in their power to lead to a scenario like this, but this isn't the exact scenario they bargained for because it affects their own employees and big foreign buyers. Instead, they'd rather have all of the decision making power themselves.

> Whether you agree or not, we have no reason to believe their statements about risks are insincere.

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.

Their marketing reinforces the previous post though.

Going for months claiming how good mythos is for security cuz too powerful is their own making.

> Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence.

Ironic then, that both companies are in an out-of-control race to create a superintelligence.

> Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control 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.

No reason except what comes from a bit of critical thinking.

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.

I wish I were this naive.

How do you know what the founders sincerely believe?

OpenAI was, but didn't all those people then leave for Anthropic?

Yes we do. Dario said GPT2 is too dangerous to release. He’s dishonest since that’s obviously not true. This theater is about holding onto power and control. And about limiting competition.

what a profoundly unaware comment

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

Sincerity does not determine whether an individual is scaremongering.

It can be both.

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.

Ah yes we are being told to believe in sincerity of people running trillion dollar corporations.

It's not. I got articles this year in my feed citing heads of OpenAI and Anthropic about the threat of AI and how they're addressing it.

The clear historical record seems to indicate we've got a bunch of pathological liars trying to automate pathological lying.

You're saying "this is normal" without making an argument that it's sensible.

>> Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence.

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?

yes, yes, and Apple forbids sideloading because they're worried about grannies installing malware.

I am biased but I think if they really believed what they were saying, they would be a lot more humble about it.

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.

I mean this earnestly: is this copy?

> we have no reason to believe their statements about risks are insincere

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".

Look into the history of Sam Altman and his ventures. He sincerely only believes in lying about his companies to investors like he did with Loopt.

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.

There is a huge difference between the company founder saying something like that and the us government saying so.

"Our product is so good the US had to make it illegal for foreigners" is a hell of a marketing slogan.

This just made any closed LLM a huge supply chain risk. Everybody was aware of this possibility, but now it actually happened. It's like having nuclear weapons vs. firing a nuclear weapon.

Especially outside the US customers are going to be very hesitant to keep adopting LLMs from US companies.

They've already been labeled a "supply chain risk". Probably not a good idea to upset the regulators more. Maybe tomorrow Opus will be declared too dangerous for the public.

It mainly shows that this is another US companies that cannot be trusted by anyone outside of the US because of the US government.

Cratering their user base outside of the US is hardly going to be good for their IPO.

Incorrect. Heavy government regulation means it is limited how they can sell this model and to whom.

It would be if it was rationally tied to the strength of the model. More likely, it’s simply the government deciding who can compete.

Is it now? From a company's point of view, does it really matter that some expensive tool is allegedly good or not if it's reliability/availability is poor and subject to completely arbitrary and unpredictable change?

It also signals that Anthropic is a bad choice if you need stable access to their product outside the US.

And they don't have to actually serve expensive model compute and this all goes away once they contribute to the right charitable organizations and patriotic causes funneling money to the right people.

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.

it may be really good pr, but it's really bad for their IPO. If their market for future models is usa only, their potential revenue is cut by 50% at least. (and it's even worse because it means Europe, India, and China will all have companies making their own models that anthropic needs to stay ahead of)

Indeed, this affects way more than just Anthropic.

I think it's the opposite. Who would want to buy shares in a company that's been flagged as a supply chain risk?

"Our models are so good the government decides whether or you get access -- so you better not depend on them!"

“Not a commodity”

It appears to affect only the companies that Trump decides it should affect.

>everyone using this technology loses

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's a game of thrones and everyone using this technology loses

Everyone? There's worlds outside of the United States government overreach.

Anthropic's marketing is playing 5D chess. 4D was telling everyone it is dangerous, they knew the government would take the bait and shut it down.

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.

Should they lie and say the model is not dangerous?

In this case it was Amazon reporting Fable jailbreak to government

It's Anthropic facing consequences for their years long marketing plays. They're so greedy and narcissistic as a company and culture they believed they were special enough to be excluded from sanction internally, and that their behavior would only affect their competitors or would lead to outcomes positive for themselves: ergo, they get to hold the keys to the castle. Like Dario said in his negotiations with the DoW, he wants a seat at the big boys table. It's all about power for him.

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.

> the level of capability displayed there is widely available from other models

Is this Dario leveraging it into a ban on open models?

Anthropic is almost solely responsible for the fear narrative around AI at this point. It has been their culture since the beginning, strongly pushing this into the zeitgeist at every opportunity, releasing bogus papers to frame things as highly dangerous and that their AI is a conscious sentient being.

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.

The difference between OpenAI & Anthropic is that OpenAI didn't do multiple big media pushes about how their models are so scary and dangerous.

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.

It seems like this might not have happened if Anthropic didn't institute the cyber blocks as broadly to also cover pure-defensive use cases?

Because this wouldn't be considered a jailbreak with any other model; which would just do the request.

That’s a safe assumption, considering they tried it a few months back too.

https://www.npr.org/2026/03/09/nx-s1-5742548/anthropic-penta...

It's a huge jump across the board. I was really impressed with its ability to test usability in Claude for Chrome. Very opinionated but in a good way. It was good while it lasted.

I did not see that?

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.

Was WWII a marketing ploy to inflate the value of German and Japanese stocks?

> 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."

This is nonsense. What Anthropic have been campaigning for, since the beginning, is a principled rule-based audit of model releases.

Now we are getting reactive, arbitrary and capricious enforcement; rules rushed out the door; classified evals. The worst of both worlds.

Yep and they also want to only exempt models below some level of compute or capability from this process. In other words, if an open model ends up being competitive, they’ll use regulations to ban it.

> They ultimately got what they wanted.

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.

Is there any reason they couldn't also apply export-control to older models, just to screw with Anthropic?

Every. There is no reason the government will let go the power it has obtained, that is never how it works

There won't be any new generation of models more powerful than Fable since the argument against Fable would apply even more. Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 is the best we'll ever see from this point forward. Soon low cost Chinese models will catch up to those thereby destroying Anthropic and OpenAI's pricing power which will mark the beginning of the end for them too.

They're enjoying the schadenfreude of Dario "AI is so dangerous, we really need to ban and regulate everyone" Amodej getting his models banned by the US government.

Note that the US military is almost the only customer that Fable and Mythos could safely be sold to while complying with this directive.

Maybe revenge, but it's a common play to fire a shot across the bow to create leverage in other areas.

Which, to be clear, does not mean they are actually honest.

Yup, getting Cartmanland marketing vibes here. “It’s the best theme park ever, and you can’t come!” does wonders for creating demand.

I wouldn’t the surprised if all this were actually orchestrated, it all seems too convenient.

There is a chance they'll lose on some income if it takes longer.

Unfortunately there also a possibility this what they intentionally wanted to try regulatory capture to get rid of competitors.

don't think so; retail investors would see this as a barrier that the government can place anytime they want, and assume that government intervention is constantly lurking in the shadows.

I also do not understand this. Now they are labelled as precious US tech that could be not used by anyone else, because president heard about the jailbreaking for the first time I guess. With this genius logic they soon be banning GPT 5.5.

No it’s not. A company that finds itself the target of potentially crippling government intervention is not an attractive investment.

No way the US is going to nationalize a tech company regardless of what happens. The exodus of capital would be unimaginable.

Anthropic and US Government, there can be only one right in this situation.

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

Yeah, LLMs are a national security issue on par with spellcheck.

Can you share any of these serious thinkers?

Nobody with even a modicum of understanding of how LLMs work believes any of this. These 'serious thinkers' are just grifters preying on the feeble minded.

Right now it's basically this easy: 1. apex domain 2. ???? 3. critical PII exposure

There is /so/ much stuff on the internet that just needed someone to spend enough time on it.

Sometimes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

But when is now if it becomes available. Oops!

They've also been saying coding is solved while having text flicker in a terminal

hard to sell something people can't have though

I'm also not laughing here.

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.

> Nothing is funny about AI being restricted like air travel.

Yeah it is.

Unless you work at Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, or Meta.

Your stocks/RSU are at risk of losing significant value.

Plus, this is more fuel for Anthropic's God complex.

Sometimes they exaggerate the things they understand.

I don’t think there’s a vendetta. I think that Dario is an ideologue who has been letting his ideology cloud his business judgment.

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.

Anthropic drops defense work, OpenAI picks up, Anthropic files for IPO, after that OpenAI files for IPO, now Anthropic's IPO looks not that good... thus making for much better OpenAI IPO. I'm wondering whether the Trump's son has any connection to OpenAI as the companies he is connected to have been very lucky to get various government benefits/contracts/etc. on "pure merits".

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"

“Too dangerous to release” has been exploited for marketing.

A sizeable plurality of the informed public know as much.

Regulatory capture is a thing.

I'm sorry that I think that "Our LLM is the missing element for a group to develop nukes or bioweapons" is marketing hogwash.

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.

Not as smart as everyone thinks it is, maybe, but a model like Fable 5 without safeguards against offensive cyber attacks would be a nightmare. There are millions of improperly secured web applications that, in the wrong hands, would be easily exploited by these models.

Or you could use it, and see the massive disconnect between hype and reality yourself. It’s not hard.

The market is built on hype, so of course it’s going to get hyped everywhere.

I feel like it is strange seeing some really smart people go full conspiracy theory tin foil hat. Half these threads think that Anthropic is playing some 5D chess game to purposefully get nationalized.

Yes, we should hand everyone a zero-day button.

There aren't many working on it though, definitely not enough given how many resources are going into building AI.

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.

Executive staff seems money-hungry for sure (note the lack of non profit that OpenAI has)

I would say they have researchers with self-important god complexes that makes them think they know better than everyone else.

Regardless of motivations for this case, I take this as a clear sign that we've reached the point where the federal government decides its within their authority to mandate this and its reasonable for them to do it.

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.

Anthropic's own marketing and urban legends spawned by them is to blame too. They built up too much BS around mythos and project glasswing

But it was Anthropic initiative to limit the deployment to restricted groups, it's great to see the gov following their analysis. AIs are too powerful and dangerous they should be limited to a very restrained individuals isn't?

Fortunately for us all Dario literally asked for this sort of restriction on model usage so we can be certain Anthropic are not victims here.

The ban on exporting cryptography in the 90's lasted for years, and got to be a major pain in the arse for the entire web industry in its early years. The US govt can be very stubborn about this stuff when it wants to be.

I think culture moves a lot faster than you believe.

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.

Tuesday is the traditional reversal day.

I realize these models are locked up pretty tight and terabytes in size, but in a future like that, I don’t see them not being leaked via an insider. The weights have to be loaded into VRAM at some point.

If the frontier models will take as much money to train as they do now, there is no way the wealthy are able to afford their training just for their own consumption. Financing of this whole thing rests on the models being available to companies and consumers who are willing to pay astronomical (compared to other software) sums for it.

It's always been this way ever since the first industrial revolution.

I can very easily see a licensing requirement coming soon. Running a higher-grade AI will require a govt-issued license, which involves a six-month application process, explanations of why you need to run it, where it's going to be stored and who will have access to it, pretty much the same as non-USA countries deal with firearms.

Reasoning? More customers = more revenue, there's negative financial incentive behind restricting TAM. In the same way the iPhone isn't restricted to only the wealthy, that would significantly reduce total goods sold and thereby revenue. In addition that creates lower economies of scale, lower network effects etc.

Pay $1,000,000 per business function you want to build.

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.

I'm praying that China survives this BS and remains the bastion of AI model openness and freedom of choice. Can't believe I just wrote that.

Not if Chinese companies have anything to say about it.

A weapon how?

If companies in other Countries could use these models to compete against American companies and hurt the US economically, could that be viewed as a weapon?

A Holmes indeed... your deductive powers are piercingly perceptive! (the event chain was a joy to follow, gave me ai2027 vibes, but slowdown like)

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

> OS models are unaffected

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.

Assuming anyone involved in this crap is operating in good faith is foolish at best. The only thing any of them give a shit about is accumulating money and power.

It is very hard to believe the US government is operating in good faith any more. Do I need to gesture more broadly at the open corruption?

Somebody saying "Such a great $965 billion company you've got there, it would be such a shame if ..." you got the rest.

Almost assuredly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic%E2%80%93United_State...

Add a Trump son to the Anthropic board and all friction is gone

The model card for mythos shows it being an incremental improvement in all respects besides security.

Wait a few weeks. They won't be able to generate enough without it; it will get reversed and things will just continue as normal.

it feels like it's mostly just tuned to up it's level of capability on long horizon tasks - stop context rot and keep persisting at all costs until a goal is done.

The base intelligence does not feel much greater to me.

This is a ridiculous thing to test on it. Other models are trained on that kind of thing, use those instead.

Fable was designed for _really_ hard software engineering problems. Possibly large, but especially hard. For those tasks, you feel the difference immediately.

You touched a great point, I wonder how the markets would react to this. No wonder the order was released just after the end of business on a Friday. Let me guess, something will happen right before market opening on Monday and some bets will pay great dividends.

But those were very easy to sidestep: proxy/vpn, download java with US encryption, and move on. That is very different with this.

The incentives around OSS become stronger the further down in the list of market leaders a company is. The #1 company has no particular incentive to push open software apart from a belief that the market is going to be come commoditised anyway. But the 2nd or 3rd largest player has actual incentives to break the market up and remove software quality as a consideration. No #10 may as well not bother with a proprietary option since if they make it a software quality battle they're going to lose each customer 9 times anyway.

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.

Realpolitik in action. Great powers just impose export controls because they know they can and they think it would be beneficial to the nation.

Yeah because they’re just using electromagnets. Those motors are not better than the rare earth ones.

A sample of one, but I was getting more stuff done despite Fable uses tokens twice as fast as Opus, because it understood the goals so well and worked to achieve them.

Yep. I love open source but there isn’t a model that comes close still to the closed source options like Opus 4.8 and that’s obvious from most people I see across the software industry as well. There are at least another few models after Opus from OpenAI and Anthropic most would go down the list using before any of the Chinese models at this point.

> Most people weren’t using Fable for everything anyway because it’s so expensive.

Or they were getting silently rerouted and couldn't realise they weren't using Fable

> If someone was using Fable they don’t have any second best alternative outside of Anthropic.

GPT-5.5 isn't awful.

Opus 4.8 has taken such a beating over the last couple of days since the release of fable, videos online of people referring to it like the “redheaded stepchild” (is there a better way of saying this, this sounds racist) basically at this point, everyone is going to be seriously disappointed to fall back to that.

I quit paying for Claude Code to buy z.ai's coding plan for use with OpenCode. I'm not a power user, but I don't regret switching away from Claude. OpenCode is generally nicer for my work.

MiniMax M3 is surprisingly powerful, and open weight (or is about to be). There's others in this space too: MiMo v2.5, GLM 5.1. There's quite a few to pick from if you want strong models running on "your" hardware.

deepseek v4 pro is great and open weight.

All current Qwen 3.7 models are closed though they have said more releases are coming

Anthropic is explicitly lobbying for this.

Anthropic hates open weight Chinese models so yes