Glad I clicked that Wikipedia link! Chinese curse... I&#x27;d always been told it was an old Bedouin curse. Learn somethin&#x27; new every day (still to this day, and every new day until I become physically incapable of learning).

Great time to remind people that this is meant to be a curse<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;May_you_live_in_interesting_times" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;May_you_live_in_interesting_ti...</a>

&gt; * (ask it in a more stern voice)Surprisingly, I&#x27;ve found this works shockingly well (along with any plausible-sounding reason why it was wrong of the model to refuse) to &quot;jailbreak&quot; many models I&#x27;ve played with thus far. They&#x27;re all just so eager to please...

Sadly, I suspect this will be the best piece of marketing they could ever hope for. &quot;It&#x27;s so advanced the government made us add extra security* to stop hackers!&quot;*(ask it in a more stern voice)

Well maybe now they will learn that they shouldn’t overhype the capabilities of their models.

Refund for the subscription I started after the announcement of Fable.

refund for the tokens you already spent via the API or the $200 max that didnt really change?

Already got my refund, at least that was quick.

Got a refund for the full $200 subscription

There is a chance they&#x27;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.

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.

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.

don&#x27;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.

Pay? This is the best marketing they could have hoped for.

&gt; the level of capability displayed there is widely available from other modelsIs this Dario leveraging it into a ban on open models?

That’s a safe assumption, considering they tried it a few months back too.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.npr.org&#x2F;2026&#x2F;03&#x2F;09&#x2F;nx-s1-5742548&#x2F;anthropic-pentagon-lawsuit-amodai-hegseth" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.npr.org&#x2F;2026&#x2F;03&#x2F;09&#x2F;nx-s1-5742548&#x2F;anthropic-penta...</a>

The difference between OpenAI &amp; Anthropic is that OpenAI didn&#x27;t do multiple big media pushes about how their models are so scary and dangerous.OpenAI&#x27;s models are very good, they have refusals + a government ID verification story for cyber access (I don&#x27;t think they prevent non-US nationals, but I don&#x27;t know this). What they don&#x27;t have is Project Glasswing and all the hand wringing about how they&#x27;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.

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: &quot;OMG, the AI hacked a researcher eating a sandwhich in the park!&quot;Step 2: Journalists use that great clickbait to generate profit, which generates publicity for AnthropicStep 3: Rinse repeatIf the threat of LLMs was treated relative to the actual capabilities of them, and we weren&#x27;t all being lied to by Anthropic and their army of millions of social media bots and backing media companies and mouthpieces, we&#x27;d be going in a much healthier direction. 
Working out the kinks&#x2F;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&#x27;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&#x27;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&#x27;s far too late. If you work at Anthropic - time to start talking to your colleagues in an honest manner.

It seems like this might not have happened if Anthropic didn&#x27;t institute the cyber blocks as broadly to also cover pure-defensive use cases?Because this wouldn&#x27;t be considered a jailbreak with any other model; which would just do the request.

Based on this, it seems like the Trump admin would have targeted them even without the &quot;scaremongering&quot;:&gt; 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.

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

Would be funny if they got themselves nationalized.I mean, better safe than sorry, right Dario?

&gt; 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.

&gt; They ultimately got what they wanted.No, it&#x27;s not what they wanted. As it says in your quote, they wanted &quot;a statutory process that is transparent, fair, clear, and grounded in technical facts. This action does not adhere to those principles.&quot;

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.

This is what Anthropic wanted and they want this to apply to all other frontier models providers (including themselves) that release powerful models.&gt; 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.

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&#x27;s a common play to fire a shot across the bow to create leverage in other areas.

I would more easily guess that it is a revenge of Trump for Anthropic humiliating him when he wanted to use it without control for military purpose. And indeed it used against them their own marketing allegations.

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

Is there any reason they couldn&#x27;t also apply export-control to older models, just to screw with Anthropic?

There won&#x27;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&#x27;ll ever see from this point forward. Soon low cost Chinese models will catch up to those thereby destroying Anthropic and OpenAI&#x27;s pricing power which will mark the beginning of the end for them too.

And now is this going to be a one-off, or routine with every new generation of models?

Nobody with even a modicum of understanding of how LLMs work believes any of this. These &#x27;serious thinkers&#x27; are just grifters preying on the feeble minded.

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

Right now it&#x27;s basically this easy:
1. apex domain
2. ????
3. critical PII exposureThere is &#x2F;so&#x2F; much stuff on the internet that just needed someone to spend enough time on it.

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

Can you share any of these serious thinkers?

You call it scare-mongering. Others, serious thinkers and leaders in the AI and national security space, believe, maybe not scare-mongering enough.AI is a national security issue. Best accept that as fact, or you won&#x27;t see it coming.

&gt; It&#x27;s a game of thrones and everyone using this technology losesEveryone? There&#x27;s worlds outside of the United States government overreach.

&gt;everyone using this technology losesAs someone not using the technology, I&#x27;m fine with that :) Intellectual property laundering was never a good thing. Glad we can begone with it.

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

This affects more than just Anthropic. It&#x27;s a game of thrones and everyone using this technology loses. I wouldn&#x27;t cheer for that.

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

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

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

They&#x27;ve already been labeled a &quot;supply chain risk&quot;. Probably not a good idea to upset the regulators more. Maybe tomorrow Opus will be declared too dangerous for the public.

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.

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

This just made any closed LLM a huge supply chain risk. Everybody was aware of this possibility, but now it actually happened. It&#x27;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.

it may be really good pr, but it&#x27;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&#x27;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)

And they don&#x27;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&#x27;s hard to imagine something that plays more into anthropic&#x27;s hand. They now own the model that was so good the US government made them shut it off.

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

I think it&#x27;s the opposite. Who would want to buy shares in a company that&#x27;s been flagged as a supply chain risk?

Indeed, this affects way more than just Anthropic.

Is it now? From a company&#x27;s point of view, does it really matter that some expensive tool is allegedly good or not if it&#x27;s reliability&#x2F;availability is poor and subject to completely arbitrary and unpredictable change?

This is good PR for them. They get to tweet about how scary and powerful their models are in the lead up to their IPO.

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

Probably a marketing ploy. Inflate the value even more before an IPO, and Daddy Trump and his friends make a few $$$.It&#x27;ll be &quot;resolved&quot; within a few days.

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.

“OpenAI&#x27;s CEO says he&#x27;s scared of GPT-5”<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.techradar.com&#x2F;ai-platforms-assistants&#x2F;chatgpt&#x2F;openais-ceo-says-hes-scared-of-gpt-5" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.techradar.com&#x2F;ai-platforms-assistants&#x2F;chatgpt&#x2F;op...</a>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.

It&#x27;s not. I got articles this year in my feed citing heads of OpenAI and Anthropic about the threat of AI and how they&#x27;re addressing it.

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.

Sincerity does not determine whether an individual is scaremongering.

How do you know what the founders sincerely believe?

&gt; Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence.They don&#x27;t. LLMs can never become out-of-control superintelligence and everyone working on LLMs knows this (with a few eccentric exceptions).

There is a huge difference between the company founder saying something like that and the us government saying so.&quot;Our product is so good the US had to make it illegal for foreigners&quot; is a hell of a marketing slogan.

People don&#x27;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 &quot;only the government and the big guys can work on AI&quot;, for the rest of us it would be illegal.

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.

&gt;&gt; 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 &quot;Don&#x27;t do evil&quot;. 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?

&gt; we have no reason to believe their statements about risks are insincereGPT-2 was too dangerous to be released.We can argue about sincerity, but I don&#x27;t think we can argue about utter historical incompetence in assessing the risks. It&#x27;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&#x27;t risks, just that the dealer is the least credible review.

You&#x27;re saying &quot;this is normal&quot; without making an argument that it&#x27;s sensible.

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&#x27;re a scummy company and have done everything in their power to lead to a scenario like this, but this isn&#x27;t the exact scenario they bargained for because it affects their own employees and big foreign buyers. Instead, they&#x27;d rather have all of the decision making power themselves.

&gt; Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligencethis means nothing&gt; 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.

&gt; 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.

The clear historical record seems to indicate we&#x27;ve got a bunch of pathological liars trying to automate pathological lying.

&gt; we have no reason to believe their statements about risks are insincereWhy? Because they said it a few times? Then if they know the risk, why do they still making it? Comes out the &quot;some one will do it eventually, better be us &#x27;good&#x27; people to do it first&quot; talking point?See? It is a marketing strategy after all. These all talks, it&#x27;s all to fit themselves into the &quot;&#x27;good&#x27; people&quot; narrative. It&#x27;s a centuries old strategy to shield it&#x27;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&#x27;t care any bit of that beyond the point &quot;I&#x27;ve already told you so&quot;.

&gt; Whether you agree or not, we have no reason to believe their statements about risks are insincere.I&#x27;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.

&gt; The idea that AI companies scaremonger to sell models is a silly meme.&gt; 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 ASI2. That they continue to be afraid of ASI3. That they recognize that LLMs aren&#x27;t in fact a path to ASI4. That the current models aren&#x27;t the existential danger they&#x27;d have us believe5. That they&#x27;re claiming they are because it makes for good marketing

&gt; OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligenceWhy would they sell there services to Palantir and&#x2F;or to the military then?

yes, yes, and Apple forbids sideloading because they&#x27;re worried about grannies installing malware.

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&#x27;t already crossed by 4.8&#x2F;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&#x27;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&#x27;t think anthropic or OAI are evil, but its clear both have contracts&#x2F;connections with Dod and&#x2F;or Palantir. Both are powered largely by greed still. If you actually want an example of these sincere founders you think OAI&#x2F;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.

Of all the frontier labs, Anthropic has been the most creative in its marketing. I really, really don&#x27;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.

OpenAI was, but didn&#x27;t all those people then leave for Anthropic?

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&#x27;t like Sam&#x27;s and OpenAI&#x27;s vision.&quot;founded by people who believe...&quot; 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.

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

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 &quot;Imagine how many lives you could save with this much money&quot;[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&#x2F;vaccines for 1 million.

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.

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&#x27;s no rational explanation for them running companies building the very thing they (supposedly) genuinely believe could kill us all.I don&#x27;t doubt they may have held genuine fears in the past, but those are long gone by now.

Their marketing reinforces the previous post though.Going for months claiming how good mythos is for security cuz too powerful is their own making.

&gt; 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...

If I remember correctly, the original GPT was considered too dangerous to release to the wild.With hindsight, does that hold? If not, then how would we know a model is truly dangerous to release?

Just like Trump sincerely believed he won the 2020 election.

These can be both true:- 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 AnthropicIt 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.

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 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: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Export_of_cryptography_from_th...</a>

I did not see that?It&#x27;s way more _proactive_ than the old models, sometimes in ways it shouldn&#x27;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&#x27;m working on integrating a self-hosting auth provider into our app. So I gave it a prompt to create a &quot;bootstrap&quot; 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 &quot;bias for action&quot; 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.

It&#x27;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.

Are you kidding man? Have you tried the new model for coding? It&#x27;s absolutely incredible. After using it, I really see why they were so concerned. The jump in my workflows feels as large as the jump from 3.5 to 4o (OpenAI). It&#x27;s just that good.Issues I&#x27;d been kinda circling around for weeks, long standing errors in some long-running sync operations for a project I&#x27;m working on, all solved the same day the model dropped. Just incredible. And it&#x27;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&#x27;t happen nearly as much as with Fable 5.Like what is everyone who is dissing on this model &#x2F; Anthropic using day to day? For me it&#x27;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&#x27;s a stupid strategy that will put the rest of the world ahead of the US on AI. Anthropic&#x27;s value will suffer for it.

They obviously want heavy regulation to make sure they do not have to compete long term. This is all just part of the base strategy.

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

They never claimed to be “so much ahead”, they just claimed to be honest.

Anthropic&#x27;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&#x27;t playing chess at all - these models sell themselves they are so useful and the Reddit&#x2F;HN crowd is just full of larping tech bros commenting conspiracy theories non stop.

It&#x27;s ironic isn&#x27;t it? All the marketing of how dangerous and powerful Mythos is and the government went &quot;bet&quot;.

Should they lie and say the model is not dangerous?

Yeah is funny anthropic going overboard with &quot;omg this model is so dangerous guys!!!&quot; and then the US government going &quot;okay... well, that sounds bad, let&#x27;s ban it&quot;.Serves them right

It&#x27;s Anthropic facing consequences for their years long marketing plays. They&#x27;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&#x27;s all about power for him.Unfortunately though, they&#x27;re not smart enough to realize the long term damage to the industry that they&#x27;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&#x27;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.

In this case it was Amazon reporting Fable jailbreak to government

This is OpenAI and Meta using their leverage over the White House to screw over their competitor.

They&#x27;re enjoying the schadenfreude of Dario &quot;AI is so dangerous, we really need to ban and regulate everyone&quot; Amodej getting his models banned by the US government.

I can&#x27;t tell whether you think Fable&#x2F;Mythos aren&#x27;t capable, you think it&#x27;s good the US government is shutting down this business model of all things for &quot;safety&quot;, or both. Either way, ick.

I can only imagine how many engineers got fired when fable came out

The administration should not be able to arbitrarily punish companies they don’t like. Full stop.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.

You:&quot;We should improve society somewhat&quot;
&quot;And yet you participate in society! Curious. I am very intelligent&quot;[1][1]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;iea.org.uk&#x2F;yet-you-participate-in-society-in-defence-of-mr-gotcha&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;iea.org.uk&#x2F;yet-you-participate-in-society-in-defence...</a>

Finally they will pay for all the scaremongering they been doing to sell their models as something so much ahead of all else.Now they finally found the right fools in audience to believe it.

Anyone with these model weights deployed in their territory has this tool in their arsenal.

&gt; other nations will nationalise what they canThe only other relevant players are France and China.

I&#x27;ve actually not thought about deployments in remote jurisdictions that much. I also don&#x27;t think the models are dangerous enough to warrant it, but do you reckon the big labs have plans thought out for deleting remote model copies, such that they couldn&#x27;t be scrubbed off cold NVMEs?

My agitating prayer is that other nations (even so called US allies) will nationalise what they can (ie model weights already deployed within their jurisdictions). This is the only way to respond to a rogue US administration.

If I read that right, the &quot;jailbreak&quot; is to ask the model to fix the codebase and then it exposes the flaws? That sounds like a gap that is nearly impossible to fix while retaining high capability. Like you want it to be able to fix your codebase...

&gt;which will likely be walked back shortly.Well you said it yourself they are erratic, so maybe?

US Government does bizarre, erratic thing which will likely be walked back shortly. Spectators nonplussed. Film at 11.Europe really needs to get some useful sovereign capability and right quick.

I&#x27;m confused, this just happened recent no? Why does the date read &quot;Jun 11, 2026&quot; ?

Thinking of it unfortunately there is good chance it exactly what they want for regulatory capture.

I guess if the CEO goes running around saying his own product is a pending mega disaster for society.......I&#x27;m glad I don&#x27;t own stock in a public Anthropic.

Anthropic spent months going on about how incredibly powerful and dangerous their models are and how access to them needs to be restricted. Now they are getting what they seemingly wanted.

Was Bill Clinton fascist when 128-bit SSL was on export controls? Can’t government be simply bad or dumb anymore without having to slap the “F” word on it?We’re gonna apply it to so many things it’ll have lost its meaning soon.

Ah yes, the US government forcing private companies to stop selling their products is totally a sign of Anthropic&#x27;s drama and not our paranoiac fascist regime.

Nothing but the highest quality drama and theater from Anthropic, as always

But no matter how conservative they make the anti-jailbreaking, the risk doesn&#x27;t go away. There are so many logic &quot;holes&quot; that are ambiguous and can blur the line between a jailbreak and legitimate use.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.

Anti-jailbreaking and passport verified access to model families.

I don&#x27;t get the emphasis on known vulnerabilities. The jailbreak already works on previously known exploits? That seems a bit weird.

From reading the post, I think it&#x27;s more likely that anti-jailbreaking is going to become much more strict and prone to false-positives.&gt; 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.

With how much foreign talent is involved in the tech world?

Americans didn&#x27;t build the current AI tech.

I mean, lots of Americans would risk building something important with it in that case.

The thought that this would also destabilize the AI bubble did come to mind, but the current government loves to crash the market on Fridays, only to backpeddle on Mondays.A related thought though, the AI boom is predicated on the idea that everyone&#x27;s going to want or need all this &quot;mass produced&quot; 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.

Agreed. The timing here is interesting as well. 5:21PM ET on a Friday. Like they know this could roil markets and they&#x27;re trying to buffer that a bit (and maybe they&#x27;re really hoping this deal with Iran is actually real this time and figure that will help offset the effects?)

I think it’s more like “there goes the semiconductor boom predicated on monetization of ever larger models.”  Once the IS government acts out of capricious fiat because a model becomes “too good” and they demonetize it, the entire shell game collapses. It’s times like these, with oil scarcity planet wide, fertilizer scarcity, and now ham fisted meddling in the bubbles expansion, we can be thankful we have an octogenarian senile stable genius with twenty two specialist doctors and a disdain for the rule of law at the wheel!

Likely models by Anthopic can no longer be reliably trusted as it&#x27;ll subtly sabotage your codebase you&#x27;re working on.Gov just need some national security orders for Anthopic not disclose it to the public and to implement whatever they&#x27;ve done to Fable 5 to existing models.

No no, you never ever build ON the models. You build WITH the 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&#x27;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.

Well, there go any such claims of dangerousness in future models, regardless of if they are true or false.No one&#x27;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&#x27;ll ban the competitor, so actually we&#x27;ll have a situation where the backend uses a different model in only the US).

Except for the US Government.We can cancel all those data center plans, won&#x27;t need them anymore.

It can’t be; that’s why they shut it off for everybody.

Oh, I just re-read it. I guess the first time my mind somehow implied &quot;while we figure out how to comply...&quot;

&gt; we must abruptly disable Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all our customersWhat’s not clear?

Easy. Provide your government issued ID such as US passport before signing up to an AI provider. Issue fines or jail time to anyone who supplies their AI access to a foreign citizen

It&#x27;ll depend on what law they&#x27;re restricting it under. The obvious play would be to put it on the Commerce Control List so it&#x27;s covered by the EAR (Export Administration Regulations). If so, compliance is pretty well-understood, just a giant pain in the ass that&#x27;ll pretty much limit use of these models to companies that already have EAR&#x2F;ITAR compliance offices.

&gt; The US government, citing national security authorities, has issued an export control directive to suspend all access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 by any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States, including foreign national Anthropic employees. The net effect of this order is that we must abruptly disable Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all our customers to ensure compliance.How will this be implemented&#x2F;verified? Also, does this mean that American citizens abroad will still be able to access it?

So the US government was able to shut down that upgraded version of that slot machine in Anthropic&#x27;s casino because of how powerful it is?There is something called the Streisand effect and they are about to unintentionally get a bunch of more token gamblers into their casino.We&#x27;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.

People getting dumber it exactly what any government wants.

i got news for you, its not just in education; output in business world is also getting sloppier and lazier as well

Not really, the impacts on education seem to be severe. People are actively getting dumber.

Not saying there&#x27;s no negative impacts, but what are the _huge_ negative impacts that have materialized so far?

Is it fine though? We’re definitely seeing some huge negative impacts from AI use. Of course some positive ones as well, but the point is that they were right to be concerned.

Ooh Mythos - I am so scared. Nobody gives two shits about one model or the other. They are hoist by their own petard.

Nice drama, LOL!! I still remember ChatGPT is very dangerous to be released a long time back. World is fine now!!

The best time to get mad was yesterday, when Amodei explicitly asked Trump to do something like this.  But now works, too.

I wonder how many OpenAI employees astro-turf like this.

If this gets 5.5 banned I am going to be hopping mad.

That might also continue to anger the current administration, should they feel the need to, as it openly shared with other actors how to achieve the same capability.  If they choose not to apply the same restriction to GPT 5.5 then an argument could be made that Anthropic is being singled out by the government.

They aren&#x27;t saying that other models have the same overall level of capability. They are saying that the specific capability that the US Government tested is also available in other models.

This is about the specific capabilities that the government called out, not Fable&#x27;s overall capabilities. My personal experience, having used Fable this week for an extremely complex task, is that it is head and shoulders more powerful than any other model, at least for software engineering.

They are saying that comparison to other models only about the problems it was jailbroken to complete in the government&#x27;s example, not all vulnerabilities it could exploit unjailbroken.

I’d suggest you use an LLM to assist you with comprehending their statement. It’ll do a better job, or at the very least be more objective than you’re being now. You’ve misinterpreted the statement. That is not what they’re saying at all. Please actually read instead of skimming until you find something that you believe reinforces your worldview.

Reading comprehension failure on display here from maxall4.

&gt; 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. We will share more details over the next 24 hours.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.

So eventually, you will have a massive string of data centers working to full capacity and whose only client will the US government?

I have to wonder if their aggressive guardrails were because they had a specific reason to believe that this was coming.

This is obviously a super corny &#x2F; silly &#x2F; dramatic thing to say.

Prefacing that I assume this order is done with ill intent, and would guess that it’s based on Anthropic not bending the knee immediately like OpenAI did.But your statement could be rephrased as&gt; 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

Agreed 100%. I don&#x27;t understand why we have to fear access to knowledge.

So are guns, which we constitutionally protected. In fact there’s probably a decent argument that AI should fall under 2nd amendment protection.

&gt; AI is dual use technology.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.&gt; 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 &quot;intelligent.&quot; They can be useful. But a language model cannot conjure a weapons platform from the ether no matter how &quot;intelligent&quot; it is.

It&#x27;s not only tenable, it is a necessity. Unless you want humanity to be enslaved in perpetuity to a single figurehead.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.

AI is dual use technology. This kind of posture is simply not tenable as frontier intelligence increases.

This is precisely the issue.  It took a fair amount of idealism, conviction, and commitment in order to create the open source movement and bring it to where it is today.  In contrast, most skilled data science practitioners are just chasing IPO exits these days.

Really sick of this stupid narrative.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.

1. Lie about making thinking machines smarter than humans2. Get treated like you actually did what you claimed, and face consequences3. ???4. Profit

Most corrupt US administration in history, by a long shot.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?

it already blocks users from Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Russia etc

I&#x27;m surprised that (all) these models haven&#x27;t been export controlled already. Relatively benign software like VMware is export controlled or even hobbyist radio projects have gotten hairy with ITAR.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

Too late, NK already completed all the markdown files needed to both create their hypernuke and recreate the hurricane machine Dick Cheney had left Obama.

Highly reliable supply chains to bet the entire future on :)

It’ll be sorted out after OpenAI releases their next model.

There goes my plan for the weekend though

On the plus side, it’s Friday night. Hopefully this is sorted out by Monday morning.

&quot;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.&quot;

Please tell me how this is what he “asked for.”

No, he asked for the government to make the decision in light of 3rd party analysis. Which is what happened here - an independent company demonstrated a jailbreak, and the government issued a restriction on deployment based on that finding.

This is explicitly not what Dario asked for in his blog. Care to quote his post for me where you feel that he asked for this?

This is exactly what Dario asked for in his last blog post. So even though this is clearly stupid, I just can bring myself to feel sorry for Anthropic.

Someone forgot to cut a check to the Big Guy :^)

Likely many points along the pareto frontier.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.

After this action, I have no doubt that this administration will try to ban Chinese models. Of course, doing so will be futile, we&#x27;ll figure out ways to get around it, but now I&#x27;m pretty sure they&#x27;re going to try.

This is precisely why I expect that Chinese open models are going to win in the long run. The capability difference isn&#x27;t dramatic in the grand scheme of things, but the fact that you can run your own is a huge selling point. Even if you rent an open model from a Chinese company, you can switch to on prem if they decided to yank access or change terms in the way you don&#x27;t like. It might be a pain, but it wouldn&#x27;t be existential. On the other hand, if you become dependent on a closed model and it gets yanked then you&#x27;re in a world of hurt.And infrastructure dominance is really the big picture here. Chinese models are going to become the standard setters because they&#x27;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. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.indiatoday.in&#x2F;amp&#x2F;technology&#x2F;features&#x2F;story&#x2F;claude-and-chatgpt-too-expensive-chinese-ai-models-surge-in-use-due-to-low-cost-2924899-2026-06-11" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.indiatoday.in&#x2F;amp&#x2F;technology&#x2F;features&#x2F;story&#x2F;clau...</a>

Honestly at this point I&#x27;m not sure how much that matters?

&gt; I predict the pressures for on-prem, offline access ... will be overwhelming and one the players will fill the need.I&#x27;d agree except that Big AI has made sure that most of us can&#x27;t afford the hardware (RAM, NVMe, etc) to run it.

The point is not to be as good as the multi-trillion parameter model you can host in across 72 GPUs (or whatever).I&#x27;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&#x27;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&#x27;t. Same goes for virtually any other type of task. The biggest models are really only useful for the most complex tasks.

Thinking that on prem models will be a halfway decent solution against what can be served out of a data center is a fools take... One that is more common than it should be on here...

For large corporates and other entities of any size, the threat of the core of your infrastructure getting suddenly disabled because of something like this is going to be untenable. I predict the pressures for on-prem, offline access (whether by licensing weights or getting them in a restricted setting like TEE&#x2F;CC) will be overwhelming and one the players will fill the need.

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;x.com&#x2F;ClaudeDevs&#x2F;status&#x2F;2065597942602531163" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;x.com&#x2F;ClaudeDevs&#x2F;status&#x2F;2065597942602531163</a>

Statement on US government directive to suspend access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5