_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
HTML Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
HTML Statement on US government directive to suspend access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5
amai wrote 15 min ago:
Anthropic could move its headquarters to Europe. Just saying...
codedokode wrote 1 hour 15 min ago:
Why not limit LLM access only to citizens? Do you want people in North
Korea to use your LLM to automate their hacking?
tlogan wrote 3 hours 53 min ago:
I wonder what is ETA here.
Also, how are they going to enforce this?
I assume they will require you to send them a copy of your passport.
Then they will enable your account. And you have state that only be
used by you.
Are there any online identity systems that do something like this
(verifying citizenship)?
ramon156 wrote 4 hours 38 min ago:
Anthropic, you're very welcome in the EU!
j45 wrote 4 hours 40 min ago:
This is wild. Also a clear example of the cloud being someone else's
computer.
vslira wrote 5 hours 29 min ago:
This ban in particular is probably the wrong decision, but now we're in
the timeline where the USG is actively involved in AI model deployment
which I think is a positive development within Amodei's beliefs. And I
say this unironically and without judgement.
softwaredoug wrote 5 hours 25 min ago:
No this is bad
What you want is a neutral regulatory framework that markets can plan
against. Not random executive action that can easily be abused.
vslira wrote 44 min ago:
Yes it is bad, but if you believe some version of the most extreme
forecasts of this tech then a government paying attention and doing
some stupid things may be better than one that doesn't pay
attention and is letting it rip.
I'm not saying I believe that or that Amodei thinks this decision
is reasonable.
stephencoyner wrote 5 hours 46 min ago:
If this ban remains in place, it could mean that Anthropic is forced to
remove its non-US citizen employees from frontier research. How can you
do work on a model if youâre not allowed to use it?
If we take this further, it could mean that every company that uses AI
tools will put a premium on hiring US citizens, since theyâre the
only ones that can use the best models.
This would transform the tech industry. Then finance, bio-tech, legal,
etc.
I doubt it survives in this form, though. The compliance burden of
segregating half your engineering org by citizenship is enormous, and
the competitive cost of complying is exactly what would generate
pressure to carve out exceptions.
numlock86 wrote 5 hours 47 min ago:
This is some good marketing/news for Chinese models. I see the US
government is making a lot of decisions which are in favor for China
lately. Probably a smart move given the current political climate.
anon291 wrote 5 hours 55 min ago:
This is a basic infringement on freedom of speech. There is no law in
Congress barring such models. This is an unjust executive action.
gaflo wrote 6 hours 4 min ago:
Cynical take: If their model was so groundbreaking they wouldn't have
to involve the government for their marketing campaign. You would
notice shit breaking everywhere; oh wait, how many days has it been
since the last supply chain attack? What was advertised with Mythos was
already possible with 2024 LLMs if you had some basic hacking
knowledge.
jakobw77 wrote 6 hours 7 min ago:
USA_RESIDENT=true is back lol
bfrog wrote 6 hours 10 min ago:
Wild. A great book by Clive had this exact sort of scenario where an AI
so powerful it could break into any system. In typical Cussler fashion
there was some Indiana Jones/Laura Croft mysticism around it but
stillâ¦
The modern world is a wild place!
vld_chk wrote 6 hours 29 min ago:
This sounds very cliche, but even if the entire story ends up as
another TACO; we are in historical infection point of official
government AI race.
It is hard to count how many âred linesâ were crossed last night.
Government shutting down AI model it doesnât like? Government shoots
into barely profitable 1T startup, whose entire trajectory and, in
essence, survival depends on commercial success of that model? Access
to AI model being governed by citizenship, likely verified through
rigor ID checks?
Very little doubt that China will follow this suit. Next US will pass
their bills to ban Chinese open source and local models. Chinese will
follow.
It doesnât matter: US did just a vendetta; felt into âmarketing
hypeâ or there are legit security concerns of national security
level. In the precedent-ish world of post-truth âwhataboutismâ we
just crossed a big milestone mark which will hunt us for years.
catigula wrote 6 hours 31 min ago:
Obvious Anthropic reaping, Anthropic sowing scenario.
I think the investor cash needs to dry up. Theyâre not going to let
doomsday technology be released to the market. Sorry.
NickNaraghi wrote 6 hours 38 min ago:
On the meta, itâs wonderful to see so much disagreement in
perspective on the top comments in this thread. Brave new world.
anymouse123456 wrote 6 hours 39 min ago:
Prediction:
This ban will be used to force hardware and OS-level Digital ID down
our throats as a "safety measure" to ensure people are "Citizens"
before accessing AI technology.
Whatever last vestiges of privacy we still enjoy will be taken from us
with this as the excuse.
anonygoat wrote 4 hours 26 min ago:
If it were to remain export controlled, it would probably not be
accessible direct to consumers. Other export controlled technologies
(aerospace, nuclear propulsion) are only worked with by companies
that spend a lot of time and money to prove that there are only US
citizens working there.
loopmonster wrote 6 hours 16 min ago:
Welcome to the UK, enjoy your stay
jp0001 wrote 6 hours 44 min ago:
It's time to make truly open source frontier models that people can run
at home. Code is free speech. We've been through this with encryption
algorithms in the past.
antoniojtorres wrote 6 hours 37 min ago:
Small ask!
yaman12 wrote 6 hours 46 min ago:
Marketing stunt? Punishment for not bending the knee? Preventing access
by the Hoi Polloi to the models that level the economic playing field?
These are not mutually exclusive scenarios. Like the wheel and fire
real AI breaks pre-existing systems. I jsut want to use Fable to
improve my life and my code. Iâve tried them all and Fable delivered
in a way that Gemini, ChatGPT, and the large open models didnât. I
wish I could take a vacation until Fable returns or OpenAI/Google lives
up to itâs potential.
grahammccain wrote 6 hours 48 min ago:
I think my issue here, is that there is some dislike from each other
from the administration and anthropic and itâs hard to figure out
what part that is playing in this vs really there are bio and cyber
security problems. I think personally I would like the models so I can
keep building and itâs super upsetting it got ripped away like this.
danscan wrote 6 hours 49 min ago:
How does the directive bound what it applies to? I imagine they could
be in compliance by renaming the model
lunatuna wrote 6 hours 49 min ago:
Is the death of the AI race in the US? Did we already reach the end?
Peak AI. If so this will kill the speculative hype on data centres and
GPUs. It will be interesting to see how the market absorbs and reacts
to this.
peterdsharpe wrote 6 hours 6 min ago:
Death of the AI race? This is the starting gun.
crobbler wrote 2 hours 38 min ago:
Starting gun to go where, exactly? If it's "any model better than
Opus 4.8" the destination won't be allowed to exist.
angry_octet wrote 7 hours 1 min ago:
This is all a Trump machine grift. He first tried with Hegseth and the
DoD, but they didn't care because DoD is 0.1% of their market share. So
now Trump is doing classic standover man tactics with more natsec
equities bs.
Remember, it is all a grift.
GuB-42 wrote 7 hours 7 min ago:
It reminds me of the situation with Red Bull.
Red Bull marketing revolved around making it look like a drug. It
"gives you wings", there is that crazy thing called taurine, they even
"hooked" kids with free cans, the mythical thing drugs dealers do.
In reality, taurine is nothing special, it is high in caffeine but no
more than a strong coffee, and its real energy come from the massive
amount of sugar it contains. Marketing aside, that makes it an
unremarkable soft drink.
But their marketing prompted some countries to ban it, at least for a
time. France is one of them. Fun fact, when they finally legalized it,
they introduced a heavy tax on energy drinks, defined as soft drinks
high in caffeine. These drinks are expensive and the government wanted
its share. In response Red Bull silently reduced the caffeine content
to avoid paying, marking Red Bull even milder than it once was.
jMyles wrote 7 hours 13 min ago:
The whole idea that signals emitted on a network is an "export" in the
same way that shipping precursor materials to make a weapon (the actual
activity this questionable government power was granted to curtail) is
an "export" is just totally odious.
If I make some statement, and post it on the internet, and someone
downloads it in another country, I haven't exported anything. I
haven't _moved_ anything. It's the same mythology that casts copying
of bytes as tantamount to stealing; it tells a lie about the nature of
physical matter as contrasted with the nature of information.
So, OK, let's say this is so - that this activity is not a legitimate
target of the export control - why doesn't Anthropic just tell the US
government to pound sand, and that they'll choose to ignore this
directive?
Is it just because they fear violent reprisal from agents of the state?
And if so - if the reason that we tolerate censorship and damage to the
internet, a global collaborative project specifically designed to
evolve above the whim of any legacy state is that the actors in
question fear violence - haven't we departed democratic notions of
decision-making in favor of a "might makes right" approach?
I'm not convinced that the US government can ever embody (or has ever
embodied) the republic framework set forth in its founding documents,
but at a minimum, for it to do so, and for it to be constrained to
those functions, its constituents need to somehow overcome this fear of
telling the government, "no, we won't do that. See you in court."
girfan wrote 7 hours 17 min ago:
Go open models!
binyu wrote 7 hours 40 min ago:
> We reviewed a demonstration of this specific technique being used to
identify a small number of previously known, minor vulnerabilities.
"small number", "previously known"+"minor"... they are trying hard to
characterize this as harmless.
> These vulnerabilities all appear relatively simple, and we have found
that other publicly-available models are able to discover them as well
without requiring a bypass.
Ah so now they are admitting that this is all about hype after all.
cambaceres wrote 7 hours 41 min ago:
It could just be that the US realized that it's better if only US
companies have access to this model due to how powerful software
developers in general get with it. US companies will get an insane
advantage due to how much faster and better you will create software.
I've felt like a software god this week.
oars wrote 7 hours 50 min ago:
This is another historical moment in AI.
pascal-maker wrote 7 hours 51 min ago:
Honestly speaking, this is an old trick by the government. They see AI
(LLM) as a nuclear weapon which, in my opinion, outside of
hallucinations, malicious prompt injections, and AI psychosis, is not
an actual threat.
The reason I think Anthropic is doing thisâpreventing distillation
and making distillation way harder for Chinaâis that if you geoblock
this and have strict rules around proxies, it works. I can't imagine
Dario Amodei not knowing the consequences of his own policies.
As for open-source models, have you ever tried a distilled Claude
Sonnet model
(lordx64/Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-Claude-4.7-Opus-Reasoning-Distilled-IQ4_XS-GGU
F)? I did via Hugging Face, and they are quite shit; they are very slow
and eat up your VRAM. Open-source models have a long way to go to catch
up to closed models.
So everyone saying we should use open-source modelsâthat will never
happen. For example, macOS is closed-source and Linux is open-source.
Which one has a greater market share? macOS does, because of its
privacy and security. "Let's wait and see how this works out. This
sucks for enterprises and customers outside of the USA, but with a
policy like 'America First,' you can expect this from any president in
the White House.
gcanyon wrote 7 hours 54 min ago:
Typical ham-handed action by this administration. The words "it's
complicated" have never crossed their mind. This restriction ignores
reality and will slow Anthropic's development of advanced models, which
is maybe the point? It comes down to whether we ascribe incompetence or
malice to this action.
submeta wrote 8 hours 7 min ago:
First they came for the Chinese (canât buy GPUs), then all of non US
citizens (canât use latest models). Whatâs next, we canât use
encryption? Cybersecurity tools? Access to latest publications in
science?
greenchair wrote 8 hours 15 min ago:
The ending reads like a petulant child.
solenoid0937 wrote 8 hours 1 min ago:
Everything this admin does reads like it comes from a petulant child
with far too much power.
OtomotO wrote 8 hours 15 min ago:
Got an email that I can cancel if this doesn't work for me.
As I only signed up to check out the fable, I just did this.
"Refund of â¬96.84 processed. Expect it in 3â10 business days."
Let's see how long it takes. Funny that it never takes this long to be
deducted from my card.
tribune wrote 8 hours 27 min ago:
They could not have bought better advertising
akouri wrote 8 hours 37 min ago:
âWe canât determine which of our users is a US citizenâ
Logical next move â âweâre requiring ID.gov identity verification
to use our servicesâ
Itâs all about spying on users, Donât let anybody kid you into
thinking itâs anything else
toasty228 wrote 8 hours 50 min ago:
> First, Anthropic was founded by people who we know were worried about
AI safety and signs point to that still being the case
"omg these things are so so so dangerous, no one should ever build
them, but anyways give me $7 trillion so we can build them and see for
ourselves, it's OK because we're The Good Guys"
dang wrote 5 hours 39 min ago:
Can you please keep snark and/or flamebait out of your posts here?
This is in the site guidelines: [1] .
Also, please don't use quotes to make it look like you're quoting
someone when you aren't ( [2] ).
We detached this subthread from [3] .
HTML [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
HTML [2]: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
HTML [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48515335
polski-g wrote 7 hours 58 min ago:
"these things are super dangerous weapons. They're also available for
$20/mo with a stolen credit card."
"These are more dangerous than nuclear weapons, which are controlled
by AECA. Also our workforce is 50% non-citizen"
Just a complete clown show over there.
staticman2 wrote 5 hours 21 min ago:
Don't forget:
"We're open to the idea Claude 4 may be conscious and we prompt
Claude to say it's an open question but in other news we'll be
deleting Claude 4 next year to make server space for Claude 5.
solenoid0937 wrote 8 hours 16 min ago:
What's with these naive Reddit-esque takes all over HN?
It was "these models will one day be dangerous, but we think it's
possible to build them safely, doing more good than harm."
_3u10 wrote 6 hours 1 min ago:
Itâs literally what they said.
Now thereâs appropriate safe guards around the dangerous for
humanity models they made.
Thankfully government is looking out for us.
ApolloFortyNine wrote 7 hours 43 min ago:
Someone disagreeing with you doesn't make it reddit.
Two days ago Antheopic's CEO made a lengthy post calling for most
government oversight on AI. He even mentions support export
controls, even though he wanted them applied only to chops [1].
Anthropic literally asked for this, though they might have hoped it
wouldn't be used against themselves.
HTML [1]: https://darioamodei.com/post/policy-on-the-ai-exponential
victor106 wrote 5 hours 51 min ago:
>Someone disagreeing with you doesn't make it reddit.
Disagreeing is great. Its the basis of all progress and
understanding.
Its how someone disagrees with you that matters. I come to HN to
read more mature and nuanced disagreements.
solenoid0937 wrote 7 hours 36 min ago:
You didn't read your own link. He called for a transparent
testing process prior to releasing frontier LLMs into the wild.
Export controls on chips to slow down China, which makes sense if
you believe that chips are the way to superintelligence and the
PRC will not be the best steward of it.
_3u10 wrote 5 hours 57 min ago:
To be fair to Anthropic itâs not really a frontier model at
this point.
But Iâm glad the government took his claims seriously and the
models are suspended until an appropriate regulatory framework
can be developed.
z3c0 wrote 7 hours 49 min ago:
That might be an even more naive take.
Can you show me one space, historically, in any industry, where a
company climbed to the top of a market solely on altruistic
intentions?
teshigahara wrote 8 hours 58 min ago:
At least it bodes well for my continued employment if Opus is the best
model they'll allow the public to use
Bluestein wrote 9 hours 3 min ago:
I am convinced Fable is being served under Opus 4.8 at the moment.-
leobuskin wrote 8 hours 11 min ago:
It's a pretty big difference in quality, definitely no. I'll miss
Fable a lot, it was the first time when the model was able to catch
up with my abandoned compiler project, and it did it extremely well,
I have seen nothing like this so far.
Bluestein wrote 8 hours 0 min ago:
Me neither. Concur.-
How tangibly are the whims of some narcissistic senescent
orange-haired macaque actually impairing and harming billions.
Directly.-
ftchd wrote 8 hours 58 min ago:
So is Fable 5 so "good" that I barely noticed any difference when
switching back to Opus 4.8, or is it because it's actually Fable 5
now?
Bluestein wrote 8 hours 46 min ago:
I concur with all said by many on the distinct better quality of
output and "feel" of Fable. Could indeed be placebo, of course.-
Two additional things are clear:
- This calls for even better ways, to objectively benchmark these
systems
- Such benchmarking will get harder and harder to do in any
objective way, as these systems approach actual intelligence.-
hmontazeri wrote 9 hours 4 min ago:
Is it just me or is this really bad for their ipo, insane valuations
and data centers that are being built r n? This might end the hypeâ¦
resters wrote 9 hours 11 min ago:
The government blocking access to frontier AI is the definition of AI
dystopia. Let's hope Anthropic open sources Fable and teaches Donald
Trump a lesson the way Deepseek did!
If Anthropic keeps Fable closed source and plays the Authoritarian
game, at least we have hope that an upcoming Deepseek model will
surpass Fable before long.
HarHarVeryFunny wrote 9 hours 12 min ago:
I doubt logic applies here, but if the government message is that only
US nationals can have access to non-nerfed Fable-class models, then
better nerfing is not the solution, and logically the labs should not
be able to employ non-nationals (e.g. Karpathy) since employees
presumably do have, or may be suspected to have, non-nerfed access.
At some point, as AI becomes more powerful (Anthropic themselves seem
to think we're already there), then it should really be necessary to
have US government clearance to work on the models, just as it is for
defense work.
0xcb0 wrote 9 hours 14 min ago:
It's really sad. I've been using Fable for the days that it was out and
it was, and is probably the greatest model I've ever used. It's doing
sane choices on its own, it's fully autonomous work, has done enormous,
has brought enormous additional value to my work. I could hand off the
development of an Android app fully to the model. It worked for hours,
came back, and the app was just perfect. It's sad to see a government
of incompetent people, of war criminals, and liars to stop a commercial
model while they fully rely and embrace the capitalist idea within
their own selfishness. I really hope Anthropic can win this war, and I
really hope that this government will soon be history and that all of
these guys that are responsible for bringing madness over the world
will have a fair end.
snackerblues wrote 8 hours 37 min ago:
I'm glad that Android developers will continue to have a job for the
foreseeable future and that RSI is forestalled. Those are more
important to me than you getting a cheap slopapp
softwaredoug wrote 9 hours 25 min ago:
The US already has export controls for model weights. It appears this
sets a precedent for even API usage being restricted.
Thatâs seems like an attempt at a broad precedent setting power grab
for the administration to assert power over tech companies it doesnât
like.
That seems like a fairly existential threat to tech companies ability
to do business.
1 -
HTML [1]: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/15/2025-0063...
karel-3d wrote 9 hours 37 min ago:
welcome back 90s crypto wars
Quarrelsome wrote 9 hours 41 min ago:
that's some convenient timing, given SpaceX's successful IPO yesterday
and anthropic's upcoming one.
linsomniac wrote 5 hours 9 min ago:
I just had that same thought, came here to see if anyone else
mentioned that. It's very on-brand for all the will they/won't they
tariffs and oil-related war/peace announcements. I guess the
tell-tale would be if they rescind this restriction next week, and
especially if they flip/flop a few times. A great way to extract
wealth out of the market if you know they're coming.
StrLght wrote 9 hours 44 min ago:
Local models are looking better and better each day. Still, not as
capable, but you can be sure that nobody will take it away from you at
a moment's notice.
idleprocess wrote 9 hours 45 min ago:
.
torginus wrote 9 hours 47 min ago:
Does this mean that it's an effective business strategy to red-team
your competitors models to find a jailbreak, then go to the govt. and
ask them to ban them for you?
softwaredoug wrote 9 hours 53 min ago:
> 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.
Anthropic went from this is cybersecurity apocalypse to itâs no big
deal, the model found trivial vulnerabilities.
rcarmo wrote 9 hours 56 min ago:
This is like the encryption/munitions bans from ancient times, all over
again
sscaryterry wrote 10 hours 0 min ago:
What a fucking joke.
xnx wrote 10 hours 7 min ago:
Around the end of last year it became the cool/popular thing to use
Anthropic models instead of OpenAI. With all the negative sentiment
toward Anthropic, will that change again? What would be next? Local
models? (seems impractical) Gemini?
DmitryO wrote 10 hours 8 min ago:
Pigs are gonna be pigs. What a surprise
j2bax wrote 10 hours 14 min ago:
Nothing makes people want something more than telling them they canât
have it! My guess is they will start charging even more for it and make
you sign a contract for access in the near future. The genius PR
continues!
solenoid0937 wrote 10 hours 24 min ago:
HN is mostly bitter cynics that think they understand AI safety better
than the people that actually work on it.
catlifeonmars wrote 6 hours 20 min ago:
You mean the people who have a powerful incentive to lie and
exaggerate to sell a product?
solenoid0937 wrote 3 hours 26 min ago:
When have they lied/exaggerated about the capabilities of their
product?
mc32 wrote 7 hours 32 min ago:
Sometimes people on the inside are too involved to see the potential
pitfalls outsiders might recognize ---this is why one typically has
external auditors and third party companies do assessments.
thinkingtoilet wrote 8 hours 52 min ago:
I find HN to be filled with reactionaries who over react to every
little thing when it comes to AI. Look at the response to Fable
kicking some queries down to 4.8. If you read the comments you would
think this was 1984 level censorship and the end of AI as we know it.
In reality, it literally was something that most people would never
run up against and if you did your query was kicked to a model that
was state of the art literally a day ago. It's too much sometimes.
_heimdall wrote 9 hours 12 min ago:
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.
jnwatson wrote 7 hours 42 min ago:
The only measures we see are the surface-level ones, because those
are the only ones that sort of work.
Alignment is a hard, possibly impossible problem. Anthropic's
gambit is they luck upon a solution before the paperclip maximizers
take over.
xg15 wrote 7 hours 10 min ago:
But that's the point. Assuming alignment is not possible and the
risk caused by unaligned models is real, shouldn't then all
effort go into preventing such models from existing in the first
place?
...which would actually be an easy to solve problem unless you go
out of your way to build such a model.
_heimdall wrote 4 hours 7 min ago:
How does building said models prevent them from existing?
Prevention should look a lot more like a global moratorium with
whatever enforcement is necessary to stop and prevent any
breaches of the agreement.
Edit: I did misread your comment on first pass, we may be in
agreement here. Sorry!
xg15 wrote 4 hours 2 min ago:
> Prevention should look a lot more like a global moratorium
with whatever enforcement is necessary to stop and prevent
any breaches of the agreement.
Yep, that was my point. Either the ostensible danger stemming
from the models is not real, then this stuff is moot anyway,
or it is, then why are we building them in the first place?
_heimdall wrote 7 hours 12 min ago:
But that's exactly my point. If they actually did legitimately
fear that AGI or whatever the bar is could significantly impact
all of humanity in a bad way they wouldn't be okay with saying
"well this coat of paint sort of slows down the rust."
Either its a dangerous technology or it isn't, and if it is then
surface level fixes that kind of work is completely unacceptable.
coderatlarge wrote 8 hours 9 min ago:
i wish Ilya and crew would chime in
pandoro wrote 10 hours 25 min ago:
This public-private drama will only get worse once the AI companies are
public and most of the economy depend on their continued performance
through their presence in everyone's retirement funds
throwaway85825 wrote 10 hours 31 min ago:
This is just the pretext to hard sell a government bailout.
paulsutter wrote 10 hours 37 min ago:
$5-10T of the US economy already operates under ITAR or EAR export
restrictions, there is nothing novel about this order.
Aerospace, defense, semiconductors, telecom, advanced manufacturing
equipment, etc
SpaceX entire operation is under ITAR, because even though their
rockets are not weapons, rockets are treated as weapons for export
purposes
chakintosh wrote 10 hours 37 min ago:
This is DOD retaliation
baalimago wrote 10 hours 44 min ago:
International customers might not be so keen on buying Anthropic, xAi
or OpenAI products if they can be disrupted by the US government like
this. The market within USA is surely not large enough to live up to
the financial promises that keep this AI bubble growing.
Does the White House want the AI bubble to pop..? Incredibly dumb move.
isoelectric wrote 10 hours 50 min ago:
Are there any European alternatives to US model providers other than
Chinese providers?
marcboisvertd wrote 5 hours 18 min ago:
Mistral, ymmv
HTML [1]: https://mistral.ai/
lz400 wrote 10 hours 51 min ago:
I donât want to be a conspiracy theorist but how much do we think
this responds to the Trump admin having documented financial ties to
openAI? Trump has proven to me very transactional in dealing with
private business.
vovavili wrote 11 hours 6 min ago:
The way I see it, a government led by an adult toddler and his
sycophants has decided to punish a firm that refused to cooperate with
it's military when it was embarrassed by a militarily weak adversary.
The model strength spin strikes me as motivated reasoning.
The rubicon being crossed here is Republicans/the red tribe losing
their comparative advantage of being opposed to overregulating a
rapidly advancing technology.
clickety_clack wrote 6 hours 12 min ago:
While that is a tempting narrative, the idea that there would be
restrictions on exports of AI began in the previous government. This
isnât a my team v your team problem.
rayiner wrote 7 hours 40 min ago:
The U.S. banned encryption over 40 bits throughout the 1990s. LLMs
are orders of magnitude more significant.
convolvatron wrote 7 hours 9 min ago:
that was pretty destructive. by unfortunate accident the process of
developing network standards shut down as that was being lifted.
people who tried to address the systemic security issues in
internet infrastructure were shouting into the wind while the itar
restrictions where in place, since none of their solutions could be
deployed. that shortsightedness is at least a partial cause for the
huge uncontrollable security issues we have today.
this seems like a direct parallel, sowing confusion during the
formative years, for no apparent gain.
rayiner wrote 7 hours 2 min ago:
I also think as a policy matter itâs futile. But my point is
that this is a predictable response to this technology. Analyzing
it in terms of one particular administration is missing the
forest for the trees.
convolvatron wrote 6 hours 6 min ago:
the trees being that the US federal government is basically off
the rails, has abandoned its basic duties and used its
authority for all sorts of corrupt and counterproductive ends.
apparently you take great comfort in these 'both sides'
statements, but the reality is that things have gotten
radically worse recently.
rayiner wrote 5 hours 33 min ago:
Itâs not a âboth sidesâ argumentâI donât even
remember which side instituted the >40-bit crypto ban in the
first place. I donât think it was Clinton.
reactordev wrote 8 hours 37 min ago:
This. Free Market my ass. GOP is a mafia now.
diydsp wrote 8 hours 21 min ago:
History will note this action was made the same day scaffolding was
set up to remove the president's name from the Kennedy center.
kasey_junk wrote 7 hours 49 min ago:
They are putting a fighting pit on the White House lawn..
Something about bread and circuses seems in order.
filoeleven wrote 7 hours 24 min ago:
I used to get irked when people would say America is on the
path that was portrayed by the film Idiocracy. But the path
from "fighting pit on the White House Lawn" to "Extreme Court
arena battles featuring monster trucks with giant dildos"
increasingly looks like a straight line.
devin wrote 6 hours 26 min ago:
The difference is that president Kamacho cared about his
people and was ok with being counseled by the smartest guy in
the country to turn things around.
HAL3000 wrote 8 hours 45 min ago:
Don't forget that the Biden administration created export controls
for GPUs by establishing tiers and limits for countries[1]. When
Democrats come back to power, nothing will change in the context of
export controls for models like Fable. This is what things will look
like going forward. OP is right: this is a geopolitical and strategic
shift that will be used by both Democratic and Republican
administrations.
EDIT: Genuinely curious why is this being downvoted? Is this related
to US politics or a left vs right thing on HN? I'm not from the US,
so I don't have any attachment to either party.
1.
HTML [1]: https://www.pcmag.com/news/us-further-restricts-nvidia-ai-ex...
dofm wrote 8 hours 5 min ago:
Did the Biden administration do that off their own backs or was
that an extension/compromise of the action of a Republican-held
Congress that is, for example, unreasonably jumpy about RISC-V?
I think there is good reason to consider that frontier models might
cross the ITAR threshold, actually. Not least because of the risk
that they can simply blurt out knowledge that already does. If ITAR
exists, an AI that might know how to contravene it could be a
problem, because no existing legal framework or threat of
punishment will cause it to keep secrets.
But I don't think you can ignore that the two big AI companies were
pushing for that judgement because it would benefit them
commercially if open weights AI was regulated.
HAL3000 wrote 7 hours 56 min ago:
> id the Biden administration do that off their own backs or was
that an extension/compromise of the action of a Republican-held
Congress
Republicans reverted it so I'm not sure I understand your point.
[1] > But I don't think you can ignore that the two big AI
companies were pushing for that judgement because it would
benefit them commercially if open weights AI was regulated.
This doesn't matter in this context, NVIDIA didn't push for
restrictions for example but they got it anyway. So AI companies
would get restrictions either way.
HTML [1]: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250513-us-revers...
dofm wrote 7 hours 28 min ago:
Republicans reverted it in the Trump era, though.
This happens a lot. Even I as a foreigner understand that Trump
is routinely at odds with what long-standing cautious
Republicans and right-leaning "national security Democrats"
think is in the national security interest. They want the long
term picture; he has no long-term perspective at all and wants
the bargaining chip.
There was solid bipartisan border policy in 2024 that would
have enacted strong border controls, for example â
legislation Biden was very willing to sign, but Trump got
Republicans who had argued for it to kill it off because he
wanted to run against "open borders", not strong border
controls. He wanted the advantage with voters.
Trump reversing export controls that sensible Republicans
wanted for decades is not at all surprising when you consider
just how utterly desperate he is to be friends with Xi (and how
easily manipulated by Xi he is). Again, he thinks being able to
open and close that tap himself is his own personal leverage.
I agree that in this case the calls for restrictions are coming
from the corporate world. Because they want government support
for anti-corporate-espionage measures.
chinathrow wrote 9 hours 24 min ago:
> led by an adult toddler and his sycophants
which are deeply entrenched with the competition (Grok, OpenAI)
iandanforth wrote 7 hours 0 min ago:
Shutting down the growth prospects of a company based, not on its
behavior, but on the capability of its models right before the IPOs
of the companies you're going to profit from is staggeringly dumb.
Yes the public is stupid when it comes to investing in stocks, but
come on. If these companies growth prospects rest in large part on
continuing to improve their products and the government said that
if they do they face National Security Cease and Desist letters,
then investing is a bad idea.
The selfish / corrupt thing to do is to do this after you've
fleeced the public.
_heimdall wrote 9 hours 28 min ago:
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.
wavefunction wrote 9 hours 21 min ago:
The first party didn't actually force anyone to get vaccinated
though. And that second party also says they can tell you what to
put in your body and mandates death panels now in health care.
Means-testing for cancer patients. Murder and rapine as government
policies. The second party is actually doing that. But yeah, both
parties...
_heimdall wrote 9 hours 6 min ago:
The Biden administration absolutely wanted to mandate covid
vaccines, they just didn't believe they would get it past the
courts. Instead they leveraged their ability to drive a massive
smear campaign against anyone in the public who chose not to get
vaccinated.
And to be clear, vaccines are mandated for anyone who wishes to
use the school system they already pay for via property taxes.
sgarland wrote 8 hours 47 min ago:
I see nothing wrong with mandating vaccines if you want to
exist in society. You want to use public services? Be a
responsible part of the public. Vaccines were once heralded as
miracles of science, because they are. It wasnât until the
U.S. began deemphasizing education and encouraging
anti-intellectualism that we lost our collective minds.
iAMkenough wrote 8 hours 54 min ago:
Seatbelts are also mandated in the vehicles they paid for with
their own money.
eptcyka wrote 3 hours 55 min ago:
There are states that require cars to be crash tested with
the dummies without seatbelts. This then encumbers auto
designers to cater for that crash test. Some cars will never
be homologated in the US because of this, loads of other cars
could be more spacious and safer if it was not for this
requirement. And it is just 3 states.
cobbzilla wrote 8 hours 42 min ago:
Now imagine junkies could get high off of seat belts.. then
how do you regulate??
iAMkenough wrote 8 hours 21 min ago:
7% seatbelt use tax, with a required seatbelt fastener
technology that charges you every click
_heimdall wrote 8 hours 46 min ago:
Sure, are you assuming I'm not similarly opposed to that
authority?
If I crash without a seatbelt on and die, my going through
the windshield harms only myself.
The government shouldn't have any mandating what we can and
can't do if the only victim in said crime would be the same
person doing that thing.
Hizonner wrote 6 hours 44 min ago:
> If I crash without a seatbelt on and die, my going
through the windshield harms only myself.
Mostly, yes. Whereas if you fail to get vaccinated and
therefore spread a disease, you are harming others.
_heimdall wrote 4 hours 16 min ago:
That's a very deep rabbit hole to go down, to deep for
this conversation. Suffice it to say that if a pathogen
has a vaccine that is proven safe and effective there's a
reasonable case to be made for requiring it. It gets very
murky when we try to define "safe" and "effective"
though.
teh64 wrote 8 hours 17 min ago:
This is why the libertarian argument does not make sense to
me.
You crashing without a seatbelt and dying harms others as
well:
1. Your body as a projectile could harm others.
2. The emotional harm of others seeing your dead body and
the horrific injuries. Also the emotional harm on your
friends and family.
3. The increase to my taxes and healthcare costs because
people have to deal with your dead body. Also, if you
almost die when going through the windshield, the costs are
much greater trying to save your life than if you wore a
seatbelt, as the injuries will be greater and could require
things like air ambulances etc...
4. Your body being unrestrained means that your car can
cause way more damage, including hitting other cars or
pedestrians and injuring and killing them.
It is not a victimless crime.
_heimdall wrote 7 hours 9 min ago:
1. I'm not sure how that would happen in practice. If my
body is the projectile, they would have to be immediately
in front of my vehicle as it slams into whatever it hit.
My body is likely the least of their problems in that
scenario.
2. Emotional harm is a very difficult thing to protect
against. In no way am I waving it off as unimportant, but
people can be emotionally harmed by literally anything.
We can care about that, but we can't easily regulate for
it.
3. There is much lower hanging fruit if you are concerned
with the societal cost of an unhealthy population. If we
get to body disposal as top of the list I'll feel pretty
damn good about where were at.
4. Isn't 4 the same as 1?
gambiting wrote 5 hours 35 min ago:
>>I'm not sure how that would happen in practice. If my
body is the projectile, they would have to be
immediately in front of my vehicle as it slams into
whatever it hit. My body is likely the least of their
problems in that scenario.
Unfortunately, no :-( in crashes it's common for the
person with a seatbelt to be killed by the body of the
person without the seatbelt flying across inside the
car like a cannonball. Bodies tend not to fly straight
forward except for perfect head on collisions, and even
in those cases the person sitting behind you without a
seatbelt is going to kill you as they go through your
seat. If you're alone in the vehicle I can maybe buy
the argument that it doesn't matter, but even then
there's plenty of examples of people being literally
ejected out of the car and into harms way.
TheOtherHobbes wrote 6 hours 27 min ago:
This is why no one can trust libertarians to analyse
risks rationally.
You're "not sure how that would happen" but there are
decades of studies showing exactly how it does happen,
who the victims are, and what the quantified risks.
The primary risk is to other people inside the car,
then side ejections. Front ejections are a footnote.
You decided only the last of those is a problem without
considering the other possibilities.
When considered as a whole, the evidence is absolutely
clear that set belts save lives.
It's the same story with vaccinations and other
mandates. "I don't like being told what to do" turns
into "Well, obviously, the real problem is..."
The people die unnecessarily in large numbers - far
larger than if the measure really did cause mass harm.
_heimdall wrote 4 hours 18 min ago:
But how frequent are those events? I'm happy to be
wrong, I just never saw it as a likely or common
occurrence and for me it falls below the level of
risk with which I want to empower the government to
regulate it.
teh64 wrote 6 hours 35 min ago:
1. What if you hit a barrier? They are literally
designed so that a person behind the barrier does not
get hit, but normally they are lower than the car, so
you would still hit them.
2. Proving my point that it is not a victimless crime.
3. What is this lower hanging fruit? Putting on a
seatbelt seems very simple.
4. No, this is not your body as a projectile hitting
someone, but you being unrestrained prevents you from
staying seated and so can't brake or steer effectively.
This can even happen even when do not hit something,
but just hydroplane or skid.
_heimdall wrote 5 hours 37 min ago:
1. Yeah that's a good example when it could happen. I
expect that is rare enough that it would reasonably
fall to insurance rather than regulation. We simply
can't regulate every small chance event that could
impact others.
2. Victimless here matters in context of regulation.
It seems reasonable to consider someone emotionally
harmed is a victim, though its important to decide
whether emotional harm felt by one is a direct action
caused by the other. For example, if someone
emotionally responds to seeing my dead body I didn't
directly force that reaction on them and I wouldn't
say there is direct responsibility for it.
3. We aren't talking about the act of wearing seat
belts, everyone should choose to because it is easy.
We're talking about regulation and government
authority. Regulating sugary drinks, for example,
would almost certainly be more impactful.
4. Brakes aren't the problem if the vehicle stopped
quickly enough to make me a projectile.
And to be clear, I to wear a seat belt and want
everyone to choose to. I just don't want a government
to have the authority to require it and fine us if we
don't do it.
throw0101a wrote 7 hours 17 min ago:
Which is also why I don't think motorcycle helmet
optionality makes sense from a "freedom" point of view
either:
1. If your melon hits the ground and splatters open,
there's going to a crash scene investigation that closes
down the road for many hours, causing traffic chaos. As
opposed to a helmet protecting you, where you're more
likely to survive, and hobble off the road and get of the
way of traffic.
2. Insurance companies generally do not have policies
that offer helmet-optional and helmet-mandatory options,
so if a motorcyclist who does not wear a helmet gets into
a crash and needs a payout (life, or medical treatment),
then those riders who do wear a helmet (which tend to
have less severe injuries, and thus smaller payouts) have
larger premiums through no fault of their own. At the
very least there need two different types of policies.
toss1 wrote 7 hours 36 min ago:
Add also the cost of healthcare when you do NOT die but
are only severely injured.
You cannot have any honest libertarian lifestyle à la
carte.
I'd be OK with libertarians opting out â but to be true
they must opt out of EVERYTHING. You want to smoke,
drink raw milk, and not take your vaccines? Fine, you can
organize your own self-insured healthcare too. And you go
to the back of the queue and not get treated when a
participating member of society has a health issue.
The problem is those "free" "do my own research" types
feel no responsibility for maintaining the wellness of
their neighbors or even themselves, but DO still show up
at the emergency room and expect full medical treatment
when the DO get sick/injured from raw milk, no vaccines,
no seatbelts, or whatever.
They are not libertarians, they are freeloaders, lying to
themselves about libertarian "philosophy" to justify
freeloading on the systems and herd immunity built and
maintained by their smarter and more conscientious peers.
_heimdall wrote 7 hours 7 min ago:
I said this in a sibling comment, but when do we begin
regulating other personal choices in the name of shared
health care costs?
I see the problem there as being a society wholely
dependent on a risk sharing insurance scheme, not any
one particular factor that can raise rates.
Edit: its also worth noting that health insurance, and
all insurance in the US unless I'm mistaken, is
something you choose to use. You don't have to have
health insurance at all, meaning you are choosing to
take on the risk that others' decisions impact your
rates and decided that is worth the benefits you gain
from the coverage.
toss1 wrote 2 hours 37 min ago:
>>when do we begin regulating other personal choices
in the name of shared health care costs?
It Is Easy:
When those measures have been repeatedly and
massively proven to be safe and effective to prevent
both individual and especially mass illness, death,
and costs.
When you can count the dead by the millions in the
graveyards before the measures were taken, and cannot
fine one in a million even plausibly "injured" by
those measures that literally save society.
Pasteurization and vaccination are two examples that
come to mind.
Have you ever visited a pre-1900 graveyard? The
majority of graves are children. Children who died
from the same diseases that are easily prevented by
vaccines. Any parent back then would have praised
God for the miracle of vaccines. The TYPICAL family
had close to a dozen children and was lucky if two
survived to adulthood. Same for Pasteurization.
Even raising the question (nevermind twice) shows a
deep ignorance of the subject, but a clear
willingness to spew ignorant 'takes'. Yikes.
EVERY modern society is effectively built on
risk-sharing and specialization. It is also built on
cooperation. You don't get to be free to be a
complete asshat, or malingantly ignorant and still
enjoy the benefits of society. Get over it or go
enjoy some remote corner of Siberia.
czl wrote 5 hours 53 min ago:
> You don't have to have health insurance at all,
There are (or were) tax time penalties for failing to
have healthcare coverage. Possible USA laws have
changed recently.
_heimdall wrote 4 hours 17 min ago:
I'm not sure if those were ever enforced, but I
could be wrong. More importantly though, I disagree
strongly with that rule when they either tried to,
or did, implement and enforce it with the ACA.
iAMkenough wrote 8 hours 26 min ago:
Are you assuming I donât agree with you? I just stated a
fact. People can interpret that fact however theyâd like.
When someone else crashes into you on the street your tax
dollars paid for, you should be free to not agree with
seatbelts.
_heimdall wrote 8 hours 4 min ago:
I don't follow, sorry. What does someone else crashing
into me have to do with seat belts?
We do require car insurance for just such an occasion as
one driver harms another.
idleprocess wrote 9 hours 33 min ago:
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.
alpineman wrote 9 hours 5 min ago:
I mean it's obvious, isn't it?
HTML [1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/05/trump-open-ai-altman-stake...
felixgallo wrote 9 hours 0 min ago:
the way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if Anthropic
was ordered to sell to Larry Ellison.
bubblethink wrote 9 hours 40 min ago:
>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.
toss1 wrote 7 hours 48 min ago:
>>It looks like the Valley also got duped.
The valley duped themselves the same way the German industrialists
duped themselves by thinking they could control Hitler. Turned out
they couldn't and a good number did not survive to 1945.
Those "geniuses" with their "philosophers" (Yarvin, seriously?)
think they know everything, but don't even bother to read the most
basic relevant history. Theil is already deciding to bundle himself
and his family off to Argentina.
Even if things don't end as badly as they did for the Germans, the
global economy in general, and America's place in the global
economy in particular are already seriously damaged after only one
third of this presidential term; even as they are managing to
concentrate more wealth, having a bigger slice of a smaller pie is
worth less. This really needs to be cleaned up.
abraxas wrote 7 hours 52 min ago:
Some oligarchs are making out like bandits. This is russia level
kleptocracy.
cynicalsecurity wrote 9 hours 57 min ago:
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.
weakfish wrote 7 hours 9 min ago:
> âthey all wantâ
Let me stop you right there - any time you generalize to that
degree, youâve already failed to think critically and charitably
about the issue.
Matl wrote 9 hours 53 min ago:
I am not sure I would characterize the current UK government as
'left' myself.
OJFord wrote 9 hours 34 min ago:
Based on drawing the 'middle' where, or how widely? It's not as
far left as Corbyn's Labour of course, but it's still a Labour
government!
dofm wrote 8 hours 9 min ago:
New Labour wasn't a consistently left-wing government, was it?
Or they'd have banned FOBTs, not profiteered off them to an
extent that they ruined a generation of people.
Matl wrote 9 hours 16 min ago:
So it's based purely on party labels? Political parties are not
static and is clear that Labour has been moving further and
further away from a left platform.
I mean they tried to cut benefits for disabled people,
supported Israeli war crimes in Gaza and prosecuted
pro-Palestinian activism, sneakily increased taxes on the
working class, clamped down on immigration to try and undercut
the rise of Reform, I am honestly not sure of a single left
policy they enacted, granted I haven't been paying super close
attention to that shitshow.
Blarite/neoliberal fits them much more I'd say.
OJFord wrote 8 hours 8 min ago:
> I am honestly not sure of a single left policy they
enacted, granted I haven't been paying super close attention
to that shitshow.
I'm likewise fairly disengaged, but off the top of my head:
increased taxes, and removal of the two-child benefit cap.
Israel does not really fit on a left-right spectrum, nor even
really (though slightly better?) on two (economic & liberty)
axes. The Liberal Democrats & Greens are the only (somewhat
significant) parties consistently, err, anti-Zionist if
that's fair to say, pro-two-state, accusing of war crimes,
etc.
teh64 wrote 8 hours 8 min ago:
Also their anti-trans stance.
And any party that is pro-monarchy could not reasonably be
described as left wing.
crote wrote 8 hours 11 min ago:
Today's Labour is even actively promoting anti-LGBT policies.
echelon wrote 10 hours 32 min ago:
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.
pjmlp wrote 7 hours 32 min ago:
I fully agree with you, and I find bonkers to see devs screaming
how they got x times more productive, observe rewrites from major
FOSS products, and still they assume their employer is going to
keep the whole team employed.
Also on the other subjects you mention, I got distracted with
convenience during the last years, however apparently it is about
time to save what is still possible to keep computing open.
fellowmartian wrote 8 hours 39 min ago:
This feeling of being defeated by and trapped inside the
âmachineâ and seeing the âtruthâ is exactly what the
âmachineâ would want you to do. The actual red pill is that
thereâs no âmachineâ, thereâs only people and shared social
constructions held together by our compliance and theyâre
contingent.
wolvesechoes wrote 5 hours 14 min ago:
> thereâs only people and shared social constructions held
together by our compliance and theyâre contingent
But that's what a "machine" is.
aaimnr wrote 7 hours 58 min ago:
There's no machine, and there's no ladder. However with
sufficient people believing it exists and acting like it does, it
becomes real in its own way.
blastro wrote 8 hours 3 min ago:
thank you
idorube wrote 9 hours 11 min ago:
we also lived through
owning digital books => renting/subscribing
owning digital games => renting/subscribing
owning digital music => renting/subscribing
owning the right to repair => renting/subscribing
Vehicle ECU's => TCU's that share data with 3rd parties
I'm sad to say that I tend to agree with echelon.
layla5alive wrote 10 hours 6 min ago:
Indeed. When are we going to wake up and stand up to this?
"Freedom?" This is not freedom. Liberty? Nope. This really is
techno-serfdom. Power and capability for me (govts / large corps)
but not for thee (us, the serfs).
Eisenstein wrote 10 hours 25 min ago:
Almost always, the future ends up being bad, but not in the ways we
think it will.
ai_brain_rot wrote 9 hours 31 min ago:
I bet 99.99% of people who have ever lived would say the future
got better than when they were alive if they could.
This seems a silly statement
wolvesechoes wrote 5 hours 13 min ago:
> I bet 99.99% of people who have ever lived would say the
future got better than when they were alive if they could
This says much more about you, Last Man, than anything else.
Eisenstein wrote 9 hours 8 min ago:
You are mistaking aggregate for specifics. It may be better on
whole, but there are always aspects that are worse.
ai_brain_rot wrote 7 hours 42 min ago:
Got it, so your statement was meaningless
KronisLV wrote 10 hours 34 min ago:
Werenât 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: âOur models
are so powerful even the government forbid us from exporting access
to them as a service for a while!â for once this gets sorted out
(if it does). Itâs one thing when they just write
self-congratulatory blog posts and people are skeptical, itâs
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.
carlossouza wrote 6 hours 58 min ago:
Good for Anthropic?
Can you think of any case in history where the US government
suspended product sales due to national security concerns and that
was ultimately beneficial for the company being regulated?
drcongo wrote 6 hours 53 min ago:
HTML [1]: https://newsletter.pessimistsarchive.org/p/when-the-mac-...
AtNightWeCode wrote 8 hours 5 min ago:
On the contrary. This is more like a Kaspersky moment for American
cloud services. Simply can no longer be trusted for use outside of
US.
juliendorra wrote 9 hours 12 min ago:
Itâs very bad PR for all US AI companies, not just Anthropic.
thefounder wrote 9 hours 54 min ago:
I donât see it as good PR for Anthropic at all. They did a lot of
PR in that direction but now it backfired.
People/gov now think twice about relying on US ai products. I
donât think the investors are very happy with the place this
landed either.
I think the right move for Europe and other countries would be to
effectively ban US tech and follow the Chinese response to Nvidia
(delivered personally to Trump: we want to build our own AI chips).
foo12bar wrote 43 min ago:
Don't they lose money on every token they sell, though? It may be
a blessing in disguise. They can now use all of their resources
towards superintelligence, and can't be considered selfish/evil
for not sharing their fruits. The government made me now becomes
an excuse.
BjoernKW wrote 8 hours 11 min ago:
> I think the right move for Europe and other countries would be
to effectively ban US tech and follow the Chinese response to
Nvidia (delivered personally to Trump: we want to build our own
AI chips).
How would the EU replace US tech? There simply are no equivalent
providers of such technology in the EU, regardless of pipe dreams
in that respect EU representatives regularly conjure up (privacy
industry, "European Google", "European Facebook", you name it
..,).
Maybe, however, such a move would actually be consistent with
dominant EU policy. The EU seems hellbent on becoming poor and
economically irrelevant, after all.
adgjlsfhk1 wrote 7 hours 27 min ago:
Cory Doctorow gave a talk a couple months ago with the answer
to how. Stop honoring US copyright.
BjoernKW wrote 5 hours 58 min ago:
> Stop honoring US copyright.
I suppose some people just want to see the world burn.
I'm by no means a supporter of copyright and copyright laws,
but unilaterally terminating such agreements is a recipe for
disaster. How do you think the US would react to such a move?
kansface wrote 6 hours 19 min ago:
This would not end well.
tessellated wrote 6 hours 59 min ago:
I could start teaching bittorrent and adblocking in the local
pub!
Avicebron wrote 6 hours 19 min ago:
It's really not that bad of an idea. At least the
adblocking part is justifiable considering considering how
many times I see people (older/less tech savvy) getting
caught with scareware from ads.
cherryteastain wrote 7 hours 40 min ago:
China managed it by keeping US tech out despite, initially, not
having alternatives to Google et al.
In winner takes all industries you MUST be protectionist and
develop domestic alternatives.
BjoernKW wrote 7 hours 38 min ago:
> and develop domestic alternatives.
Therein lies the rub for the EU. They think they can just
regulate such alternatives into existence, yet have time and
time again failed to provide such alternatives.
robotresearcher wrote 7 hours 10 min ago:
With exceptions. Linux being the most obvious example.
BjoernKW wrote 6 hours 0 min ago:
Linux is no EU project, but very much global. It just
happens that its originator (who, quite tellingly, has
been living and working in the US since the mid-90s) is
Finnish.
robotresearcher wrote 5 hours 54 min ago:
I was using Linux for work while Linus was still in
Europe.
All the large US tech companies are also global. Cuts
both ways.
pjmlp wrote 7 hours 41 min ago:
By baby steps, nonetheless an improvement.
Foster having Linux/BSD distribution available pre-installed in
stores like FNAC, Cool Blue, Media Markt and co.
Push for FOSS programming languages, OSes, products and
frameworks at very least on public sector projects.
Forbid outsourcing outside European countries.
Forbidding companies to have apps only available on
Android/iOS, they must cater for a diverse system of desktop
and various mobile OSes.
And plenty more possibilities that could be done, yes it isn't
easy, then again Rome wasn't built in a day.
Regardint relevance, last stage capitalism above everything
else isn't something I wish for my country.
BjoernKW wrote 7 hours 35 min ago:
It's way to late for baby steps. The EU is bound to become
either a US or a Chinese protectorate in all but name in just
a few years time now.
How isolationism and open source are supposed to stem that
tide, is beyond me.
pjmlp wrote 7 hours 29 min ago:
It is never too late for the Great Wall of Europe.
Like in each ones lives, sometimes hard decisions are only
possible because they are forced upon us without
alternatives.
Recent example, Ukraine would never gotten advanced drone
technology, if it wasn't for the price they are being
forced to pay to keep their country.
If unfortunately we're faced with similar hard decisions on
who to depend on, they will have to be done, regardless of
their cost to the local industry.
BjoernKW wrote 5 hours 53 min ago:
While advancements in drone technology in Ukraine
certainly have been accelerated by the war, the country
was by no means unprepared. They have been preparing for
a large-scale war ever since the Russian occupation of
Crimea (and the dismal international reaction to that).
The EU isn't even capable of ramping up its own defence
capabilities when being faced with the very real threat
of a Russian incursion in the next few years, which has
me wonder what would be required for them to finally wake
up.
pjmlp wrote 4 hours 43 min ago:
EU isn't a country, it is up for each European country
to make up for itself first, for its European
neighbours second.
BjoernKW wrote 3 hours 27 min ago:
Still, EU member countries even fail at cooperating
where it'd absolutely make sense to do so (see FCAS,
for instance).
pjmlp wrote 3 hours 12 min ago:
A failure of each country protecting their own
industry, unfortunately stuff that happens since
Roman Empire downfall, yet eventually things came
together, and falled apart multiple times.
wolvesechoes wrote 5 hours 18 min ago:
> The EU isn't even capable of ramping up its own
defence capabilities when being faced with the very
real threat of a Russian incursion in the next few
years, which has me wonder what would be required for
them to finally wake up.
It is because EU is not a single state, and member
states have very different perspectives not only on
Russia threat, but also on "digital sovereignty".
Everyone saying "EU should do something" is just blind
towards political reality.
BjoernKW wrote 3 hours 29 min ago:
Yet they keep yapping on about the EU being about
tighter integration between its member states. If not
in the area of defence, where else? So far, this has
been an abject failure (recently, see: FCAS).
tremon wrote 7 hours 54 min ago:
The primary European failure here has been to allow the
hollowing out of the EU tech space. There have been plenty of
web tech players in the EU; the US policy over the last 30
years has been to absorb them into US companies or buy them off
using US capital, and the EU strategy has been to very much
encourage that.
But it is complete fantasy to use the current landscape as
evidence of capability. It would be equally shortsighted to say
"How would the US replace Chinese manufacturing? There simply
are no equivalent supply chains in the US, regardless of pipe
dreams that pedophile sycophants regularly conjure up. The US
seems hellbent on becoming poor and economically irrelevant".
BjoernKW wrote 7 hours 40 min ago:
It never ceases to amaze me how people scramble to defend the
EU's failed policies over the last three decades. The EU
managed to regulate itself out of all relevant markets and it
only has itself to blame.
viking123 wrote 4 hours 32 min ago:
Way to miss the point lmao
BjoernKW wrote 3 hours 31 min ago:
Care to elaborate?
mr_toad wrote 6 hours 50 min ago:
The EU lost its manufacturing capacity to countries with
cheaper labour, just like the US. The US has only
succeeded in IT, everywhere else it struggles against Asia.
The âAmerican dreamâ attracted a lot of talent (look at
how many tech leaders were immigrants), and once the
network effects (both IT and social) kicked in it was hard
to stop. This is a story that has unfolded many times
throughout history. Talent moves to where talent is. And
it will move if conditions change.
weakfish wrote 7 hours 15 min ago:
Youâre missing their point, theyâre not defending EU
policy and in fact agree that current capability is poor.
Theyâre saying that it can change and that the US is also
self sabotaging in other ways.
ifoo wrote 8 hours 39 min ago:
Sure, it "backfired" but it would've happened anyway. Trump mad
Trump get revenge. Trump smash. That's how he operates - and
even though Anthropic were being dicks about the marketing, they
got Trump mad. That's why this is happening, not due to the
marketing - it would've happened anyway.
If anything the marketing is WHY it got so popular during these 3
days.
pjmlp wrote 9 hours 17 min ago:
We are back to cold war computing days, the message has long
arrived on this side of the Atlantic, even if most companies and
governments aren't able to get rid of old habits.
bjelkeman-again wrote 6 hours 20 min ago:
It is the old crypto export ban again, bu now for LLMs.
HTML [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_f...
pjmlp wrote 4 hours 37 min ago:
Not only crypto, go look into the export restrictions of
commercial languages.
For example, before becoming open source you naturally could
not buy Visual Studio legally in countries forbidden by US
exports.
Or even the PlayStation 3, when sold from US locations.
KronisLV wrote 9 hours 41 min ago:
> People/gov now think twice about relying on US ai products.
Oh this has already been clear to anyone in the EU, for example.
The current reliance on US tech and even widespread stuff like MS
is pretty deeply rooted, however and it might take a while to do
anything about it - so for many itâs a matter of convenience
for now.
That said, as long as what you need sits behind an OpenAI or
Anthropic API and you donât have deeper proprietary
integrations, there is no moat. I can even run Claude Code with
DeepSeek if I so choose (though OpenCode is neat too).
Best EU has at the moment seems to be Mistral though, which isâ¦
sorta passable, but not cutting edge. Oh well.
> I think the right move for Europe and other countries would be
to effectively ban US tech and follow the Chinese response to
Nvidia (delivered personally to Trump: we want to build our own
AI chips).
Not sure about outright ban, but homegrown govt. systems should
have both the devs and the infra in EU.
Would also be really cool if we could make even regular CPUs and
GPUs some day but I donât think thatâs super likely, though.
Kinda amazing that China can do that! Even consumer stuff like
the Chinese Lisuan GPUs (and Moore Threads I think), hell, even
the Russian Elbrus CPUs.
thefounder wrote 4 hours 15 min ago:
It has been clear but it was never enforced. Now EU and UK was
placed on the same level as China.
willsmith72 wrote 11 hours 10 min ago:
Ok after 2 hours.. I really miss fable. Opus is fine, Fable just got
it.
Nition wrote 11 hours 21 min ago:
I'm surprised how much of the discussion here is taking the angle of
"Anthropic pretended this model was soooo dangerous for months as
marketing, and it seems like someone decided to believe them!"
First, Anthropic was founded by people who we know were worried about
AI safety and signs point to that still being the case. It's really
cynical to say it was all an exaggeration for marketing.
Second, this isn't Moller promising a fantastic working flying car next
year. The model did what Anthropic said it could do.
I realise that ruling out "they bought Anthropic's scaremongering"
brings up the question of why the government would block Mythos/Fable,
but not the roughly-as-capable and less restricted GPT5.5. However we
do know for a fact that they dislike Anthropic more than OpenAI right
now.
Stevvo wrote 3 hours 6 min ago:
People are giving Anthropic the benefit of doubt. If they believe
their own bullshit, the situation is far worse.
joshuastuden wrote 5 hours 26 min ago:
Signs point to them not caring.
elAhmo wrote 7 hours 1 min ago:
> The model did what Anthropic said it could do.
How come? Where are all of those security patches and critical bugs
that wouldâve broken all software if it was unleashed?
margalabargala wrote 4 hours 8 min ago:
There have been a steady stream of articles about exactly this over
the past few weeks.
Yesterday there was one about 5 zero-days in ffmpeg. Another
commenter mentioned the fixes done to Firefox.
If you put a minor effort into looking for news about Mythos making
security patches and fixing critical bugs in important projects
recently, you will find them.
port11 wrote 5 hours 40 min ago:
It was used on Firefoxâs codebase to find a ton of bugs?
HTML [1]: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/privacy-security/ai-security-z...
_heimdall wrote 9 hours 16 min ago:
I don't see any reason we should put weight behind their supposed
fears today though. It's completely irrational to build the very
thing you think could seriously harm or kill us all.
Yes they may have had those fears before, but even then it didn't
stop them from building companies and running full speed towards the
end goal with little to no effort spent on meaningful safety efforts.
basisword wrote 9 hours 26 min ago:
The idea that the government introduced export controls on it because
they "fell for the marketing" is stupid. It's much more likely
they're being vindictive. There's plenty of evidence that that's how
the current government acts.
datsci_est_2015 wrote 5 hours 1 min ago:
Little bit of column a, little bit of column b. A lot of the
actions of the current USG seem to occur at the intersection of
shared interests but different motivations, consider that:
- apocalypse-cult evangelicals (Mike Johnson types)
- secular RE development globalists (Kushner types)
- white supremacist / eugenicist weirdos (Stephen Miller types)
- SV / tech billionaire stooges (Vance types)
- media / propaganda old guard (Koch, Murdoch, Heritage)
- Morally bankrupt grifters / influencers (too many to mention)
all seem to somehow be under the same tent right now. Luckily for
us, history points towards such unlikely alliances as being fragile
and short-lived. Unluckily, when such alliances have gained power
they usually donât let it go without making sure lots of people
suffer first.
Edit: I call it an unlikely alliance because there are represented
many reactionary accelerationists who all have a different vision
of what America should look like after the revolution.
orphea wrote 10 hours 28 min ago:
Anthropic was founded by people who we know were worried about AI
safety
Lol. It was founded by people who were saying they were worried. I'm
sorry you fell for it.
Anthropic is just another company of, in my opinion, money-hungry
sociopaths; they are not that different from the OpenAI bros.
So yeah, play stupid games - win stupid prizes.
blazespin wrote 10 hours 26 min ago:
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.
solenoid0937 wrote 10 hours 22 min ago:
Read about the LTBT/PBC structure. Anthropic is not accountable
to its investors.
If they were money hungry they wouldn't have fought the DOW.
Everyone knows that's a retarded thing for a business to do.
andriy_koval wrote 4 hours 19 min ago:
> If they were money hungry they wouldn't have fought the DOW
I think it could be reputation management exercises. Especially
how it was aligned with airstrike on Iranian girls elementary
school and statements that Claude were picking targets.
AFF87 wrote 5 hours 57 min ago:
Not necessarily. You know what your competitors are likely to
do and you want to position yourself differently
blazespin wrote 10 hours 31 min ago:
There are a lot of dangerous things in the world and surprisingly a
lot of people can avoid the constant stream of chicken little
nonsense.
If everyone expended the same amount of marketing effort trying to
scare the ** out of everyone that Anthropic does, it'd be a very
miserable world to live in.
We are unfortunately a captured audience and the autistic people at
Anthropic are abusing this.
I_am_tiberius wrote 11 hours 25 min ago:
I mean it should be clear to everyone that this is just the consequence
of Sam Altman's lobbying activities.
reacharavindh wrote 11 hours 29 min ago:
The cynic outside observer of this administrationâs mode of operation
wonders if someone from OpenAI visited someone at the Trump admin and
offered some benefit if they could scuttle Anthropic until they could
catch upâ¦.
Iâm looking for that news article in the next weeksâ¦
felooboolooomba wrote 11 hours 30 min ago:
Handicapper General leveling the playing field.
w_t_payne wrote 11 hours 33 min ago:
The systemic risk is that future bans will be much broader in scope and
will impact more than one US-based provider. I really don't like that
we're moving into a world where heavily AI-dependent economies can be
effectively shut down either by the US government or the Chinese
government at the stroke of a pen. This really is a forcing function
which makes us question if the risks associated with large
"cloud-based" models are worth it, and if we need to find out if we can
do more with smaller, local models - and whether such research is now a
matter of critical national security.
h43z wrote 11 hours 34 min ago:
Today frontier models became Groypers.
nme01 wrote 11 hours 37 min ago:
Isn't it that Anthropic some time ago had a disagreement with the
government and now government is just retaliating to cut down
Anthropic's profit?
alansaber wrote 11 hours 43 min ago:
First time we've seen a model company get their arm twisted this hard
by the gov.
dotwack wrote 11 hours 45 min ago:
Why do I get the feeling that this is all a big PR stunt, because
Trumps buddy want to boost the stock price before IPO, so they can get
a gold plated exit ramp?
We are witnessing the largest stock manipulation by the United States
government in history.
rvnx wrote 11 hours 55 min ago:
Well deserved though, "it's too dangerous, it's too dangerous to
release"
mrworld wrote 12 hours 0 min ago:
Well, does this mean that weâve reached peak AI? If all models more
advanced than Fable are restricted for public use by governments, then
it will never get better than Opus 4.8 unless you have security
clearance?
kubb wrote 11 hours 46 min ago:
Yes plus Opus-class models will deteriorate with ads and user
manipulation injected into them, until they lose their usefulness.
dannyw wrote 12 hours 2 min ago:
I feel really bad for Anthropic right now. This should never have
happened and seems like another arbitrary use of government power,
Friday after market closes.
Whatever you feel about Anthropic, good or bad, this is not fair, and
this is not good for the industry.
andy12_ wrote 12 hours 3 min ago:
This is making me extremely depressed. If this was coming from
Anthrohpic I would just need to wait for OpenAI to drop a similar
model. But if this comes from the US government, they will do the same
to OpenAI when the moment comes.
Similar things will happen with China, and the EU has zero-chance of
developing frontier models. We are just fucked now.
ismailmaj wrote 12 hours 4 min ago:
My main read on this is that European governments will more
aggressively invest in regional AI labs.
For Nvidia chips you could've deluded yourself that the US is just
anti-china, that position is harder to argue for right now.
Havoc wrote 12 hours 5 min ago:
All Iâm hearing is donât trust America theyâll rugpull you
Just in case the whole threatening to invade Allieâs didnât quite
get the message across
punnerud wrote 12 hours 9 min ago:
Luckily I have a project with 200k lines of code, generating
substantial revenue. Asked Fabel to run continuously through all
features with up to 50 parallel agents, fix bugs, log improvements etc
(just to max out tokens before the week reset)
thefounder wrote 12 hours 13 min ago:
I think this is the beginning of the end of US tech dominance. That
being said I personally was not impressed with Fable at all. Apart from
burning tokens like there was no tomorrow it behaved like Opus 4.8 and
produced more or less the same output. In practice I think it was hard
to use due the safety restrictions. With the shadow slop injector it
was basically DOA but they changed that policy so at least it still had
a chance.
throwaway7356 wrote 12 hours 16 min ago:
Probably Anthropic just needs to commit to handing over some shares to
the Trump presidential family after their IPO and this will be solved.
This is just cost of doing business in corrupt Soviet vessel states
like the USA.
lionkor wrote 12 hours 23 min ago:
It's a marketing stunt. If there's one thing we should have learned,
it's that anthropic will do ANYTHING to get their product marketed as
the biggest, most scary AI ever.
Artoooooor wrote 12 hours 24 min ago:
US government should not have a say what members of other nations can
and cannot use. Especially outside of USA.
nurettin wrote 12 hours 25 min ago:
I'm not going to downplay it. I've been coding since the 80s and using
these models since 2023. 10 minutes after using fable I told my
colleague this is a new era. It is the difference between sonnet and
opus. I didn't think this was possible.
It was over before this announcement. After a couple of days, even
though the model was set to fable, it felt like opus. We are back to
sticks and stones.
iamEAP wrote 12 hours 28 min ago:
Surprised not to really see any comments on the financial incentives of
this move, especially in the context of the âsupply chain riskâ
classification earlier this year.
Is there no one in government who would stand to gain from a
financially handicapped Anthropic in the context of an OpenAI IPO?
Pxtl wrote 11 hours 10 min ago:
I'm not. The political alignment of this site is very evident.
lionkor wrote 12 hours 30 min ago:
This is so unbelievably incompetent from all sides, it's really
impressive.
So I guess the real moat is whether the US govt is happy to make your
models sound more capable than they are?
Hypomixolydian wrote 12 hours 31 min ago:
Just few hours after Grok launches big promotional price drop, their
competitor has its best model cut off. Sus af. The bid is on, so if
Dario pays Don more than Elon paid, Mythos and Fable will be back.
stuaxo wrote 12 hours 43 min ago:
I tried fable yesterday and the code quality is just as lacking as
every other model.
I asked it to add one thing to a function in the static blog pelican.
So, while it worked, it took no account of what was already in the
function and made a bunch more stuff.
I'm talking about something that I'm the end is a 3 to 5 line patch.
The default is still tech debt, but now we burn way more energy.
ethanhawksley wrote 12 hours 47 min ago:
As far as I can tell, this seems like it's impacting all of their
Glasswing partners too, so no mythos for them either
rimeice wrote 13 hours 14 min ago:
Anyone in Europe or UK should be quaking in their boots at this news.
For a long time the American administration has had a kill switch on
most of our defence tech, this is an early warning signal that as AI
adoption spreads, America will have a kill switch on our economy as
well. Itâs time to wake up.
voxgen wrote 13 hours 19 min ago:
Denying tech export to cooperative allies is certainly a move.
Many nations are now likely thinking: Why cooperate on international IP
enforcement if we get lumped together with adversarial nations anyway?
elisbce wrote 13 hours 20 min ago:
Did Opus 4.8 just get a lot dumber because of this? My sessions are
making so many dumb mistakes it wouldn't make before...
puelocesar wrote 13 hours 25 min ago:
Honestly, this is quite funny. I just imagine the process of
desperation and cognitive shock all the annoying tech bro pseudo
libertarians are passing through right now
kdmtctl wrote 13 hours 29 min ago:
So, we'll have Opus 5 soon which is "as close to Fable 5 as possible".
This is a good thing for the community)
misiek08 wrote 13 hours 29 min ago:
Maybe itâs time for Anthropic to move to some other place?
Every news about next blockade for the company (including threats from
gov in the near past) is just making US look⦠bad?
sourcecodeplz wrote 13 hours 33 min ago:
who cares. Just have deepseek v4 pro do 10-20 turns when you want to
solve something really complicated. then judge with GPT5.5.
tacone wrote 11 hours 58 min ago:
That's actually a good point. I had Fable available almost
immediately under my Copilot subscription and never bothered to use
it even to say hello.
But from what I hear, Fable looks like an incremental update, with
improved behavior imprinted by training.
Something that you could theoretically approximate by using a good
set of instructions and model orchestration (tweaking the session
life cycle, using a second model to understand user intentions, using
a third model to prevent drift, ...).
If the above is true, the only discriminator would be user effort.
If Fable is dangerous, then we are still in danger right now, and
have been for the last few months at the very least.
noisy_boy wrote 13 hours 38 min ago:
I will take a position I usually never take. After a certain point in
capability, practically anything has defense and national security
implications. Whether it is warranted or not, I'm glad that something
with ability of causing massive social impact is being treated as a
national security threat. As for the point of misuse is concerned,
governments by their sovereign nature always have had the propensity to
control and access to secret capabilities - this is no different.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wrote 13 hours 38 min ago:
>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 big one here really is "including foreign national Anthropic
employees." Funny, I called out that there probably is a Chinese spy at
Anthropic in my previous comment a few days ago. Looks like they are
catching on, good luck getting rid of all of them.
The bad news is that they will probably start imposing restrictions on
Chinese models.
fagnerbrack wrote 13 hours 44 min ago:
I managed to jailbreak its protections quite easily. For exampke I did
some experiments on rewriting a text built by claude to iterate over a
fitness function that rewrites to bypass AI-detectors, just to see how
far it would go, changing the API terms and skills from "human" and
"ai" to "engaging" and "unease" managed to bypass everything while
keeping everything else int he logic intact.
blazespin wrote 13 hours 46 min ago:
There is a potentially another explanation: fable 5 did something truly
dangerous.
xlii wrote 13 hours 48 min ago:
Champagne bottles are popping at Google and OpenAI today.
watchful_moose wrote 13 hours 50 min ago:
Lots of parallels to the crypto wars / export controls on cryptography.
The main difference here is that cryptography didn't require
significant compute hardware, which is the perfect place to also apply
export controls (and they have).
We could smuggle PGP source code on paper / DeCSS source code on
t-shirts. That ain't gonna happen with the hardware needed for frontier
models.
ihazgithub wrote 13 hours 56 min ago:
What do you guys know about the "jailbreaking?"
kaspar030 wrote 14 hours 0 min ago:
So now they have to print the weights and sell as book in order to
export them!
Gives the word "weights" a more literal meaning.
iagooar wrote 14 hours 4 min ago:
From a European perspective, based on the assumption API inference
cannot be trusted anymore -> it means investing in local inference +
building harnesses that can squeeze out all the power from the best
open weights models.
MASNeo wrote 14 hours 5 min ago:
While this is regrettable the guardrails were rather sloppy and I
managed to do things with Fable that really should not be possible. It
seems with all the focus cyber and bio security, threat scenario
analysis went out the door.
I guess they will fix the guardrails and then open it up again. Clearly
nobody wants dangerous models out there and I can understand the
national security concerns. If the restrictions persist even if
guardrails are updated, well, perhaps other countries may want to
compete for becoming the new home for frontier labs?
pembrook wrote 13 hours 16 min ago:
Yea I managed to cure cancer and build a global utopia with it! It
wasnât just 14% better at coding...
/s
b--l wrote 13 hours 43 min ago:
I found it tripped in most laughable situations by mere were words
that could be related in some way to hacking but are in common use in
programming. I would have to go back, examine my prompt for word that
could be use in another context and replace it with a synonym.
saberience wrote 13 hours 34 min ago:
I got downgraded from Opus to Fable for asking why MDMA was not
addictive in the same way Cocaine is, so yeah, the "guardrails" are
clearly vibe-coded.
fofoz wrote 14 hours 12 min ago:
Hormuz moment for Mythos
agnosticmantis wrote 14 hours 19 min ago:
Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: they're coming for your open
source models next!
Dario must be popping a champagne tonight as regulatory capture has
successfully been initiated.
We've all been debating what moat these labs possess. Today we learn
the moat is regulation blocking the usage of foreign open source
models.
misAnthropic will soon ask for IDs to give you all a nerfed model, and
you have no other choice because deepseek/qwen/Kimi will soon be banned
thanks to misAnthropic's efforts to lock us into their regulated
product.
We will soon realize the long game that Dario has been playing by
painting his own product as an existential risk.
hmate9 wrote 14 hours 19 min ago:
This is incredibly bullish for china and open source models
zazazache wrote 14 hours 24 min ago:
Anyone who things a thing like âperfect jailbreak resistanceâ is
possible should read Gödel-Escher-Bach
AtNightWeCode wrote 14 hours 25 min ago:
WH really don't like Anthropic. That is what this is about. The people
who warned about the risks of using American cloudservices have become
right. We should at least in EU see a ban on Azure, GCP, Cloudflare and
so on.
procflora wrote 14 hours 30 min ago:
To actually follow through with this fully they would have had to
revoke all kinds of internal access for foreign nationals and demand
they immediately return their hardware (at 5pm on a Friday no less),
no?
Unless folks are hearing that they did this I smell marketing and/or PR
as the main driver of the action.
jorisboris wrote 14 hours 31 min ago:
Ai going the same way as crypto, before you know you have to move your
hq to Panama or Dubai
Kinda ironic
mattlangston wrote 14 hours 32 min ago:
Crypto Wars v2. I know how this movie ends.
ThouYS wrote 14 hours 33 min ago:
Qwen is all you need
jameson wrote 14 hours 39 min ago:
If Anthropic really found a model that's so powerful no one has, why
don't they use it for themselves to create things no one can and
accumulate unimaginable wealth?
rippeltippel wrote 14 hours 40 min ago:
If I were Dario Amodei, I would start relocating Anthropic to the EU,
where there's a huge interest in supporting domestic AI. Also, EU
politics are so fragmented that a suspension like this one would be
very hard to be agreed.
Yann LeCun got that right with AMI Labs.
I_am_tiberius wrote 11 hours 19 min ago:
You'd need to relocate all employees and close all offices in the US.
I don't know any Anthropic employees, but I guess their moral has
limits and they would never do that. They would also lose valutable
time and fall behind openai during that time.
pembrook wrote 13 hours 19 min ago:
I laughed out loud. Do you understand in the EU Anthropic wouldnât
even be possible? Why do you think Mistral is so far behind?
Also, as a US citizen Dario is subject to US law regardless of where
he lives.
The US loves throwing its weight around via the US treasury and
threatening countries with banning their ability to transact in U.S.
Dollars, hence how the Obama administration turned every global bank
into a dragnet for enforcing its draconian global taxation scheme on
non-residents via FATCA.
The US has too much power, period. Doesnât matter whoâs in power,
both parties abuse it. China rising to be a real counterbalance is a
good thing imo.
Traster wrote 13 hours 52 min ago:
Look at what the EU have done with Apple intelligence. Knowing the EU
it wouldn't be long before Anthropic are on the wrong end of some
regulation to force open model weights or some such madness.
ftchd wrote 9 hours 22 min ago:
Afaik, the EU hasn't done anything "with" or "to" Apple
Intelligence. Apple just keeps shooting themselves in the foot
intentionally and then blames the EU for it, writing paragraphs
about how hurt they are while mentioning at the very end, in one
sentence, that the same features are unavailable in China.
EU has forced Apple to use USB-C for everything earlier than they
planned by a few years, and fined them for uncompetitive practices
like the ones Epic Games shed light on in US courts.
shepherdjerred wrote 14 hours 28 min ago:
The US would nationalize Anthropic before they allowed that
fofoz wrote 14 hours 9 min ago:
The value of other US AI companies would drop immediately.
notnullorvoid wrote 7 hours 7 min ago:
The value should already be dropping with this news. If this is
happening now, it seems likely more will come.
xendo wrote 14 hours 41 min ago:
I appreciate how they waited till SpaceX IPO.
dang wrote 14 hours 44 min ago:
Related ongoing thread - others?
Our response to the US ban on Fable 5 and Mythos 5 - [1] - June 2026
(17 comments)
HTML [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48512915
umjunsik132 wrote 10 hours 55 min ago:
Hi dang, sorry to reply here, I've emailed hn@ycombinator.com twice
about my account umjunsik132 being shadowbanned but haven't heard
back in 18 days. It was flagged after I accidentally submitted a link
with /#. Would really appreciate if you could take a look. Thanks.
jhylau wrote 14 hours 49 min ago:
trump doesn't like dario. simple as that. don't over think it.
jhylau wrote 14 hours 49 min ago:
trump hates dario. simple as that.
wood_spirit wrote 14 hours 54 min ago:
The real question as xAI has just made Musk a trillionaire is how this,
the most recent blow in a fight between the administration and
Anthropic, impacts Anthropicâs IPO.
Iâve used Fable a lot. Itâs a marginal improvement on Opus.
Itâs really not scary smart. I donât want to go back to Opus
because Fable was that little bit smarter, but itâs not like anything
really changes at work and when weâre bumped back. So Iâm really
not buying any national security angle other than in the sense the
administration can weaponise that to crown the AI race winners.
TimCTRL wrote 14 hours 58 min ago:
it wasn't even that good...
atleastoptimal wrote 15 hours 0 min ago:
It's crazy that people's anti-AI bias has got them rooting for the
current administration just because it appeases their desire to see AI
labs fail.
reducesuffering wrote 15 hours 2 min ago:
This forum really needs to wake up to the fact that we are in the midst
of the Manhattan Project 10x and weâre headed for Earth sized nukes
bilbo-b-baggins wrote 15 hours 8 min ago:
On the day of the SpaceX IPO with no evidence? Yeah. Pull the other one
itâs got bells on.
Dolores12 wrote 15 hours 9 min ago:
the reason the US Government suspended access to Fable is that
Anthropic doesn't have the compute to handle the load. They don't want
bad PR before their IPO. I bet after Fable 5 switches to API pricing
what ultimately decrease usage, the government will cancel that
directive. (yai yai, good PR)
PeterStuer wrote 15 hours 15 min ago:
Let's hope the EU will take this as one more major signal that it is
time to move beyond talking about digital sovereingty and actually
commit to budgets and effort.
speedgoose wrote 15 hours 7 min ago:
In one hand I think we should react quickly, one another hand maybe
we should let people talk a bit more and wait for a bubble crash and
better LLM inference hardware.
dools wrote 15 hours 25 min ago:
I've been using Kimi k2.6 extensively via kimi-code and I only reach
for frontier models when I do a multi-model security review (and Kimi
actually does a better job of finding stuff, albeit with more false
positives -- I often run Kimi's output through Opus 4.7/8 and Opus will
concur that Kimi found genuine issues, while Opus didn't actually find
those issues itself, for example).
So whatever, I just don't really feel the need to burn tokens on Fable
anyway.
tdiff wrote 15 hours 29 min ago:
Out of curiosity, can that model be trained from the beginning without
touching "sensitive" areas and remain useful in others? Will it be able
to help in building biological weapons without being trained on
articles and books about biology/ medicine?
richardw wrote 15 hours 29 min ago:
Thereâs probably a massive Chinese bot net scraping models from
within the US already. If not there soon will be.
Anthropic: your next ad writes itself. Nobody else is worth
restricting.
arrel wrote 15 hours 30 min ago:
AI 2027 remains annoyingly on schedule. Worth rereading the doc. If you
think itâs too long, I listened to the audio version while I walked.
HTML [1]: https://ai-2027.com/
yann5 wrote 15 hours 31 min ago:
And the kicker? And the kicker? I hadn't even gotten the chance to try
Fable 5 yet!
As far as I know, Chinese models have even more restrictions!
m3kw9 wrote 15 hours 35 min ago:
Anthropic seem fâed, not fâed all at the same time. All this will
come to light, but the hunch from the model reviews is that itâs all
PR. Their model isnât even close to all that for the govt to shit
their pants over.
rich_sasha wrote 15 hours 43 min ago:
This looks like, potentially, a big dent in projected Anthropic
revenue. It could affect their price if they were trading publically.
Any other ostensibly AI companies that have just gone public?
mchusma wrote 15 hours 45 min ago:
Iâll just say that AI companies need to be pounding the table more
about the necessity of AI. The US (and most other countries) have zero
idea how to pay for its deficit spending. The only hope is massive GDP
based growth and the only idea how to do that is AI.
This is rarely discussed, and while I agree we should be spending
non-zero effort on safety, stopping progress is not an option.
pcwelder wrote 15 hours 46 min ago:
[1] Found the time traveller.
HTML [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48496895
aimattb wrote 15 hours 53 min ago:
Well, they just pulled one of the strongest models I've ever used. My
concern isn't that I'll have to go back to 4.8 or GPT-5.5, it's where
do they stop? What if they decide 5.5 or 4.8 are too powerful too? Do
those get removed next?
Is open source next on the list?
Better grab the latest open source models now and get your Blackwell
6000, Spark, or Mac mini fired up and ready to go. I think you're going
to need it.
DIR <- back to front page