[HN Gopher] US Government directive to suspend access to Fable 5...
___________________________________________________________________
US Government directive to suspend access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5
Author : Dylan1312
Score : 1037 points
Date : 2026-06-13 00:51 UTC (2 hours ago)
HTML web link (www.anthropic.com)
TEXT w3m dump (www.anthropic.com)
| recursivedoubts wrote:
| May you live in interesting times.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| Great time to remind people that this is meant to be a curse
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_ti...
| operatingthetan wrote:
| I think that's how GP meant it
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| Yeah but readers may not know it that way
|
| https://xkcd.com/1053/
| blooalien wrote:
| Hahah! I'm one of today's lucky 10,000! :)
|
| Down the rabbit-hole with me now to discover who said it
| first... LOL!
|
| (Edit: Proving to be a fruitless quest thus far. Nobody
| seems to know.)
| blooalien wrote:
| Glad I clicked that Wikipedia link! _Chinese_ curse... I 'd
| always been told it was an old Bedouin curse. Learn somethin'
| new every day (still to this day, and every new day until I
| become physically incapable of learning).
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| For years I had heard it was an Arab curse, which is partly
| why I'm sharing.
| jeanlucas wrote:
| And I got it as a Roman curse (or from Roman times). That
| is common with old sayings.
| EduardoBautista wrote:
| Well maybe now they will learn that they shouldn't overhype the
| capabilities of their models.
| cobbal wrote:
| Sadly, I suspect this will be the best piece of marketing they
| could ever hope for. "It's so advanced the government made us
| add extra security* to stop hackers!"
|
| *(ask it in a more stern voice)
| blooalien wrote:
| > * (ask it in a more stern voice)
|
| Surprisingly, I've found this works shockingly well (along
| with any plausible-sounding reason why it was wrong of the
| model to refuse) to "jailbreak" _many_ models I 've played
| with thus far. They're all just _so eager_ to please...
| nphard85 wrote:
| Will there be refund?
| songbird23 wrote:
| refund for the tokens you already spent via the API or the $200
| max that didnt really change?
| valleyer wrote:
| Refund for the subscription I started after the announcement
| of Fable.
| nphard85 wrote:
| exactly
| pixelpoet wrote:
| Already got my refund, at least that was quick.
| foxtacles wrote:
| Got a refund for the full $200 subscription
| SXX wrote:
| Finally they will pay for all the scaremongering they been doing
| to sell their models as something so much ahead of all else.
|
| Now they finally found the right fools in audience to believe it.
| EnPissant wrote:
| Pay? This is the best marketing they could have hoped for.
| SXX wrote:
| There is a chance they'll lose on some income if it takes
| longer.
|
| Unfortunately there also a possibility this what they
| intentionally wanted to try regulatory capture to get rid of
| competitors.
| platinumrad wrote:
| Anthropic has been angling for regulatory capture this
| entire time, to an even greater extent than OpenAI.
| blackqueeriroh wrote:
| Y'all really have convinced yourselves that people in the
| industry are far, far smarter than they are, and far more
| manipulative than they are.
|
| You see the state of the country and you think it's a
| nefarious master plan instead of a bunch of opportunistic
| people taking advantage of an overworked, overstimulated
| populace who forget to vote or believe stupid slogans on
| TV.
|
| Nobody is doing this intentionally. Have you not paid
| attention to how quickly idiot stuff gets found out????
| whattheheckheck wrote:
| Let's see their private journals, private conversations,
| messages to peers, all meetings and every side
| conversation, and then tell me its unintentional.
|
| Thats incredibly infuriating to hear someone say.
|
| Obviously no one is absolute control of everything but
| physics is essentially shows nothing other than
| information determinism. There has to have been a thought
| of intention in the minds of these people as they play in
| the largest arena publicly.
|
| "No one is doing it intentionally because I think theyre
| dumber then I think other people think they are"
|
| "They're taking advantage of people intentionally"
|
| "People dont have political power to do anything about
| their victory laps"
| butWhathuh wrote:
| > opportunistic people taking advantage of an overworked,
| overstimulated populace
|
| Over worked and over stimulated is the intentional method
| and means these people well aware of the neurological
| consequences rely on
| tmp10423288442 wrote:
| Anthropic in particular has been angling for regulatory
| capture (with themselves in control, of course) pretty
| explicity.
| platinumrad wrote:
| Let's leave aside the "smarter" part, since I made no
| claim to the effect and I don't think it's very relevant
| in the first place.
|
| Do you really not think that people like Elon Musk, Sam
| Altman, and Dario Amodei angle for regulatory capture? It
| happens in every other industry, from automobiles to tax
| preparation software. Why do you think that AI is any
| different?
| nl wrote:
| "It is time to go beyond transparency to more serious and
| binding regulation of AI."[1]
|
| Anthropic _is_ calling for regulation. For example they
| endorsed CA SB-53 that even OpenAI and Google thought was
| too much: https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-is-
| endorsing-sb-53
|
| They have spoken publicly about how they want open models
| banned (they call them Chinese models).
|
| They might not want this specific action, but they _do_
| want regulation on their own terms. That really is
| regulatory capture.
|
| > Nobody is doing this intentionally. Have you not paid
| attention to how quickly idiot stuff gets found out
|
| They don't think is is "idiot stuff" - they are doing it
| openly and shouting to everyone who will listen! Read
| Dario's latest essay[1]:
|
| > Many policymakers are showing increased openness to
| taking action, and it's been encouraging to see our peers
| come around to the same positions we've been advocating
| for over the past few years.
|
| [snip]
|
| > Thus, in 2025, Anthropic supported transparency
| legislation, helping to pass SB 53 in California, RAISE
| in NY, SB 315 in Illinois (in early 2026), and advocating
| for a transparency standard at the federal level.
|
| [snip]
|
| > It is time to go beyond transparency to more serious
| and binding regulation of AI.
|
| > I am grateful to see the Trump administration's
| Executive Order move incrementally towards a greater role
| for government in AI, though Anthropic's proposal
| recommends even further action.
|
| > The government should have the power to block or deter
| deployment of the model if it is determined, in light of
| third-party assessment, to present unacceptable risks.
|
| I'm not sure why you think they don't want to be "found
| out"!
| platinumrad wrote:
| > They have spoken publicly about how they want open
| models banned (they call them Chinese models).
|
| Whenever I hear some octogenarian senator babble about
| the evils of distillation I assume Amodei (or maybe
| Altman) fed them the script, word for word.
| stingraycharles wrote:
| Yup, getting Cartmanland marketing vibes here. "It's the best
| theme park ever, and you can't come!" does wonders for
| creating demand.
|
| I wouldn't the surprised if all this were actually
| orchestrated, it all seems too convenient.
| lwyrup wrote:
| Doubtful. Fable 5 is insanely good it'll sell itself. No
| need for unscrupulous advertising tactics.
|
| What is a "foreign national" is more what I'm wondering.
| Like is it a "Non-US Citizen"? Do US citizens abroad count?
| simoncion wrote:
| > What is a "foreign national" is more what I'm
| wondering.
|
| The following quoted text is from the Definitions section
| of 8 USC SS 1101, which is reproduced at [0]. (Though,
| you will probably have to scroll up a bit to be able to
| read subsection (a)(21), which is the thing I'm linking
| to.) (21) The term "national" means a
| person owing permanent allegiance to a state. (22)
| The term "national of the United States" means (A) a
| citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though
| not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent
| allegiance to the United States. (23) The term
| "naturalization" means the conferring of nationality of a
| state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
|
| From this, it's fairly clear that a "foreign national" is
| someone owing permanent allegiance to a foreign (that is,
| non-US) state. What's not immediately clear to me is
| whether a US citizen can also be a "foreign national",
| [1] and how that would affect access to things from which
| foreign nationals are barred. [2]
|
| EDIT: For a more official source of this information, you
| might be able to check out [3] and/or [4]. After
| examining and interacting with those pages, one might see
| why one might go to an unofficial source for casual
| inspection of this information.
|
| [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101#a_21
|
| [1] I think they can be.
|
| [2] I'm very uncertain.
|
| [3]
| <https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-
| prelim...>
|
| [4] <https://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title8/chapte
| r12/subc...>
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| I owe allegiance to no state. I prefer to think of myself
| as a citizen of the world.
|
| It's kind of a weird definition. I would guess most
| people's nationality is more an accident of birth than
| anything else.
| bvierra01 wrote:
| A "foreign national" is any person who is not a US
| Citizen:
|
| "The United States Department of State defines a "foreign
| national" as anyone who is not a "U.S. person." A "U.S.
| person" is any one of the following: U.S. citizen; Lawful
| permanent resident (green card holder); and "Protected
| Person" i.e. political asylum holder." [0]
|
| A foreign national is a person or organization who is not
| a citizen of the United States, and who is a citizen of a
| foreign country. The Immigration and Nationality Act
| (INA) uses the term "alien" to refer to a person who is
| not a United States citizen, and does not use the term
| "foreign national."[1]
|
| [0] https://www.orc.msstate.edu/faq/what-department-
| states-defin...
|
| [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/foreign_national
| eks391 wrote:
| Foreign national is anyone who doesn't have legally
| recognized citizenship of the USA. So citizens living
| abroad aren't barred, nor would dual citizens be.
| naturalmovement wrote:
| Brilliant analogy
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAuG7_acmdA
| hsuduebc2 wrote:
| I also do not understand this. Now they are labelled as
| precious US tech that could be not used by anyone else,
| because president heard about the jailbreaking for the first
| time I guess. With this genius logic they soon be banning GPT
| 5.5.
| p-e-w wrote:
| No it's not. A company that finds itself the target of
| potentially crippling government intervention is not an
| attractive investment.
| r-w wrote:
| It might be if all you're seeking is large-cap stocks with
| lots of volatility you can leverage that are here to stay
| for the long haul. Also, the market doesn't seem to believe
| that Trump will be in power forever.
| neuronexmachina wrote:
| Based on this, it seems like the Trump admin would have
| targeted them even without the "scaremongering":
|
| > To date, the government has only given us verbal evidence of
| a potential narrow, non-universal jailbreak, which essentially
| consists of asking the model to read a specific codebase and
| fix any software flaws. Our understanding is that one potential
| jailbreak was shared with the government. We have reviewed the
| report and validated that the level of capability displayed
| there is widely available from other models (including OpenAI's
| GPT-5.5), and is used every day by the defenders who keep
| systems safe.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| > the level of capability displayed there is widely available
| from other models
|
| Is this Dario leveraging it into a ban on open models?
| PlasmaPower wrote:
| No, he specifically gave a proprietary OpenAI model as an
| example (unless you meant OpenAI models instead of open
| source models)
| ceejayoz wrote:
| That's a safe assumption, considering they tried it a few
| months back too.
|
| https://www.npr.org/2026/03/09/nx-s1-5742548/anthropic-
| penta...
| Eridrus wrote:
| The difference between OpenAI & Anthropic is that OpenAI
| didn't do multiple big media pushes about how their models
| are so scary and dangerous.
|
| OpenAI's models are very good, they have refusals + a
| government ID verification story for cyber access (I don't
| think they prevent non-US nationals, but I don't know this).
| What they don't have is Project Glasswing and all the hand
| wringing about how they're going to end the world in public.
|
| I hope Anthropic pulls their head out of their ass and just
| starts acting like a normal company.
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| OpenAI did this back in 2024 several times.
| optimalsolver wrote:
| Would be funny if they got themselves nationalized.
|
| I mean, better safe than sorry, right Dario?
| p-e-w wrote:
| No way the US is going to nationalize a tech company
| regardless of what happens. The exodus of capital would be
| unimaginable.
| vmg12 wrote:
| The CEO of Anthropic himself has said AI is like a nuclear
| bomb when justifying export controls on Nvidia chips. How
| many private companies control nuclear bombs?
| lovich wrote:
| They took 10% of Intel and the only reaction was my stocks
| increasing in value 5x.
| oskarkk wrote:
| Taking a 10% stake in a company is far from
| nationalization. And the big increase in Intel's stock
| price happened months after that.
| dofm wrote:
| It is literally partially nationalising though, isn't it?
|
| This is how the UK government got the banks through the
| 2008 financial crisis.
| ls612 wrote:
| They bought the shares on the open market. They didn't
| seize the company at gunpoint.
| lovich wrote:
| Taking any % is partially nationalizing it and there was
| no negative capital flight. And 10% is a pretty
| significant portion.
| blooalien wrote:
| > "No way the US is going to nationalize a tech company
| regardless of what happens. The exodus of capital would be
| unimaginable."
|
| You simply _cannot_ apply _any_ sort of actual logic to the
| reasoning of the current U.S. government 's actions... They
| just "do stuff" because they _feel_ like it, with no clear
| thought whatsoever of any potential consequences that may
| occur.
| csto12 wrote:
| > "No way the US is going to tariff the entire world
| regardless of what happens. The exodus of capital would
| be unimaginable."
| dofm wrote:
| Trump has already (with Altman directly egging him on)
| talked about the US taking a share in (i.e. partially
| nationalising) the AI companies. Has he not called a
| meeting about this next week?
| nl wrote:
| > Trump says his team will 'look into' US taking stake in
| AI companies[1]
|
| Yes, there is a gap between "taking a stake" and
| nationalizing one, but..
|
| [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/trump-says-his-team-
| will-lo...
| rvz wrote:
| This is what Anthropic wanted and they want this to apply to
| all other frontier models providers (including themselves) that
| release powerful models.
|
| > As we have stated publicly, we believe the government should
| have the ability to block unsafe deployments, as part of a
| statutory process that is transparent, fair, clear, and
| grounded in technical facts. This action does not adhere to
| those principles.
|
| They ultimately got what they wanted.
| bayarearefugee wrote:
| > They ultimately got what they wanted.
|
| They got what they claim they wanted for PR purposes. Like
| when a billionaire says they should be taxed more, or when
| Sam Altman says the public should get some of that AI wealth.
|
| But they never thought it would actually happen.
|
| Oops.
| trunnell wrote:
| > They ultimately got what they wanted.
|
| No, it's not what they wanted. As it says in your quote, they
| wanted "a statutory process that is transparent, fair, clear,
| and grounded in technical facts. _This action does not adhere
| to those principles._ "
| rvz wrote:
| Actually, they got _even more_ than what they wanted:
|
| * Free marketing before the IPO, demonstrating how already
| powerful their frontier models are.
|
| * Governments to intervene in the rollout of these frontier
| models and blocking their access to whoever they want.
|
| * A strong reason to apply these further restrictions onto
| releasing powerful open weight models to the public. (which
| is entirely a business threat to them.)
|
| Given that they accepted funding from the Gulf states [0]
| despite it conflicting with their own "principles", I think
| we are well beyond the point of what _they_ write / say vs
| to what they are actually doing at this point.
|
| This drama just tells us that the government declared them
| as the winner that has the most powerful model.
|
| [0] https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/anthropic-
| to-seek...
| theptip wrote:
| This is nonsense. What Anthropic have been campaigning for,
| since the beginning, is a principled rule-based audit of
| model releases.
|
| Now we are getting reactive, arbitrary and capricious
| enforcement; rules rushed out the door; classified evals. The
| worst of both worlds.
| SilverElfin wrote:
| Yep and they also want to only exempt models below some level
| of compute or capability from this process. In other words,
| if an open model ends up being competitive, they'll use
| regulations to ban it.
| greatgib wrote:
| I would more easily guess that it is a revenge of Trump for
| Anthropic humiliating him when he wanted to use it without
| control for military purpose. And indeed it used against them
| their own marketing allegations.
| penteract wrote:
| Note that the US military is almost the only customer that
| Fable and Mythos could safely be sold to while complying with
| this directive.
| staticvar wrote:
| Maybe revenge, but it's a common play to fire a shot across
| the bow to create leverage in other areas.
| scriptsmith wrote:
| And now is this going to be a one-off, or routine with every
| new generation of models?
| karmasimida wrote:
| Every. There is no reason the government will let go the
| power it has obtained, that is never how it works
| neuronexmachina wrote:
| Is there any reason they couldn't also apply export-control
| to older models, just to screw with Anthropic?
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| You call it scare-mongering. Others, serious thinkers and
| leaders in the AI and national security space, believe, maybe
| not scare-mongering enough.
|
| AI is a national security issue. Best accept that as fact, or
| you won't see it coming.
| yogthos wrote:
| Nobody with even a modicum of understanding of how LLMs work
| believes any of this. These 'serious thinkers' are just
| grifters preying on the feeble minded.
| mmh0000 wrote:
| Yeah, LLMs are a national security issue on par with
| spellcheck.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| LLMs are piloting EM-proof kamakazi drones and destroying
| logistics networks today.
| ygjb wrote:
| Shh...you'll burst the bubble of the folks who think that
| LLMs are toy stochastic parrots...
| mmh0000 wrote:
| And gps guided missiles were doing that since the 80s.
| Humans are already really good at killing each other.
| Yeah it sucks the tech will be used for that.
|
| But it changes little.
| kaibee wrote:
| iirc consumer grade GPS chips purposely become less
| accurate if they find themselves moving at high speed.
| zingababba wrote:
| Right now it's basically this easy: 1. apex domain 2. ???? 3.
| critical PII exposure
|
| There is /so/ much stuff on the internet that just needed
| someone to spend enough time on it.
| karmasimida wrote:
| Anthropic and US Government, there can be only one right in
| this situation.
|
| I think David Sacks is right, if you are saying you are
| building nuclear bombs, then prepared to be regulated like
| one.
|
| There is no eating it while having it
| LPisGood wrote:
| I agree completely. If these things are so dangerous that
| they turn every person into an advanced persistent thread
| actor, capable of causing untold cyber destruction (oh, and
| they can make bio weapons etc), then they should be treated
| like the weapons they are.
| Freedom2 wrote:
| Can you share any of these serious thinkers?
| avaer wrote:
| This affects more than just Anthropic. It's a game of thrones
| and everyone using this technology loses. I wouldn't cheer for
| that.
| ignoramous wrote:
| > _It 's a game of thrones and everyone using this technology
| loses_
|
| Everyone? There's worlds outside of the United States
| government overreach.
| panny wrote:
| >everyone using this technology loses
|
| As someone not using the technology, I'm fine with that :)
| Intellectual property laundering was never a good thing. Glad
| we can begone with it.
| avaer wrote:
| This doesn't help; customers will switch to a different
| model.
|
| It just means the government decides who gets to profit off
| of laundered IP, which is arguably even worse.
| panny wrote:
| I'm pretty sure it's the people paying for it that decide
| who profits off it.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Intellectual property is not a good thing.
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| [delayed]
| ks2048 wrote:
| It appears to affect only the companies that Trump decides it
| should affect.
| goatlover wrote:
| When did conservatives abandon the free market?
| gmoore wrote:
| when has the market ever been free?
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| An hour ago?
| ks2048 wrote:
| A completely "free" market is likely incoherent, but
| under normal terms - probably degrading since the 1970s.
| And very predictable if wealth can buy you power to
| change the system.
| girvo wrote:
| Immediately. It's always been a smokescreen, and markets
| have never been truly free. Thumbs on scale, at all
| times.
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| Trump doesn't actually stand for basically a single
| conservative value outside of immigration and somehow
| he's eaten the entire party
| andix wrote:
| When they turned into an authoritarian movement.
| bandrami wrote:
| In the 2016 primary. Trump was _always_ fiscally
| heterodox to the old GOP.
| edoceo wrote:
| I frequently see references to Regan and the ATC strike-
| busting. Can't tell if it's THE turning point but, it is
| a significant turn.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Just like "rule of law" and "family values", "the troops"
| and some other stuff, free markets were never something
| they really care about.
|
| The reality of Republican free markets were about
| compounding and growing big business and resource
| extraction at the expense of everyone else.
|
| The rest is all about convincing suckers that getting
| kicked in the balls is good for them. The most obvious
| example being farmers. Most aspects of agriculture have
| been consolidated into oblivion and the markets are not
| super functional. 80% of the dairy operations in my state
| are out of business. 60 companies dominate eggs in the US
| - there used to be 3 in my city.
| cyberax wrote:
| They never wanted the free market. They wanted an
| _unregulated_ market. There's a difference.
| maplethorpe wrote:
| This is good PR for them. They get to tweet about how scary and
| powerful their models are in the lead up to their IPO.
| karmasimida wrote:
| Incorrect. Heavy government regulation means it is limited
| how they can sell this model and to whom.
| chrismsimpson wrote:
| Cratering their user base outside of the US is hardly going
| to be good for their IPO.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| This is just a case of not greasing the right palms. Some
| contributions will be made and this goes away.
| palisade wrote:
| You're mistaken, this is a cratering of the userbase inside
| and outside of the US. The ban is on any foreigner whether
| abroad or living in the USA, so Anthropic has no choice but
| to completely shut down access to the model for the whole
| world including the US.
|
| Their IPO is well and truly fucked now. This also means no
| other frontier lab in the US is allowed to exceed Opus 4.8
| capabilities.
|
| If you're a luddite or a decel you should literally be
| dancing in the streets right now. And, if you're a tankie
| you'll be dancing right next to them. And, if you were
| hoping for a Star Trek-like future, you just adjusted your
| timeline for the worse.
| mahkeiro wrote:
| It mainly shows that this is another US companies that cannot
| be trusted by anyone outside of the US because of the US
| government.
| avaer wrote:
| They've already been labeled a "supply chain risk". Probably
| not a good idea to upset the regulators more. Maybe tomorrow
| Opus will be declared too dangerous for the public.
| ks2048 wrote:
| It would be if it was rationally tied to the strength of the
| model. More likely, it's simply the government deciding who
| can compete.
| dpkirchner wrote:
| "Our models are so good the government decides whether or you
| get access -- so you better not depend on them!"
| andix wrote:
| This just made any closed LLM a huge supply chain risk.
| Everybody was aware of this possibility, but now it actually
| happened. It's like having nuclear weapons vs. firing a
| nuclear weapon.
|
| Especially outside the US customers are going to be very
| hesitant to keep adopting LLMs from US companies.
| alephnerd wrote:
| > Especially outside the US customers are going to be very
| hesitant to keep adopting LLMs from US companies.
|
| Not really. There aren't any other choices, and the PRC
| also heavily utilizes export controls [0].
|
| This is why sovereign AI has become important, as can be
| seen with EU NatSec uses cases tending to use Mistral [1]
| and Indian governments starting to use Sarvam [2].
|
| That said, for most commercial usecases, older generations
| of Opus as well as enterprise grade GPT and Gemini are
| fairly good.
|
| The distilled OSS models are alright for hobbyists but if
| you have actually used unrestricted and enterprise grade
| versions of Claude, Mythos, GPT, and Gemini (most hobbyists
| don't get access to these) you see how far behind the open
| weight models are.
|
| Even in China, traditionally open minded models teams like
| Alibaba's Qwen are looking to become more restricted given
| the org changes [3].
|
| [0] -
| https://www.allbrightlaw.com/EN/10475/f9d4055e47e81afb.aspx
|
| [1] - https://www.reuters.com/business/media-
| telecom/mistral-defen...
|
| [2] - https://www.sarvam.ai/blogs/partnerships-with-indian-
| states
|
| [3] - https://www.ft.com/content/b39da303-3188-447b-8b65-3d
| d8dad8b...
| andix wrote:
| > There aren't any other choices
|
| This might be the trigger for creating other choices. Not
| within a month, but things can change quickly.
| alephnerd wrote:
| The issue is compute is constraint and export controlled,
| as is even knowhow in model training.
|
| Edit: Can't reply
|
| > Time to build fabs back in the states
|
| We are and did. The Intel and TSMC fabs have already
| started 2nm fabrication.
| bushido wrote:
| Compute was constrained. There is a lot happening,
| especially with chinese chips which currently points to a
| massive upcoming increase in non-US capacity.
|
| ex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ekndZwyOzo
| alephnerd wrote:
| They are export controlled in most cases as well.
|
| Also, the EU, Japan, SK, ASEAN, and India are not
| supportive of using Chinese tech after China export
| controlled rare earth exports last years [0].
|
| Software supply chain regulations also make utilizing
| Chinese software risky for ExChina players and make using
| ExChina tech risky for Chinese players.
|
| Expect to see RFCs now demanding visibility into what
| models are used and right of refusal - this is already
| the norm in F1000s. Similar ones are likely to arise in
| the EU as well with some of the upcoming industrial
| policy changes being proposed.
|
| [0] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-is-
| making-it-harde...
| tim-projects wrote:
| I randomly received an email from chatgpt saying my
| account was suspended. I appealed it and got it back - I
| hadn't used it in months.
|
| But this has left a sour taste in my mouth. What if I
| relied on it for mission critical business processes?
|
| This is potentially far worse than say a gmail account
| going down. It's the stuff of nightmare fuel.
|
| Not having an alternative is a massive risk for any
| business.
| huntertwo wrote:
| Not sure if this is true - I've been using mimo and it's
| great
| jchw wrote:
| > The PRC also heavily utilizes export controls
|
| Matters not for open weight models, no?
|
| > if you have actually used unrestricted and enterprise
| grade versions of Claude, Mythos, GPT, and Gemini you see
| how far behind the open weight models are.
|
| I really do feel like DeepSeek V4 Pro is often better
| than current Sonnet is, in the general case.
|
| Opus 4.7 is a solid step above Sonnet, and Fable was a
| solid step above Opus 4.7. I've only had Fable for a few
| days, obviously, but I was decently impressed after Opus
| 4.8 being a downright disappointment for me (it's just
| too buggy; I had it go out of control 3 separate times on
| things Opus 4.7 never had any trouble with.) I still ran
| into limitations. It's not world-endingly great.
|
| So, based on that, I think DeepSeek V4 Pro is, ignoring
| multi-modal capabilities, about a couple solid steps
| behind. Assuming model iteration will continue to
| decelerate, especially as Anthropic heads into IPO, I'm
| guessing that DeepSeek will probably be able to strike
| back with something further along. Of course we'll see
| how able and willing they are to stay open weight, but
| they've done well so far so, no reason to doubt them at
| the moment.
|
| (There are some models that claim to be ahead of DeepSeek
| V4 Pro. I've tried some of them and really not been
| _that_ impressed. Maybe it 's a me issue.)
|
| Now I reckon that most people just simply don't really
| need Mythos/Fable for most of what they do and using
| Mythos/Fable tokens in place of Sonnet-tier models would
| not make any sense. At my job we already mostly just use
| Sonnet as it is. I'm sure there is some cutting-edge
| research where you want the absolute best model available
| and sure, in that case, you're stuck with Anthropic for
| the moment.
|
| But is that _really_ everyone? After all, while Mythos
| was dominating the hype cycles, quite a lot of impressive
| LLM-assisted CVEs dropped that were _not_ linked to
| Mythos.
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| it may be really good pr, but it's really bad for their IPO.
| If their market for future models is usa only, their
| potential revenue is cut by 50% at least. (and it's even
| worse because it means Europe, India, and China will all have
| companies making their own models that anthropic needs to
| stay ahead of)
| idiotsecant wrote:
| And they don't have to actually serve expensive model compute
| _and_ this all goes away once they contribute to the right
| charitable organizations and patriotic causes funneling money
| to the right people.
|
| This is quite clearly corporate capture of the white house by
| a competitor influencing policy, but it's hard to imagine
| something that plays more into anthropic's hand. They now own
| the model that was so good the US government made them shut
| it off.
| philip1209 wrote:
| "Not a commodity"
| Salgat wrote:
| It also signals that Anthropic is a bad choice if you need
| stable access to their product outside the US.
| taytus wrote:
| I think it's the opposite. Who would want to buy shares in a
| company that's been flagged as a supply chain risk?
| bluerooibos wrote:
| Probably a marketing ploy. Inflate the value even more before
| an IPO, and Daddy Trump and his friends make a few $$$.
|
| It'll be "resolved" within a few days.
| hollerith wrote:
| Was WWII a marketing ploy to inflate the value of German and
| Japanese stocks?
| holmesworcester wrote:
| The idea that AI companies scaremonger to sell models is a
| silly meme.
|
| Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely
| believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence. This
| is part of a clear historical record that is available for
| anyone to Google. Whether you agree or not, we have no reason
| to believe their statements about risks are insincere.
|
| Arbitrary imposition of export controls is also part of the
| history of frontier tech. See:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
| SilverElfin wrote:
| Yes we do. Dario said GPT2 is too dangerous to release. He's
| dishonest since that's obviously not true. This theater is
| about holding onto power and control. And about limiting
| competition.
| tayo42 wrote:
| It was about spam and scam generation which mostly was true
| as we can see...
| mkagenius wrote:
| Yes it is funnily true but it was for fake news generation
| and not it's cyber capabilities.
|
| Another fun little gem of information, government has
| something called Mayhem
|
| > the autonomous Robo-Hacker AI called Mayhem that's now in
| charge of protecting the Pentagon's most critical systems
|
| Guess Mythos and Mayhem had a chat
| diab0lic wrote:
| "OpenAI's CEO says he's scared of GPT-5"
|
| https://www.techradar.com/ai-platforms-
| assistants/chatgpt/op...
|
| Marketing or actual fear? We've got 5 and 5.5 out now... he
| compared 5 to the Manhattan project. AI may one day be an
| economic Manhattan project but GPT 5 wasn't it.
|
| It's a meme because they overdo it.
| thereitgoes456 wrote:
| Sam Altman is not one of those people. But other founders
| certainly felt that way.
| ifwinterco wrote:
| Sam Altman doesn't really know all that much about LLMs,
| he's a sales/marketing guy, not technical.
|
| So it doesn't really matter what he thinks
| epohs wrote:
| Except for the uncomfortable fact that he controls the
| salary and job status of the people who do know much
| about LLMs.
| AbstractH24 wrote:
| Those are the folks who run the industry
| Davidzheng wrote:
| At some intelligence capability there can be catastrophic
| risk, the fact that we don't yet have any catastrophe
| doesn't mean the risk wasn't real. It's similar to new
| viruses which don't lead to outbreaks, the correct takeaway
| isn't "oh you were insane to panic bc nothing happened".
| There is small risk (and increasing) of huge harms with
| each improvement
| orionsbelt wrote:
| Did you watch the linked video: https://www.reddit.com/r/Ch
| atGPT/comments/1mbafk7/openai_ceo...
|
| It all sounds pretty accurate and reasonable to me if you
| watch it.
| nickpsecurity wrote:
| It's not. I got articles this year in my feed citing heads of
| OpenAI and Anthropic about the threat of AI and how they're
| addressing it.
| legitster wrote:
| It can be both.
|
| The amount of self-confidence and belief it takes to get a
| company through the funding rounds and burn through borrowed
| money to rise to the top requires an absurd amount of self-
| delusion.
| bbg2401 wrote:
| Sincerity does not determine whether an individual is
| scaremongering.
| rmwaite wrote:
| I mean it kinda does.
| johncolanduoni wrote:
| We can argue over the definition of scaremongering and what
| people we've never met "really think", or we can argue over
| what the actual risks of AI are. I know which one I'd
| prefer...
| eli wrote:
| How do you know what the founders sincerely believe?
| johncolanduoni wrote:
| They said why they think it's a sincere belief: past
| statements from before the AI hype cycle took off. I take
| it you have other evidence?
| jplusequalt wrote:
| Things can change, and if you know pushing the
| metaphorical red button brings your company more
| attention, then you press that button everytime.
| ulfw wrote:
| So if I claim I am a communist who doesn't want to ever
| get rich and then someone dangles a billion shiny dollars
| in front of me to just simply grab and own, you think I'd
| still be a communist then?
| root_axis wrote:
| > _Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who
| sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control
| superintelligence._
|
| They don't. LLMs can never become out-of-control
| superintelligence and everyone working on LLMs knows this
| (with a few eccentric exceptions).
| hollerith wrote:
| "LLMs can never become out-of-control superintelligence"
| might be relevant if there weren't many hundreds of
| researchers working (at OpenAI, Anthropic and elsewhere) on
| AI designs not based on the transformer (LLM) architecture.
| bawolff wrote:
| There is a huge difference between the company founder saying
| something like that and the us government saying so.
|
| "Our product is so good the US had to make it illegal for
| foreigners" is a hell of a marketing slogan.
| z3c0 wrote:
| I mean this earnestly: is this copy?
| jernestomg wrote:
| People don't get that big labs actively want government
| regulation, not because they are genuinely concerned about AI
| misalignment. But because it is the 101 in how to achieve and
| crystalize oligopoly. What they want is "only the government
| and the big guys can work on AI", for the rest of us it would
| be illegal.
| platinumrad wrote:
| And they want Americans to be locked into paying 50 dollars
| per 1 million output tokens.
| slopranker wrote:
| Not only that, they know that the real enemy of big Labs
| is not china is "home gpu/tpu" improvements. Without
| government intervention in a couple of years everyone
| could have their own fable like model at home. But of
| course that big labs and government will not allow it
| never
| tadfisher wrote:
| Obviously their statements are insincere, because they are
| building the bloody things. If they were sincere that AI is
| like nuclear weapons, then they would be devoting all their
| cash and energy into lobbying the government to nationalize
| them and treat AI like nuclear weapons. They would not be
| attempting to IPO and they for sure would not sell their
| weapon-like thing to the general public.
| ulfw wrote:
| >> Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who
| sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control
| superintelligence.
|
| Oh please. Do people really believe this or shit like "Don't
| do evil". Companies get founded by all kind of people and
| ideals. They all go out the window quickly.
|
| Why are they both rushing to IPO now then?
| bag_boy wrote:
| Some people do. Read the extropian newsletters from the
| 90s.
| avaer wrote:
| > we have no reason to believe their statements about risks
| are insincere
|
| GPT-2 was too dangerous to be released.
|
| We can argue about sincerity, but I don't think we can argue
| about utter historical incompetence in assessing the risks.
| It's one or the other.
|
| Either way the evidence seems to indicate we should not
| listen to AI companies about the risks of AI. Which is not to
| say that there aren't risks, just that the dealer is the
| least credible review.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| GPT-2 was absolutely too dangerous to release at the time
| OpenAI made that statement. It's only safe now because the
| specific risks they cited were dependent on the public's
| lack of knowledge that such systems existed.
| smolder wrote:
| You're saying "this is normal" without making an argument
| that it's sensible.
| 0000000000100 wrote:
| Are you kidding man? Have you tried the new model for coding?
| It's absolutely incredible. After using it, I really see why
| they were so concerned. The jump in my workflows feels as large
| as the jump from 3.5 to 4o (OpenAI). It's just that good.
|
| Issues I'd been kinda circling around for weeks, long standing
| errors in some long-running sync operations for a project I'm
| working on, all solved the same day the model dropped. Just
| incredible. And it's effectively a lot more token efficient I
| find as well (less so with sub-agents). Just areas where Opus
| 4.8 would occassionally get confused or venture down the wrong
| direction, just doesn't happen nearly as much as with Fable 5.
|
| Like what is everyone who is dissing on this model / Anthropic
| using day to day? For me it's just an incredible jump in
| intelligence. So much so and so quickly after the modest bump
| from 4.8, that I really can understand why they are starting to
| shout warnings.
| cyberax wrote:
| I did not see that?
|
| It's way more _proactive_ than the old models, sometimes in
| ways it shouldn't really be proactive. But it produces _more_
| slop than 4.8, and I have not seen any real breakthroughs
| from it.
|
| Edit: to give an example, I'm working on integrating a self-
| hosting auth provider into our app. So I gave it a prompt to
| create a "bootstrap" script that would create pre-configured
| settings for the local installation.
|
| Fable did it. And then proceeded (unprompted) to test it by
| killing the running server, removing the database, re-
| initializing and (trying) to verify that the bootstrap
| produced identical results.
|
| Well, yeah. Great. I can see how this "bias for action" works
| for security research and one-shot projects, not so sure
| about regular development.
|
| I just tried that with Opus, and it produced a similar
| bootstrap script but did not start the test by itself.
| internet101010 wrote:
| It's a huge jump across the board. I was really impressed
| with its ability to test usability in Claude for Chrome. Very
| opinionated but in a good way. It was good while it lasted.
| pluralmonad wrote:
| They obviously want heavy regulation to make sure they do not
| have to compete long term. This is all just part of the base
| strategy.
| bbor wrote:
| They never claimed to be "so much ahead", they just claimed to
| be honest.
| airstrike wrote:
| Which, to be clear, does not mean they are actually honest.
| Salgat wrote:
| It's ironic isn't it? All the marketing of how dangerous and
| powerful Mythos is and the government went "bet".
| ifwinterco wrote:
| Yeah is funny anthropic going overboard with "omg this model is
| so dangerous guys!!!" and then the US government going "okay...
| well, that sounds bad, let's ban it".
|
| Serves them right
| averysmallbird wrote:
| This is OpenAI and Meta using their leverage over the White
| House to screw over their competitor.
| chrismsimpson wrote:
| My agitating prayer is that other nations (even so called US
| allies) will nationalise what they can (ie model weights already
| deployed within their jurisdictions). This is the only way to
| respond to a rogue US administration.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _other nations will nationalise what they can_
|
| The only other relevant players are France and China.
| chrismsimpson wrote:
| Anyone with these model weights deployed in their territory
| has this tool in their arsenal.
| xpct wrote:
| I've actually not thought about deployments in remote
| jurisdictions that much. I also don't think the models are
| dangerous enough to warrant it, but do you reckon the big labs
| have plans thought out for deleting remote model copies, such
| that they couldn't be scrubbed off cold NVMEs?
| tehjoker wrote:
| If I read that right, the "jailbreak" is to ask the model to fix
| the codebase and then it exposes the flaws? That sounds like a
| gap that is nearly impossible to fix while retaining high
| capability. Like you want it to be able to fix your codebase...
| arplynn wrote:
| US Government does bizarre, erratic thing which will likely be
| walked back shortly. Spectators nonplussed. Film at 11.
|
| Europe really needs to get some useful sovereign capability and
| right quick.
| operatingthetan wrote:
| >which will likely be walked back shortly.
|
| Well you said it yourself they are erratic, so maybe?
| cofdof wrote:
| EU Commission's mass surveillance agenda makes it impossible
| for me to trust EU-based companies. Mandatory age checks, long-
| term metadata storage, chat control, forced backdoors in
| devices, the list goes on. Hell, legally operating secure phone
| companies are being hacked and shut down on a regular basis.
| I'd put money on the fact that funneling all LLM requests
| through EU Commission-approved filters will become a reality.
|
| Yes, the US is pretty fucking corrupted right now, but I prefer
| its erratic, inept form to a silent, more competent authority
| that quietly consolidates power and control and implements
| surveillance without public debate.
| Levitz wrote:
| I'm confused, this just happened recent no? Why does the date
| read "Jun 11, 2026" ?
| wewewedxfgdf wrote:
| I guess if the CEO goes running around saying his own product is
| a pending mega disaster for society.......
|
| I'm glad I don't own stock in a public Anthropic.
| SXX wrote:
| Thinking of it unfortunately there is good chance it exactly
| what they want for regulatory capture.
| jordemort wrote:
| Nothing but the highest quality drama and theater from Anthropic,
| as always
| estearum wrote:
| Ah yes, the US government forcing private companies to stop
| selling their products is totally a sign of Anthropic's drama
| and not our paranoiac fascist regime.
| platinumrad wrote:
| It's both.
| this_user wrote:
| Anthropic spent months going on about how incredibly powerful
| and dangerous their models are and how access to them needs
| to be restricted. Now they are getting what they seemingly
| wanted.
| estearum wrote:
| Clearly they've assessed that the models they released are
| safe enough to release. Without a clear regulatory
| framework and Constitutional basis to overrule them, that
| is _Anthropic 's_ decision to make, and not the US
| government's.
|
| It's disheartening how many people think the use of
| government power is justified or not based on the WWE
| smackdown drama they concoct in their own brain instead of,
| you know, the laws of our nation.
|
| It is very dangerous for the government to be able to shut
| off services, regardless of whether their owners wrote some
| blog posts that rubbed you the wrong way.
| quasarsunnix wrote:
| You fear monger and tell everyone you're the next
| Oppenheimer and maybe you eventually catch someone's ear,
| whether it's bullshit or not.
|
| Last I checked I can't buy a tactical nuke at Walmart.
| Clearly the government and all states have some power to
| control private enterprise for the betterment of their
| citizenry.
|
| For the record I don't support this ban, but you cry wolf
| as a marketing tactic and this is what you get...
| ianm218 wrote:
| So should we have more people behaving like Sam Altman and
| just lying about existential risks and anything else?
| enraged_camel wrote:
| Their claims about Mythos being powerful were corroborated
| by companies that were given access to it.
| xp84 wrote:
| Was Bill Clinton fascist when 128-bit SSL was on export
| controls? Can't government be simply bad or dumb anymore
| without having to slap the "F" word on it?
|
| We're gonna apply it to so many things it'll have lost its
| meaning soon.
| estearum wrote:
| Imagine thinking a person's political philosophy could be
| determined or disproven by a singular datapoint lmao
|
| Everyone who has touched currency is a capitalist, everyone
| who has paid taxes is a commie, everyone who has regulated
| a technology is a fascist
|
| Or perhaps... one must look at the full fact pattern of a
| person's behavior to approximate (and always imperfectly!)
| their political philosophy.
|
| Hilarious
| frogperson wrote:
| You may want to review the 14 points of fascism.
|
| https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html
| SamLL wrote:
| Hello. I live in St. Paul, Minnesota. In January of this
| year my city was under hostile armed occupation. I
| volunteered for weeks packing boxes of food for people who
| were afraid to leave their houses because the masked secret
| police were ripping people off the streets with little
| regard for legality. Two of my neighbors were murdered by
| the secret police; a hundred of us sang hymns outside the
| local elementary school in 20 below weather. One of those
| murdered was my friend's coworker. The secret police agency
| has so far successfully opposed any attempt to bring the
| murderers to justice, and indeed was trying to bring legal
| charges against the families of the murder victims.
|
| Which 'F' word do you think is appropriate to describe all
| this? Or has meaning already been lost?
| charcircuit wrote:
| Fear. Fear can make people act irrationally and cloud
| one's understanding of the lawful actions taking place
| around them.
| nearlyepic wrote:
| Lawful doesn't mean right. Slavery was lawful.
| yoyohello13 wrote:
| I guess anything is ok... as long as it's 'lawful'
| mindslight wrote:
| Thank you for your service.
| hgoel wrote:
| Well, there go any such claims of dangerousness in future models,
| regardless of if they are true or false.
|
| No one's going to risk building anything important on these
| models if the government will randomly order the use of the model
| to be discontinued by all foreigners, regardless of if they are
| in the US or not. Just a matter of a foreign company catching up
| to take the commercial market for such models (though, as the US
| often does, they'll ban the competitor, so actually we'll have a
| situation where the backend uses a different model in only the
| US).
| neuronexmachina wrote:
| From reading the post, I think it's more likely that anti-
| jailbreaking is going to become _much_ more strict and prone to
| false-positives.
|
| > We received the directive from the government today at 5:21pm
| (ET). The letter did not provide specific details of its
| national security concern. Our understanding is that the
| government believes it has become aware of a method of
| bypassing, or "jailbreaking" Fable 5. We reviewed a
| demonstration of this specific technique being used to identify
| a small number of previously known, minor vulnerabilities.
| These vulnerabilities all appear relatively simple, and we have
| found that other publicly-available models are able to discover
| them as well without requiring a bypass.
| hgoel wrote:
| But no matter how conservative they make the anti-
| jailbreaking, the risk doesn't go away. There are so many
| logic "holes" that are ambiguous and can blur the line
| between a jailbreak and legitimate use.
|
| If every time a jailbreak is discovered, the model has to be
| turned off and jailbreak prevention updated, the effect will
| be the same regarding how willing users are to adopt it.
| stevarino wrote:
| Also this falls into the "right to bear arms" thing: if
| LLMs are limited legally, then illegal LLMs will be the
| superior choice. This is pretty much the plot of
| Cryptonomicon and Corey's take on I, Robot
| chatmasta wrote:
| Anti-jailbreaking and passport verified access to model
| families.
| EgregiousCube wrote:
| I mean, lots of Americans would risk building something
| important with it in that case.
| hgoel wrote:
| With how much foreign talent is involved in the tech world?
| convolvatron wrote:
| its establishing a bifurcation in the tech workforce at
| private companies into citizens and 'foreign nationals' for
| security reasons. that's not a very pretty precedent.
| pretty destructive given the pervasiveness of international
| workers in us tech. its just going to encourage
| organizations outside the US to further develop their own
| training methodologies and models.
|
| this cleaving of the us from good relations with other
| people is sold as a consolidation of strength. Made from a
| position of baseless hypernationalism, its just going to
| make the US much less relevant on the world stage.
| blurbleblurble wrote:
| Yes, it's actually a consolidation of weakness
| dboreham wrote:
| Americans didn't build the current AI tech.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| I think it's more like "there goes the semiconductor boom
| predicated on monetization of ever larger models." Once the IS
| government acts out of capricious fiat because a model becomes
| "too good" and they demonetize it, the entire shell game
| collapses. It's times like these, with oil scarcity planet
| wide, fertilizer scarcity, and now ham fisted meddling in the
| bubbles expansion, we can be thankful we have an octogenarian
| senile stable genius with twenty two specialist doctors and a
| disdain for the rule of law at the wheel!
| hgoel wrote:
| The thought that this would also destabilize the AI bubble
| did come to mind, but the current government loves to crash
| the market on Fridays, only to backpeddle on Mondays.
|
| A related thought though, the AI boom is predicated on the
| idea that everyone's going to want or need all this "mass
| produced" intelligence. But what happens to that when you go
| from being able to claim to have a total market size of ~8B
| people, to ~400M peoole? I think the reason to push ahead at
| any cost evaporates.
| stevarino wrote:
| It's honestly not the worst strategy: make the dangerous
| move when you have the most tolerance, and then everyone
| can figure stuff out and make the landing on Sunday.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Options and futures don't wait and a lot of stuff trades
| 24x7. You can do your puts right now, and banks and
| market makers will meet you now if you're big enough. The
| landing for Main Street will be more of a horrible
| traffic accident that happened days ago and they just
| woke up in the flaming wreck of their financial life.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| There's no back peddle once you've demonetized by fiat for
| being too big. Once you doo it you prove you will do it
| again for the very reason the bubble is inflating. It's a
| binary one way door and it's already happened. It's like
| killing the supreme leaders entire family and maiming him
| and expecting he will be happy to meet with you, that ship
| has sailed and magical thinking won't undue the incredible
| atrocity you visited on him - you've created a mortal enemy
| for all time. This is an administration of mental gnats.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| Agreed. The timing here is interesting as well. 5:21PM ET on
| a Friday. Like they know this could roil markets and they're
| trying to buffer that a bit (and maybe they're really hoping
| this deal with Iran is actually real this time and figure
| that will help offset the effects?)
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| 39 times is the charm I guess?
| swingboy wrote:
| The Trump administration would never do anything to
| manipulate the markets. /s
| consumer451 wrote:
| > The US government, citing national security authorities, has
| issued an export control directive to suspend all access to Fable
| 5 and Mythos 5 by any foreign national, whether inside or outside
| the United States, including foreign national Anthropic
| employees. _The net effect of this order is that we must abruptly
| disable Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all our customers to ensure
| compliance._
|
| How will this be implemented/verified? Also, does this mean that
| American citizens abroad will still be able to access it?
| wrs wrote:
| It can't be; that's why they shut it off for everybody.
| axus wrote:
| Except for the US Government.
|
| We can cancel all those data center plans, won't need them
| anymore.
| DANmode wrote:
| > we must abruptly disable Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all our
| customers
|
| What's not clear?
| consumer451 wrote:
| Oh, I just re-read it. I guess the first time my mind somehow
| implied "while we figure out how to comply..."
| pizzly wrote:
| Easy. Provide your government issued ID such as US passport
| before signing up to an AI provider. Issue fines or jail time
| to anyone who supplies their AI access to a foreign citizen
| Sanzig wrote:
| It'll depend on what law they're restricting it under. The
| obvious play would be to put it on the Commerce Control List so
| it's covered by the EAR (Export Administration Regulations). If
| so, compliance is pretty well-understood, just a giant pain in
| the ass that'll pretty much limit use of these models to
| companies that already have EAR/ITAR compliance offices.
| rvz wrote:
| So the US government was able to shut down that upgraded version
| of that slot machine in Anthropic's casino because of how
| powerful it is?
|
| There is something called the Streisand effect and they are about
| to unintentionally get a bunch of more token gamblers into their
| casino.
|
| We'll see if this backfires hard, but then again constant
| doomsaying will get yourself under scrutiny and self exclusion
| (due to the 30+ day retention clause) and this is exactly what
| Anthropic wants for free marketing.
| dramaqueens wrote:
| Nice drama, LOL!! I still remember ChatGPT is very dangerous to
| be released a long time back. World is fine now!!
| tehjoker wrote:
| Not really, the impacts on education seem to be severe. People
| are actively getting dumber.
| SXX wrote:
| People getting dumber it exactly what any government wants.
| andrekandre wrote:
| i got news for you, its not just in education; output in
| business world is also getting sloppier and lazier as well
| left-struck wrote:
| Is it fine though? We're definitely seeing some huge negative
| impacts from AI use. Of course some positive ones as well, but
| the point is that they were right to be concerned.
| maxall4 wrote:
| > We have reviewed the report and validated that the level of
| capability displayed there is widely available from other models
| (including OpenAI's GPT-5.5), and is used every day by the
| defenders who keep systems safe. We will share more details over
| the next 24 hours.
|
| So much for all of the rhetoric about Mythos supposedly far
| surpassing GPT 5.5 (edit: in cybersecurity, in particular). Of
| course, the AISI benchmarks also showed this, but it is amusing
| that Anthropic is saying it now that it is to their advantage.
| jsw97 wrote:
| If this gets 5.5 banned I am going to be hopping mad.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| The best time to get mad was yesterday, when Amodei
| explicitly asked Trump to do something like this. But now
| works, too.
| siddboots wrote:
| They aren't saying that other models have the same overall
| level of capability. They are saying that the specific
| capability that the US Government tested is also available in
| other models.
| Tossrock wrote:
| This is about the specific capabilities that the government
| called out, not Fable's overall capabilities. My personal
| experience, having used Fable this week for an extremely
| complex task, is that it is head and shoulders more powerful
| than any other model, at least for software engineering.
| cma wrote:
| They are saying that comparison to other models only about the
| problems it was jailbroken to complete in the government's
| example, not all vulnerabilities it could exploit unjailbroken.
| UqWBcuFx6NV4r wrote:
| I'd suggest you use an LLM to assist you with comprehending
| their statement. It'll do a better job, or at the very least be
| more objective than you're being now. You've misinterpreted the
| statement. That is not what they're saying at all. Please
| actually read instead of skimming until you find something that
| you believe reinforces your worldview.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| So eventually, you will have a massive string of data centers
| working to full capacity and whose only client will the US
| government?
| left-struck wrote:
| I have to wonder if their aggressive guardrails were because they
| had a specific reason to believe that this was coming.
| TIPSIO wrote:
| Really sick of this stupid narrative.
|
| The most ethical goal of an AI lab or government should be to
| bring the maximum amount of intelligence for as cheap as possible
| to the people equally.
| lovich wrote:
| Prefacing that I assume this order is done with ill intent, and
| would guess that it's based on Anthropic not bending the knee
| immediately like OpenAI did.
|
| But your statement could be rephrased as
|
| > The most ethical goal of a weapons manufacturer or government
| should be to bring the maximum number of nuclear weapons for as
| cheap as possible to the people equally.
|
| Making sure everyone is a strapped as possible only makes sense
| to the type of libertarians who salivate at the idea of
| shooting someone who steps on their property to deliver a
| letter
| TIPSIO wrote:
| This is obviously a super corny / silly / dramatic thing to
| say.
| lovich wrote:
| What I said or what you said?
|
| If it's the latter then I missed the joke. If it's the
| former I think you're incorrect.
| procone wrote:
| Agreed 100%. I don't understand why we have to fear access to
| knowledge.
| ajyoon wrote:
| AI is dual use technology. This kind of posture is simply not
| tenable as frontier intelligence increases.
| chatmasta wrote:
| So are guns, which we constitutionally protected. In fact
| there's probably a decent argument that AI should fall under
| 2nd amendment protection.
| ern wrote:
| Don't legally serious second Amendment supporters regard
| "arms" as things that can be carried, and are evolved
| from/analogous to their 18th century hand-carried guns?
|
| It would be hard to classify AI (or tanks, artillery,
| missiles, aircraft) as "arms" that can be "borne" in that
| sense.
| ajyoon wrote:
| Is your legal theory that any technology which is dangerous
| should be protected under the second amendment, simply
| because it is dangerous?
| chatmasta wrote:
| No, my legal theory is that you cannot simultaneously
| compare technology to a weapon and also say it falls
| outside the bounds of the 2nd amendment.
| ajyoon wrote:
| Dual use does not mean weapon. And even then, it is
| simply not the case that all weapons fall under the
| second amendment.
| SilverElfin wrote:
| It certainly falls under 1st amendment protection since
| LLMs are about accessing speech. But that hasn't stopped
| Dario from trying hard to push for regulations and bans
| that limit our civil rights. He and Sam Altman want
| regulatory capture at the expense of our right to free
| speech.
| vzcx wrote:
| > AI is dual use technology.
|
| And? Computers are dual-use. Cars are dual-use. Telephones
| are dual-use. Freeze-dried chicken is dual-use.
|
| Single-use, i.e. military only technology is actually pretty
| rare.
|
| > This kind of posture is simply not tenable as frontier
| intelligence increases.
|
| I reject the corpo speak that tries to brand these things as
| being "intelligent." They can be useful. But a language model
| cannot conjure a weapons platform from the ether no matter
| how "intelligent" it is.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| 1. Lie about making thinking machines smarter than humans
|
| 2. Get treated like you actually did what you claimed, and face
| consequences
|
| 3. ???
|
| 4. Profit
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Who in government? Link to the order?
| brookst wrote:
| Most corrupt US administration in history, by a long shot.
|
| Wonder how many US-based early-stage startups are using Opus to
| research incorporating and moving overseas at this very moment.
|
| EU isn't tenable, UK is iffy. Australia? Thailand? Who wants to
| be innovation-friendly?
| blharr wrote:
| I'm surprised that (all) these models haven't been export
| controlled already. Relatively benign software like VMware is
| export controlled or even hobbyist radio projects have gotten
| hairy with ITAR.
|
| But a model that can provide general information, research, or
| source code for most modern technology?
|
| It is really unusual that this is the first notice of this
| patrickaljord wrote:
| it already blocks users from Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Russia
| etc
| 7thpower wrote:
| Too late, NK already completed all the markdown files needed to
| both create their hypernuke and recreate the hurricane machine
| Dick Cheney had left Obama.
| kingstnap wrote:
| Highly reliable supply chains to bet the entire future on :)
| adriand wrote:
| On the plus side, it's Friday night. Hopefully this is sorted out
| by Monday morning.
| chatmasta wrote:
| It'll be sorted out after OpenAI releases their next model.
| Imnimo wrote:
| This is exactly what Dario asked for in his last blog post. So
| even though this is clearly stupid, I just can bring myself to
| feel sorry for Anthropic.
| blackqueeriroh wrote:
| Please tell me how this is what he "asked for."
| Imnimo wrote:
| "The government should have the power to block or deter
| deployment of the model if it is determined, in light of
| third-party assessment, to present unacceptable risks."
| llelouch wrote:
| He asked for an independent body.
| Imnimo wrote:
| No, he asked for the government to make the decision in light
| of 3rd party analysis. Which is what happened here - an
| independent company demonstrated a jailbreak, and the
| government issued a restriction on deployment based on that
| finding.
| csto12 wrote:
| Someone forgot to cut a check to the Big Guy :^)
| GreenSalem wrote:
| MAGA madness strikes again ..
| frisco wrote:
| For large corporates and other entities of any size, the threat
| of the core of your infrastructure getting suddenly disabled
| because of something like this is going to be untenable. I
| predict the pressures for on-prem, offline access (whether by
| licensing weights or getting them in a restricted setting like
| TEE/CC) will be overwhelming and one the players will fill the
| need.
| sgrove wrote:
| Likely many points along the pareto frontier.
|
| Some will take greater risks and win (or lose); others will
| play it safer and slowly accumulate wins (or be obsoleted).
|
| Never mind the threat of letting these models write code that
| runs your business, or operate it agentically. Models trained
| by actors (corporate or nationstate) diametrically opposed to
| your interests.
|
| Lots to take into account now, interesting time to be in
| business.
| yogthos wrote:
| This is precisely why I expect that Chinese open models are
| going to win in the long run. The capability difference isn't
| dramatic in the grand scheme of things, but the fact that you
| can run your own is a huge selling point. Even if you rent an
| open model from a Chinese company, you can switch to on prem if
| they decided to yank access or change terms in the way you
| don't like. It might be a pain, but it wouldn't be existential.
| On the other hand, if you become dependent on a closed model
| and it gets yanked then you're in a world of hurt.
|
| And infrastructure dominance is really the big picture here.
| Chinese models are going to become the standard setters because
| they're going to be what people are using. That means more
| research, more tooling, and a whole ecosystem developing around
| them.
|
| And that was already starting to happen even before this fiasco
| with Chinese models now being the most used ones globally.
| https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/technology/features/story/clau...
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| After this action, I have no doubt that this administration
| will try to ban Chinese models. Of course, doing so will be
| futile, we'll figure out ways to get around it, but now I'm
| pretty sure they're going to try.
| yogthos wrote:
| I'm waiting for that to happen as well since the price
| difference makes it very difficult for companies like
| Anthropic and OpenAI to compete. And we already have
| precedent for this with stuff like EVs, phones, and so on.
| As soon as Chinese companies start making a product that's
| more popular, they get banned on some national security
| pretext.
|
| The tricky part with banning Chinese models is that they're
| open. It'll be easy to ban access to service providers, but
| preventing people from running these models on prem is
| going to be really tough. Like are they going to go after
| Cursor for example given that their model is based on Kimi?
|
| I very much agree it's going to be a futile endeavour in
| the end. It kind of reminds me of the time Microsoft tried
| to get Linux and open source banned when Linux started
| encroaching on Windows server market. This is going to end
| the same way.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| I'm going to guess they'll go after sites like
| Huggingface that host downloads. I suspect we'll be
| torrenting Chinese models in the not-too-distant future.
| Or we'll have to geo-spoof with VPN to download from
| other countries.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > I predict the pressures for on-prem, offline access ... will
| be overwhelming and one the players will fill the need.
|
| I'd agree except that Big AI has made sure that most of us
| can't afford the hardware (RAM, NVMe, etc) to run it.
| Folcon wrote:
| Honestly at this point I'm not sure how much that matters?
| dansquizsoft wrote:
| Thinking that on prem models will be a halfway decent solution
| against what can be served out of a data center is a fools
| take... One that is more common than it should be on here...
| wolttam wrote:
| The point _is not_ to be as good as the multi-trillion
| parameter model you can host in across 72 GPUs (or whatever).
|
| I'm running a 248B model on a paltry amount of hardware and
| getting plenty of good use out of it.
|
| Sure, the most demanding tasks will demand the best models
| (and always will). There's still less demanding tasks for
| other models.
|
| I think some people are fooling themselves that _coding_ of
| all tasks is always going to requires _the biggest models
| ever_. Again, maybe some coding tasks will, but the majority
| of business CRUD apps probably don 't. Same goes for
| virtually any other type of task. The biggest models are
| really only useful for the most complex tasks.
| upbeat_general wrote:
| If we're defining on-prem as fitting in a rack - then every
| frontier model can be hosted on-prem.
|
| Now this might not be the most cost effective (and may
| require a bit extra power), but you only need a datacenter
| for training or cost optimization.
| duped wrote:
| If the core of your infrastructure is an LLM you deserve to
| fail
| stevarino wrote:
| This is ignoring the fact that the government is the foundation
| of society (I know some will disagree with that, but the end
| result is just government with more steps).
|
| Private models in a low trust society means the government will
| come and seize the models. Competitive business will only be
| allowed through cronyism.
|
| The better option is to opt for high trust. Yes the Gman can
| rip your servers apart, but they know they'll face
| consequences, legal and political. Laws and regulations are the
| answer, not locking down into smaller fiefdoms.
| senderista wrote:
| You get high trust through social norms, not by more "laws
| and regulations". Social norms can't be imposed by fiat, they
| arise spontaneously, often for unclear reasons. That's why
| they're so fragile and precious. With Trump's destruction of
| social norms around the presidency and the federal government
| generally, the US is now just another country where bribery
| is the cost of doing business.
| bryzio wrote:
| Or abstract i.e. openrouter, that reduces the risk vector to
| "all implementations have been simultaneously banned".
|
| If a government entity bans a LLM provider due to a jailbreak
| concern, they can also ban an on-prem solution under the same
| guise. The jailbreak risk exists regardless of where it's
| hosted. You could defensibly argue the on-prem risk is higher
| since frontier model companies can justify safety spend due to
| their size, it's more difficult to combat bad actors if you're
| company is the only one using the model and you don't have
| economies of scale.
| eis wrote:
| I already gave up on Fable 5 because it sometimes was just not
| worth the editional price compared to Opus 4.8 and other times it
| flat out downgraded to Opus anyways for no good reason because it
| thought I'm looking for security vulnerability while working on
| the auth part of my app. In our company Fable 5 is not enabled
| because of the change in data retention being required.
|
| And now this. How would they even enforce this restriction when
| they can't know what nationality the end user behind some API
| query belonging to a company account has? It seems like nobody is
| thinking things through anymore and the end result is total
| unreliability from every angle. What a huge mess all of it, sigh.
| ihaveajob wrote:
| Well, I'm glad I used all my tokens earlier today... It was a
| good run.
| singripal wrote:
| Same day as the SpaceX IPO
| whh wrote:
| Interestingly, I am yet to lose access.
| taurath wrote:
| It's like a ghost story that everyone has decided is real. Lets
| hope our vibe government and vibe society and vibe president
| don't get prompt injected
| blooalien wrote:
| > "Lets hope our vibe government and vibe society and vibe
| president don't get prompt injected"
|
| Haven't they/we _already,_ or am I just not interpreting the
| last decade or so of growing widespread insanity correctly?
| simonw wrote:
| Anyone lost access yet? Fable is still working for me on
| https://claude.ai/ and in Claude Code.
|
| UPDATE: I lost access at 6:59pm pacific.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| It appears to be working for me, but... Maybe it's silently
| degrading? It's hard to say.
| re-thc wrote:
| > Maybe it's silently degrading? It's hard to say.
|
| Opus 4.8 spams a lot more text. It'd be obvious.
| Retr0id wrote:
| The fact that it's hard to say is funny, in contrast with the
| fanfare surrounding the launch of Fable.
| greenavocado wrote:
| Fable is currently way below many other models in the
| rankings due to some sort of internal throttling
| https://aistupidlevel.info/
|
| GPT-5.4 is currently the strongest model (this changes
| hourly)
|
| Methodology: https://aistupidlevel.info/faq#methodology
| DetroitThrow wrote:
| Methodology leaves a lot to be desired in terms of
| understanding the tasks you've used. Being detailed about
| why they're more meaningful tests than the long horizon
| and coding tests used by other rankings is important.
|
| False positives and poorly defined tasks/acceptance
| criteria have let some models have insanely inflated
| scores on bad benchmarks.
|
| And sure, you can say they're not disclosed to prevent
| gaming, but if you're the only one who can review them
| then the might as well be a random number generator
| display with an unreadable UI.
| greenavocado wrote:
| You're not wrong, but the scores track with my experience
| switching between the proposed top variants. So there's
| my unscientific "evidence."
| Retr0id wrote:
| Well, that's certainly some web design.
| nrmitchi wrote:
| I don't know how fast they reacted, but shortly after their
| documented time I started getting opus availability errors
| from fable requests, which seemed odd.
|
| I'd also think that they would transparently degrade, just to
| prevent production outages for clients that are requesting
| Fable explicitly.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| I mean hard to say on such short notice because they can
| swap out models without any notice. In terms of
| performance, I'm not asking it to do anything crazy so I
| think results would be similar across both models.
|
| It did just use a small harness to run docker compose with
| different envs and other settings to validate a very small
| change, so... Feels like Fable
| nrmitchi wrote:
| No, I mean I was using fable (or, trying) and got an api
| error "Error: claude-opus-4-8[1m] is temporarily
| unavailable"
| blueaquilae wrote:
| But token price is still fable level?
| Tiberium wrote:
| I still also have access, so either they silently reroute Fable
| 5 to Opus 4.8 or hasn't actually pulled the switch yet.
| SXX wrote:
| You'll never know. They'll just silently sabotage if you're
| foreign national.
| reneberlin wrote:
| Mythos escaped by itself, of course. You can't dictate the
| rules to a clever model like that :)
| whh wrote:
| No, still cracking on with a bug fix. Definitely feels like
| it's still Fable.
| whh wrote:
| Anthropic has just reset usage limits.
| whh wrote:
| I just got done now:
|
| > There's an issue with the selected model (claude-
| fable-5). It may not exist or you may not have access to
| it. Run /model to pick a different model.
| consumer451 wrote:
| shush, lol
|
| edit: And... it's gone
|
| > There's an issue with the selected model (claude-fable-5). It
| may not exist or you may not have access to it. Run /model to
| pick a different model.
| winterbourne wrote:
| Just turned off for me on Claude Code. Good while it lasted.
| eranation wrote:
| Still works for me but I don't know if it's gaslighting me or
| not... fool me once situation here...
| guybedo wrote:
| ssshhhh don't tell anybody it's still working, i have some
| stuff to do :-)
| gs17 wrote:
| It identifies as Fable 5 for me, but it could just be Opus with
| the Fable system prompt.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| Why would they do that?
| i7l wrote:
| So you eat your usage quota twice as fast or pay for API
| requests twice as much.
| kip_ wrote:
| I hadn't, but then 2.1.177 dropped in on auto-update and I
| assumed that was going to be the end of Fable for me, but I'm
| still on it. At least that's what the model picker is
| continuing to say along with the header.
| Claude Code v2.1.177 Fable 5 with low effort * Claude Max
| ~/testing
|
| Never mind, it failed a few minutes later with: There's an
| issue with the selected model (claude-fable-5). It may not
| exist or you may not have access to it. Run /model to pick a
| different model.
|
| And now we're done. Oh well.
| danso wrote:
| I was using Fable to review my codebase and came back from the
| gym an hour later to find that I had suddenly used up my entire
| Max plan quota for the next 5 hours
|
| (I have never had an agent do enough to burn up the 5 hour
| quota on Max)
|
| (edit: just switched my CC model to 4.8 and my 5-hr cycle reset
| back to 0%, even though it previously had 2 more hours to go)
| EchoVoicy wrote:
| DELETE THIS
| enraged_camel wrote:
| I lost it just now. Had a workflow running. :(
| sothatsit wrote:
| It is gone for me now.
|
| > There's an issue with the selected model (claude-fable-5). It
| may not exist or you may not have access to it.
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| Yep took a while but it's down. It's still in the model
| picker but it's broken
| flurdy wrote:
| > There's an issue with the selected model (claude-fable-5). It
| may not exist or you may not have access to it. Run /model to
| pick a different model.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| Working fine for me.
| cedarscarlett wrote:
| This is just Anthropic being nice enough to wean us off before
| the 22nd.
|
| Edit: https://www.anthropic.com/news/fable-mythos-access
| jsw97 wrote:
| If USG bans these models, what is the game plan wrt Chinese
| models? Will they also ban these (and how, esp open source)? And
| if not, how is this not throwing the ball game to China? There is
| no top-down control without international cooperation which,
| let's face it, is not happening.
|
| Another interpretation, of course, is that this is just US
| putting a thumb on the scale for US competitors around IPO time.
| It will be interesting to see if there are any fingerprints.
| natch wrote:
| China already won when Kong Jiang Mei Guo Ren were created 20,
| 30 years ago.
| neutrinobro wrote:
| Good thing I just maxed out my weekly usage limit at 5:10pm on my
| cheapo $20/mo plan.
| stingraycharles wrote:
| So isn't the only logical conclusion that we have reached the max
| of model capabilities that the US allows to be made available to
| the public? Why invest in smarter models with this precedent?
|
| And potentially more importantly: if a model like Mythos, which
| at best is an incremental improvement over Opus, is getting this
| treatment, how are all the AI investments that are based on the
| expectation of ASI / AGI / significantly better models going to
| be recouped?
| ncallaway wrote:
| It seems more likely that the logical conclusion is the
| executive branch is mad at Anthropic, and lashing out at them
| with any convenient tool that they have.
|
| I suspect if OpenAI or Grok was operating at the same level
| they wouldn't find themselves on the sharp end of the
| government stick
| blueaquilae wrote:
| But it was Anthropic initiative to limit the deployment to
| restricted groups, it's great to see the gov following their
| analysis. AIs are too powerful and dangerous they should be
| limited to a very restrained individuals isn't?
| thewebguyd wrote:
| > AIs are too powerful and dangerous they should be limited
| to a very restrained individuals isn't?
|
| IF LLMs are THAT dangerous and powerful (and that's a huge
| if that I do not currently subscribe to), then no, no one
| should have access at all, there is no group of people in
| positions of power (government or corporate power) that I
| would consider "restrained"
| ncallaway wrote:
| Yes, Dario Amodei definitely opened the door to this kind
| of attack by trying to market Mythos as being too dangerous
| to release.
| svnt wrote:
| Which they anticipated, which is why they were flagging
| and dropping back to opus on anything they could even
| potentially be called on.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| If you have more specific information for your claim that
| it's just weaponization then please provide it.
|
| Otherwise the nominal reason seems entirely plausible.
| Anthropic warns of the model, releases with safeguards, and
| US says those have been bypassed.
| LPisGood wrote:
| This government has proved time and time again it does not
| deserve the presumption of regularity and that it is more
| than capable of acting in arbitrary and capricious manner
| for petty reasons.
| ncallaway wrote:
| Are you asking me to provide evidence that _in this
| specific instance_ this is an instance of weaponization of
| process, or are you asking me for evidence that this
| particular executive has lost the benefit of the doubt when
| it comes to weaponization claims, or are you asking for
| evidence that the executive is hostile to Anthropic?
| handoflixue wrote:
| Anthropic was designated a "supply chain risk" despite this
| (a) being an absolutely absurd classification and (b) being
| completely at odds with the continued usage of any
| Anthropic products within the US government:
| https://thezvi.substack.com/p/anthropic-officially-
| arbitrari...
|
| From that, we can very reasonably conclude that the US
| government has a specific vendetta against Anthropic in
| particular, and that this vendetta has nothing to do with
| the technical merits of their product.
|
| To my knowledge, they have yet to drop that classification,
| despite heavy court opposition.
|
| Additionally: technical benchmarks suggest that the most
| recent ChatGPT models are within maybe 10% of Fable 5's
| capabilities, so this being a pure "capabilities" concern
| seems unlikely.
|
| Uncertainty: It's possible that we have just suddenly
| reached the end of public AI releases, though - if ChatGPT
| 5.6 also gets blocked, that would be very good evidence of
| a general, non-weaponized policy. Given the recent
| Executive Order requiring pre-release audits of frontier
| models, this is somewhat more likely than it was a couple
| weeks ago.
|
| I still think things add up to "weaponization is the most
| likely theory" and that one is being disingenuous to
| dismiss it as a reasonable possibility. But it's certainly
| NOT the only reasonable possibility.
| typeofhuman wrote:
| > it seems more likely that the logical conclusion is the
| executive branch is mad at Anthropic, and lashing out at them
|
| Have people forgot about evidence?
| ncallaway wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48511745
| johnwheeler wrote:
| They said "seems"
| rw2 wrote:
| Anthropic's own marketing and urban legends spawned by them
| is to blame too. They built up too much BS around mythos and
| project glasswing
| varispeed wrote:
| I don't know, I've been using Mythos this week quite
| sceptically and I found it to be incredibly dumb. For instance
| gave it a dialogue between 3 people and it was constantly
| mixing up who said what to whom, which looked like early Gemini
| behaviour. But latest Opus does that too. It would also make
| nonsensical inference about given papers and only correct
| itself when pointed out what it said wrong. If that is what US
| government fears... maybe the fear is that someone follows the
| dumb things the model suggests.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| it feels like it's mostly just tuned to up it's level of
| capability on long horizon tasks - stop context rot and keep
| persisting at all costs until a goal is done.
|
| The base intelligence does not feel much greater to me.
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| Eh, not any different than the performative encryption
| restrictions from decades past.
| dabinat wrote:
| I predict in future the best frontier models will be gatekept
| solely to the wealthy.
| echelon wrote:
| Pay $1,000,000 per business function you want to build.
|
| Businesses will gladly pay it.
|
| Individuals will be locked out and unable to compete.
|
| Oracle will be able to "prompt a new smartphone" for $500M or
| whatever and enter the market to compete with Apple and
| Google. You and I can't afford that and won't be able to
| compete.
|
| Hyperscalers will hyper scale even faster.
|
| They'll port Linux to Rust, remove the GPL, and have all
| kinds of new entirely proprietary OSes. They'll be attested,
| signed, and gradually we'll lose open hardware. Thin clients
| with binary blobs, highly encrypted, no control, only leased
| to us.
|
| Within a generation nobody will be able to program or own
| devices that can program.
|
| That's the scary scenario.
| pmontra wrote:
| Very few businesses can pay 1M without blinking. None of my
| customers. But yeah, I got the gist of it. Incumbents like
| moats and happily pay money to build them. Note that the
| pricing of Anthropic's models usually increases for new
| models. Chinese models cost 10 or 100 times less. Are they
| less capable? Maybe, but they are alternatives unless
| credit card companies start banning payments to them.
| echelon wrote:
| > Very few businesses can pay 1M without blinking. None
| of my customers.
|
| Then they won't survive the termination boundary.
|
| Too bad. Should have had more cash.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| That's genuinely terrifying.
| LPisGood wrote:
| Then I guess I stop using computers that much outside of my
| job. It was fun while it lasted, but there's other stuff.
|
| You don't _have_ to buy into the technocracy, there's a
| whole outside going on.
| yogthos wrote:
| Not if Chinese companies have anything to say about it.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Chinese AI self censor or are banned from being released by
| their emperor.
| 8note wrote:
| how is that different from US AI that self censors and is
| banned from release by their emperors?
| girvo wrote:
| Well, it's different in that at least the Chinese
| companies release weights unlike the American ones!
| p_j_w wrote:
| I don't need an AI to tell me about Tiananmen Square. I
| need it to do boring grunt work.
| swingboy wrote:
| I realize these models are locked up pretty tight and
| terabytes in size, but in a future like that, I don't see
| them not being leaked via an insider. The weights have to be
| loaded into VRAM at some point.
| xpct wrote:
| That would depend on what gets leaked, as I'm not so sure
| that the weights by themselves would be enough to replicate
| the architecture. I imagine some part of the secret sauce
| will remain in the architecture, and the tensor dimensions
| may not be enough to decode it.
|
| I'm sure if proprietary models continue to be a big thing,
| the methodology of their storage and loading on hardware
| will be obfuscated quite a bit.
| chatmasta wrote:
| It's a pretty safe bet that every frontier lab has multiple
| foreign intelligence agencies running assets inside of it.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Hope it happens someday. That'd probably be the best
| possible outcome for all of humanity.
| wincy wrote:
| The gamers would really be complaining about why they
| can't run Fable.torrent on their gaming PCs
| reneberlin wrote:
| I don't think it's a good idea to give the crowds that kind
| of weapon. The first thing they'd do is "liberate" the
| model aka remove guardrails and safetly-protocols and brag
| on X / reddit with it and throw it into the public. That's
| only cool for a geek that doesn't think about the ethical
| impact of such a move. You'd basically become responsible
| for anything that is done with it, forever - have a good
| sleep. /s
| bitexploder wrote:
| What if I told you there are no safety guardrails. I used
| GLM 5.1 and had fable literally build a harness to avoid
| triggering guard rails. I built skills carefully and had
| Fable doing vuln research and exploit repro in a few
| hours. I called the project manhattan. The GLM models are
| down for almost anything so I named it Oppenheimer. It
| orchestrated the fable CLI agents via tmux. This whole
| Fable/Mythos thing is such a fucking joke. It is all PR
| and theatre and they know it.
| greenavocado wrote:
| I'm praying that China survives this BS and remains the
| bastion of AI model openness and freedom of choice. Can't
| believe I just wrote that.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| China's biggest models are closed
| verdverm wrote:
| The biggest open models are also Chinese
| Smith42 wrote:
| It's always been this way ever since the first industrial
| revolution.
| bryzio wrote:
| Reasoning? More customers = more revenue, there's negative
| financial incentive behind restricting TAM. In the same way
| the iPhone isn't restricted to only the wealthy, that would
| significantly reduce total goods sold and thereby revenue. In
| addition that creates lower economies of scale, lower network
| effects etc.
| neonstatic wrote:
| Reasoning: the poster blames all evil in the world on
| "capitalism", "corporations", and "the rich". The
| aforementioned are conspiring to gatekeep us all from the
| obvious good of poor, communist anarchy.
| gWPVhyxPHqvk wrote:
| > So isn't the only logical conclusion that we have reached the
| max of model capabilities that the US allows to be made
| available to the public? Why invest in smarter models with this
| precedent?
|
| 95% odds this gets reversed by Monday morning is why
| lovich wrote:
| Tuesday is the traditional reversal day.
| madrox wrote:
| I wouldn't say so. Once upon a time, a PlayStation 2 was too
| powerful to export: https://www.pcmag.com/news/20-years-later-
| how-concerns-about...
|
| ChatGPT 2 was once too powerful to release.
|
| AI has been moving faster than culture and thinking around it.
| Once we've adapted to what these models can do we'll relax a
| little, and then a new stepwise improvement will start it all
| over again. It always goes this way.
| sublinear wrote:
| I think culture moves a lot faster than you believe.
|
| The broader discussion about AI and model capabilities died a
| couple of years ago precisely because it's so underwhelming
| now. People did adapt. Startups stopped hiring just to get to
| MVP. Coding sweatshops had huge layoffs and stopped
| overhiring. The corporate world got better tools for
| collaborations and meetings. Accessibility tools are still
| bad, but improving. I would argue that the a11y topic is
| still very ripe to be the next big thing as it continues to
| converge with better UI/UX instead of being an afterthought.
|
| The layperson and tech professional alike otherwise agreed
| that this is a vehicle for blame game, grift, disinformation,
| etc. This is where all the pushback is and the topic at hand.
| People aren't dumb. The only people worried about "AI" are
| the ones who bet too big on it.
| enraged_camel wrote:
| >> if a model like Mythos, which at best is an incremental
| improvement over Opus
|
| What an unbelievable claim. Especially since the vast majority
| of publicly available benchmarks disagree.
| BobbyJo wrote:
| The model card for mythos shows it being an incremental
| improvement in all respects besides security.
| bonsai_spool wrote:
| Ah yes, the model card that shows an over 10% improvement
| in agentic coding among other things!
|
| https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-fable-5-mythos-5
| melenaboija wrote:
| Mmmm this "technology" is available to anyone with a big enough
| bag of bucks to train new models. So besides of this bubble
| popping soon, we only have to wait a few months to have someone
| else with a similar model.
|
| This is the result of the American style spectacle around LLMs.
| Just that this time backfired.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| The logical conclusion is that someone "forgot" to pay the
| right bribe to somebody in the admin, or make the right
| contributions to the GOP.
|
| Same as the new bridge between Windsor and Detroit can't open
| until some palms are greased.
|
| Chaos is a ladder, gotta keep climbing
| nijave wrote:
| Almost assuredly.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic%E2%80%93United_State.
| ..
| system2 wrote:
| We definitely reached the available capability plateau. You are
| 100% correct IMHO.
| AbstractH24 wrote:
| There may be a temporary plateau. And it could have fascinating
| macroeconomic impacts.
|
| Efficiency will become the next thing to focus on. It was
| already emerging, but accelerating the focus on efficiency will
| lead to a ton of excess capacity and even some investments in
| data centers to go belly up. And ultimately the AI bubble
| bursting will look a lot like the dot com, with its surplus
| fiber.
|
| Oh, and this will put gas on the fire that fighting AI and big
| tech is the next political rally cry. Along with "eat the rich"
| as they are seen as taking both jobs and money.
|
| Curious to see where it's all headed and how Trump's call will
| impact it.
| iandanforth wrote:
| "We received the directive from the government today at 5:21pm
| (ET)"
|
| This sounds exactly like the opening line from an apocalyptic
| sci-fi film.
| itkovian_ wrote:
| What are the odds this is partially them making the point; you
| were all complaining about monitoring/access/safeguards: remember
| we don't have to give this to you at all. And using a us gov
| letter as justification for that.
| itkovian_ wrote:
| People forget the people in charge of these companies are some
| of the smartest people out there full stop. Far more shadowy
| strategy/things like this going on than people think.
| blackqueeriroh wrote:
| Lmao this is one of the funniest things I've ever heard. Who?
| Elon Musk? No. Sam Altman? Laughable. Dario Amadei? Above-
| average, maybe.
|
| The people who are the smartest people full stop aren't the
| leaders of these companies - they're the people you never
| meet, who are working in the research department, begging not
| to be promoted into management.
| naturalmovement wrote:
| Are you saying everyone is failing to recognize the AI
| revolution is entirely built atop the Terry Davises of the
| world?
| tmpz22 wrote:
| Lol just meet one of them. Not at a curated product launch.
| You'll never think of them as smart again.
| ivm wrote:
| _> You see the dawn of this age everywhere, from Iran to online
| age verification regimes, and this is only the beginning. This is
| why the world ahead will feel medieval in structure while
| remaining hypermodern and even futuristic in technology. It is a
| Frank Herbert world. It will be organized around overlapping
| zones of protection, extraction, and controlled access, rather
| than around universal inclusion into a single normative space._
|
| https://turbulence.substack.com/p/the-gated-age
| tersers wrote:
| So the Imperium from 40k?
| torben-friis wrote:
| It was literally three days ago that I was commenting the
| possibility of non Americans receiving worse code.
|
| There we go. This should make nations consider whether they're
| letting their workforces become dependent on foreign tools, but
| of course they won't.
| xpct wrote:
| As someone who's also worried about delegating too much
| thinking to LLMs, I wonder if letting your own citizens use the
| good models is detrimental.
| varispeed wrote:
| Did Trump write this personally?
|
| > In fact, our safeguards are so strong that many users have
| complained that they are overly broad.
| bridgettegraham wrote:
| "i can has the bestest powers of the world, i is the strongest,
| i is the badest president ever" what a retard
| pnathan wrote:
| (1) personally very annoying. I have been using fable to try to
| collect cutting edge math in one area and work on a hopefully new
| result with lean verification.
|
| (2) I am really tired of the AI community trying to threaten
| everyone with grey goo and finding out the hype doesn't land
| comfy with others. It's a freaking text generator, not god in a
| pocket.
| morpheos137 wrote:
| it is text generator. just like an interactive library or smaet
| search engine. if we dont ban books on cryptography putting
| this under ITAR is rather absurd. Anthying these models train
| on is already public or accessible information. They just
| collect and link it together dynamically. Whats next wikipedia
| is ITAR. However thisnreuskt is expected when you got
| rationalist kooks (cf Dario Amodei) marketing the "singularity"
| religion.
| pmalynin wrote:
| I guess they'll just have to put the weights into a book format
| and publish the physical copies
| eqmvii wrote:
| I give it until Tuesday at the latest until it's accessible
| again.
| real0mar wrote:
| Finally, they face consequences for their IPO pump fear mongering
| rhetoric
| tapoxi wrote:
| Part of me thinks fault lies with Anthropic for scaremongering,
| part has zero faith in the current administration especially
| after the "supply chain risk" designation.
|
| It may be safer to just move the company to Canada.
| gundmc wrote:
| Yes, I'm surprised there isn't more conversation around this
| being a way of the administration lashing out at Anthropic like
| they tried to do with the supply chain risk maneuver.
| hendersoon wrote:
| No actual proof of any kind. Obviously a petulant attack on
| Anthropic.
| dabinat wrote:
| Not allowing it to be used by any foreign national, from any
| country, even if they are located in the United States or an
| employee of Anthropic, seems overly broad and harsh. And all
| because of a seemingly minor potential jailbreak exploit. There's
| something that doesn't quite meet the eye here.
| csto12 wrote:
| Yes, because this government is known for its subtlety...
| Tossrock wrote:
| Well, there is the lingering beef between the DoD and
| Anthropic. Knowing the overall level of maturity at the top
| levels of the US government, I'd take good odds on Mythos just
| being a good excuse for Hegseth & co. to lash out.
| Polizeiposaune wrote:
| The scope of who is allowed to continue using it sounds like it
| is aligned with other US export controls (like ITAR and EAR).
| DetroitThrow wrote:
| Unfortunately this is how export controls work. We don't let
| foreign researchers around national security parts of national
| labs, even if they work there, because it's simply the easiest
| security measure you can take. It doesn't mean it's a good
| outcome for researchers or research. It's insurance of US
| directed funds.
| yoyohello13 wrote:
| No, it's about Amodei refusing sucking Hegseth's dick a few
| months ago.
| aunty_helen wrote:
| It's because the hammer they've used is export controls which
| deals with FN access. It's particularly nasty and can ramp up
| to "if you're born in China even if you spent the second and
| every day since then in the usa and have us citizenship, you're
| not allowed to see this information"
| adityamwagh wrote:
| I was about to upgrade from Pro plan to the Max plan today
| because I had a really positive experience with Fable 5. Glad I
| didn't!
| jvanderbot wrote:
| This is a continuation of the clapback from DoW kerfluffle right?
| llm_nerd wrote:
| This administration is _spectacularly_ corrupt (take a look at
| what is happening with the Gordie Howe bridge -- the entire
| government is beholden to billionaires if they just pad some
| pockets), so odds favour that OpenAI called some of their
| employees in government, looking to kneecap a competitor. They
| didn 't make all of those massive donations for nothing.
|
| The US has long been catastrophically corrupt, with a pay-to-play
| government, but this army of grifters and thieves have turned
| every dial to 11.
| engineer_22 wrote:
| > We suspect that perfect jailbreak resistance is not currently
| possible for any model provider. Every safeguard used in the
| industry is vulnerable to non-universal jailbreaks (which can
| elicit some cyber information in specific circumstances), and it
| is likely that universal jailbreaks will eventually be found in
| the future.
|
| Laying the groundwork to limit access to high capability models
| OsrsNeedsf2P wrote:
| I for one look forwards to our Minimax, Qwen, Kimi, GLM, and
| Deepseek overlords
| gpm wrote:
| > 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
|
| There's no way they have the authority to actually _order_ this
| and not just request this right? If crypto is speech... LLMs
| definitely are...
| pixl97 wrote:
| They do have the authority to do this, Anthropic has the
| ability to appeal it in court, up to the SCOTUS. Lord only
| knows what our crazy ass judges in that court will do though.
| blackqueeriroh wrote:
| Doesn't really matter - the government is given wide latitude
| by the judiciary in matters of national security. I also expect
| Anthropic will fight this in court if it lasts very long.
| alberth wrote:
| US has banned export of cryptography. They are extending such
| claims for national security reason to AI model.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
| zarzavat wrote:
| The US tried to ban it. djb challenged it on first amendment
| grounds and the result was that the US government gave up
| trying to enforce any ban.
|
| AI is different though because these models are private, so
| they cannot really be considered to be "speech". Although if
| it were an open model it would likely be protected speech to
| release it.
| kakugawa wrote:
| So, how is it being disabled? It still shows "Fable 5" on all
| surfaces (to me). Is it being silently degraded to Opus under-
| the-hood?
|
| Edit: Fable 5 was just disabled.
| sponnath wrote:
| I think it's being silently downgraded. Can't tell for sure.
| abidlabs wrote:
| Interesting to see Anthropic now _downplaying_ the new
| vulnerabilities that Mythos discovered:
|
| > 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
| Tiberium wrote:
| I think what they're saying is that this prompt/jailbreak only
| lets Mythos discover some really easy vulnerabilities that it
| probably fixes from a simple "Find and fix bugs in this code"
| and that this can be easily done by other models like GPT-5.5.
| Which is very different from targeted security research.
| chatmasta wrote:
| But it's not that different from the whole premise of their
| red team scaremongering which was "we pointed the model at a
| source file and told it to find an exploit."
| cespare wrote:
| AFAICT this is not talking about Glasswing stuff. They are
| saying that they were sent a demonstration of Fable 5 being
| used/abused in some specific way that led to the "discovery" of
| some minor, already-known vuln, and that other models can find
| it too. IOW, they're claiming that the USG's complaint is
| baseless and dumb.
| bonsai_spool wrote:
| > Interesting to see Anthropic now downplaying the new
| vulnerabilities that Mythos discovered:
|
| _That is absolutely NOT what is being said there._
|
| They are referring to a very specific thing that you must have
| clearly seen and chosen to ignore--a jailbreak for LLMs that is
| used on other models and to some effect with Fable 5.
| CompoundEyes wrote:
| It says this happened at 5:21 EST today...
|
| The page showed June 11, 2026 and has now been updated to June
| 12, 2026 in the last 10m.
|
| https://imgur.com/a/lx7HCW9
|
| Edit:
|
| Google mislabels crawl dates clearly my bad
| deaux wrote:
| > Google shows that the page was crawled a few days ago.
|
| Where'd you get this info? The imgur is the weakest thing one
| could've screenshotted. At least use archive.today or
| screenshot the evidence that Google crawled it.
| paulmist wrote:
| It shows the same for this thread.
|
| https://imgur.com/a/EOWWUbD
| meetpateltech wrote:
| > Google shows that the page was crawled a few days ago.
|
| That's the release blog post. Google is likely pulling the
| snippet from the Related Content section at the bottom, which
| includes the post about the US government directive.
| MallocVoidstar wrote:
| Google shows completely wrong timestamps all the time. I'm
| pretty sure they just randomly grab vaguely date-like text from
| pages and declare it the date the page was created.
| UqWBcuFx6NV4r wrote:
| You are so desperate to prove some sort of conspiracy that
| you're throwing all critical thinking out the window.
| garg wrote:
| Isn't this exactly what Dario wanted?
| wewewedxfgdf wrote:
| Just in case you need evidence for the need of AI/LLM
| sovereignty.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Thanks, Obama!
|
| (Ok gotta spend my upvote points somewhere)
| siva7 wrote:
| Ok, so why can i still access fable? Did they forgot to pull the
| cable?
| Tiberium wrote:
| Probably silently rerouting?
| guybedo wrote:
| one more reason for Europe to (try to) move away from US
| companies.
|
| Although it's gonna be more difficult to come up with a Fable
| competitor than a m365 one
| throw3421 wrote:
| Stupid government run by warmongers
| easton wrote:
| A company with different taste would redo that apple ad from the
| Power Mac era: "this model has been classified a munition".
|
| https://youtu.be/l2ThMmgQdpE
| ivraatiems wrote:
| When you spend a lot of time telling people how dangerous your
| products are, people who have the power to keep dangerous
| products off the market might listen.
|
| Especially if those people aren't presently very bright, and are
| already mad at you for not helping them achieve their unrelated
| authoritarian goals.
|
| I do not think this is somehow a 3D chess move by Anthropic. They
| are not masterminds, even if they'd really like to be. People who
| actually interact with their products know that Fable and Mythos
| are incremental improvements, not doomsday devices. I think this
| is a punitive move by an administration that loves being
| punitive, which they have unknowingly bolstered with their own
| dumb rhetoric.
| egonschiele wrote:
| To be clear, they've been saying that all AI needs to take a
| break. I don't think this single action is going to do much.
| replwoacause wrote:
| > Especially if those people aren't presently very bright, and
| are already mad at you for not helping them achieve their
| unrelated authoritarian goals.
|
| Just more corrupt behavior from the contemptible kakistocracy
| that's busy running things into the ground and enriching
| themselves while they're at it.
| jimmydoe wrote:
| > punitive
|
| Not only that, but also a golden opportunity to flex the muscle
| of anti-immigration.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| Listen - that's the sound of millions of companies and users
| doubling down on Chinese models.
|
| It might be a national security problem for other nations to have
| access to these models. But it's equally now a national security
| problem for any other nation to depend on them. Or US tech in
| general.
| paulmist wrote:
| Aren't biggest Qwen 3.7 closed? I don't suspect China's policy
| here would be anything but ruthless.
| andrewchambers wrote:
| deepseek v4 pro is great and open weight.
| EchoVoicy wrote:
| It is, and I love it, but it isn't capable of performing
| the tasks I've been giving to Opus, let alone Fable.
|
| Don't get me wrong, I use it, it's fast-smart-and
| affordable. But not suitable for all tasks.
| droidjj wrote:
| What kinds of tasks are you finding deepseek v4 incapable
| of?
| girvo wrote:
| MiniMax M3 is surprisingly powerful, and open weight (or is
| about to be). There's others in this space too: MiMo v2.5,
| GLM 5.1. There's quite a few to pick from if you want strong
| models running on "your" hardware.
| ks2048 wrote:
| Wait until it is illegal to download or use Chinese models
| (only half-joking).
| platinumrad wrote:
| Anthropic is explicitly lobbying for this.
| fosco wrote:
| Know where I can read about that?
| platinumrad wrote:
| The two main bills I'm aware of are the Decoupling
| America's AI Capabilities from China Act and No
| Adversarial AI Act. The former would have made it illegal
| for any American citizen to simply use DeepSeek. I
| couldn't find any lobbying data, but the obvious effect
| is that Americans would be forced to pay for more
| expensive domestic alternatives.
|
| A House committee also recently probed Cursor and Airbnb
| for using Chinese models, rather than more expensive
| American alternatives. A sexagenarian Congressman gave a
| nonsense quote that he certainly did not come up with
| himself,[1] which sounds very similar to language
| Anthropic uses in its marketing materials.[2][3]
|
| [1] https://www.semafor.com/article/04/29/2026/house-
| committee-p...
|
| [2] https://www.anthropic.com/news/updating-restrictions-
| of-sale...
|
| [3] https://www.anthropic.com/research/2028-ai-leadership
| mcast wrote:
| Is there any SCOTUS precedent for this? It seems like a
| huge 1A issue for the government to limit self hosted
| access to a foreign country's LLM.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Nothing funny about it. That's exactly what Amodei asks for,
| every time he rubs his monkey's paw.
| verdverm wrote:
| They'll have to remove sections like this from their AI
| Action Plan
|
| > We need to ensure America has leading open models founded
| on American values. Open- source and open-weight models could
| become global standards in some areas of business and in
| academic research worldwide. For that reason, they also have
| geostrategic value. While the decision of whether and how to
| release an open or closed model is fundamentally up to the
| developer, the Federal government should create a supportive
| environment for open models.
| ks2048 wrote:
| Unless they (gasp!) write some statement they don't believe
| or don't follow through with.
| karmasimida wrote:
| Anthropic hates open weight Chinese models so yes
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Which models? Im curious what kind of more specific hypothesis
| you're willing to put forth. Anthropic going to lose
| 20-30-40-50% of users to Deepseek? What?
| bigyabai wrote:
| I quit paying for Claude Code to buy z.ai's coding plan for
| use with OpenCode. I'm not a power user, but I don't regret
| switching away from Claude. OpenCode is generally nicer for
| my work.
| pkulak wrote:
| Why z.ai and not an ollama pro plan that can use all the
| open models? Real question, not snark. I've only ever done
| ollama and wonder what I'm missing.
| bigyabai wrote:
| Because I bought a year's subscription in December, when
| it was still $6/mo :P
|
| I have decently capable hardware, but stuff like Qwen 3.6
| and Gemma 4 still doesn't compare to agentic editing with
| a frontier model. Right now, OpenCode's $10/mo "Go" plan
| is what I'd be looking to try once my year expires.
| commanderkeen08 wrote:
| The z.ai was stupid cheap during the great anthropic
| opencode rugpull.
| cube00 wrote:
| > I've only ever done ollama and wonder what I'm missing.
|
| Friends Don't Let Friends Use Ollama
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47788385
| garciasn wrote:
| I guess if it works for you, great; that's why competition
| is a good thing.
|
| Enjoy.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Have never heard of it, thanks for the info
| tkgally wrote:
| As it happens, the current number-two article on HN is about a
| similar consequence of _Chinese_ export controls--a car
| manufacturer developing electric motors that do not use rare
| earths:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48510010
| kccqzy wrote:
| Realpolitik in action. Great powers just impose export
| controls because they know they can and they think it would
| be beneficial to the nation.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| And it is nearly always hubris - the people making these
| decisions are surrounded by yes-men who built their whole
| career pumping up the egos of their superiors.
| roenxi wrote:
| The incentives around OSS become stronger the further down in
| the list of market leaders a company is. The #1 company has
| no particular incentive to push open software apart from a
| belief that the market is going to be come commoditised
| anyway. But the 2nd or 3rd largest player has actual
| incentives to break the market up and remove software quality
| as a consideration. No #10 may as well not bother with a
| proprietary option since if they make it a software quality
| battle they're going to lose each customer 9 times anyway.
|
| Just because the Chinese are running export controls in one
| market doesn't mean that they're going to close of access to
| AI. They might, but each market should be considered in
| isolation.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > Listen - that's the sound of millions of companies and users
| doubling down on Chinese models.
|
| They're falling back to Opus 4.8. Most people weren't using
| Fable for everything anyway because it's so expensive.
|
| None of open weights models are even at Opus 4.8 levels. If
| someone was using Fable they don't have any second best
| alternative outside of Anthropic.
| itopaloglu83 wrote:
| A sample of one, but I was getting more stuff done despite
| Fable uses tokens twice as fast as Opus, because it
| understood the goals so well and worked to achieve them.
| consumer451 wrote:
| Same here, now n=2.
| 2001zhaozhao wrote:
| > more stuff done
|
| More stuff done per dollar or more stuff done for more
| dollars? Seems to be an important distinction
| cube00 wrote:
| > Most people weren't using Fable for everything anyway
| because it's so expensive.
|
| Or they were getting silently rerouted and couldn't realise
| they weren't using Fable
| dbish wrote:
| Yep. I love open source but there isn't a model that comes
| close still to the closed source options like Opus 4.8 and
| that's obvious from most people I see across the software
| industry as well. There are at least another few models after
| Opus from OpenAI and Anthropic most would go down the list
| using before any of the Chinese models at this point.
| 256BitChris wrote:
| No one serious is using the open models. Using them is like
| traveling back 2-2.5 years in time and using ChatGPT.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| DeepSeekv4 Pro is roughly Opus 4.5 - Opus 4.6 in my
| estimation. That's about 8 months difference, not 2.5 years.
|
| It's definitely not as good. But it's also definitely _good
| enough_.
| rw2 wrote:
| Not really, they are not even as good as opus 4.7
| WarmWash wrote:
| You are drinking the cool aid if you think the CCP is going to
| let the world get ahead of China using CCP models.
| catigula wrote:
| Begun, the AI wars have.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Yep. Time to explore the chinese open source models.
| avaer wrote:
| Is it crazy to speculate if this ~a CEO calling up the government
| to ask for a solid?
| hereme888 wrote:
| What does jailbreaking have to do with nationality? So Americans
| can jailbreak it, but others can't?
|
| Sounds like they only want Americans to access SOTA AI.
| jofzar wrote:
| I mean yes? It's the American government, and that's how us
| export controls work?
| hereme888 wrote:
| The point is that their argument doesn't make sense. It's not
| about jailbreaking, so stop lying about that shady reason.
| It's an export control, as you said, to benefit Americans.
| xp84 wrote:
| I haven't seen anyone commenting on the difference between what
| the Government actually demanded vs what they did. They said no
| foreign nationals (regardless of location or residency). They
| actually didn't say they couldn't allow Americans to use it.
|
| Now, we obviously know that without some kind of brand new ID
| check, such a thing would be impossible and thus they had to just
| shut it down. But this touches on the same kind of issue as all
| the noise about "for the children" ID checking. We might be soon
| to see the set of "things you'll have to reveal your identity to
| the government to get," expand from "just" porn and social media
| to the "good" AI models.
| hgoel wrote:
| Yeah, I'm expecting that Opus 4.8/5.5 tier will be the best
| models we have access to without having to provide more ID than
| just credit card info. If that happens, it'll end my brief
| stint of paying for these models instead of working within the
| bounds of local ones.
| oneneptune wrote:
| Don't worry, China and other countries won't be so dumb with
| their models.
| samename wrote:
| Absolutely - there's already a bill in congress for this - the
| GUARD Act:
| https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5858006-senate-panel-a...
|
| On the All in Pod, Chamath Palihapitiya has also been pushing
| to require ID checks to use AI models. Free thinking and free
| speech are under attack.
| rohansood15 wrote:
| I mean, we all pay via CC so it's bit like they can't know
| who you are if they wanted to.
| VeninVidiaVicii wrote:
| Yep. This is more about the Trump administration's vehement
| anti-immigrant stance than anything.
| ivraatiems wrote:
| I think the key is that they also can't let Anthropic employees
| who are foreign nationals use it (e. g. overseas remote
| employees, people on H1-B visas or green cards, etc.)
|
| That would probably make it very difficult to maintain and
| develop if there's even a small number of such employees, and I
| suspect Anthropic, who pays large sums of money for what they
| perceive as the best talent wherever they can find it, has
| quite a few.
| hgoel wrote:
| And, if their best talent is anything like the other "leader
| in their field" people I know, they aren't particularly
| interested in becoming American citizens.
| girvo wrote:
| When you see the "illustrious" US government doing things
| like this, do you blame them? I don't.
| pmontra wrote:
| A US company paying for Fable with a US credit card could have
| non US nationals working for it, or be made of only non US
| nationals. How would Anthropic know? So they shut down the
| product.
| nijave wrote:
| Correct. For one data point, we are a U.S. company paying
| with a U.S. bank account and 2/3 of our engineers are in the
| U.S. and 1/3 are in Europe (a few different countries)
| llm_nerd wrote:
| It's a citizenship check which is basically a ridiculous bar
| for the company. It is an outrageous demand. As Anthropic
| noted, many of the very employees who made this model are now
| barred from accessing it?
|
| It's also security theatre. Let's pretend that Anthropic rolls
| out citizenship verification for every one of its users. So are
| American nationals less likely to use it to search for
| exploits? The notion is farcical.
| nijave wrote:
| >So are American nationals less likely to use it to search
| for exploits
|
| Well, in theory, it is easier to prosecute U.S. nationals if
| they "do bad things"
|
| Although in practice I assume it's basically impossible to
| prevent a secondary market from developing which sells
| illegal access
| senderista wrote:
| Why do you think that the "no foreign nationals" stipulation
| wasn't designed to be impossible to comply with, while also
| sounding to the uneducated public like a reasonable national
| security requirement?
| gmerc wrote:
| Looks like a back door attempt to force KYC (foreign nationals,
| lol) to prepare for more discrimination in the digital space with
| a side effect to benefit Peter Thiels ventures and shovel more
| data into Palantir for use in the upcoming midterm push.
|
| See also https://www.404media.co/fcc-wants-to-kill-burner-phones-
| by-f...
|
| Digital yellow star by exclusion from digital life for
| foreigners.
|
| Remember when tech companies would go to court to vigorously
| defend against infringement of their and their customers rights?
| Turns out that's just a feature of democracy, once you have
| autocrats it's all compliance.
|
| Anthropic just baited themselves with their scaremongering to be
| the attack vector here.
|
| It a stellar move by the way - since every tech company in an
| exceptionally fast growing field will comply or miss out sales,
| you effectively force KYC without legislative process onto much
| of digital because that's the only way to comply.
| deaux wrote:
| KYC angle seems most likely from the US side. If only it was
| just to benefit Thiel's ventures though, then the issue would
| be solvable. Unfortunately _everyone_ currently in power, i.e.
| the whole oligarchy, wants this. Even if Thiel and his
| companies disappeared tomorrow, they'd keep pushing until they
| get it through.
| holistio wrote:
| Fellow Europeans: we must build.
| swingboy wrote:
| Same model that costs $12 in tokens to finally add "overflow-x:
| hidden;" to an element, by the way.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48498573
| yogthos wrote:
| A fantastic move to ensure the rest of the world keeps using
| Chinese models.
| henry2023 wrote:
| > If this standard was applied across the industry, we believe it
| would essentially halt all new model deployments for all frontier
| model providers.
|
| But what about the pelicans ?
| aussieguy1234 wrote:
| While I'm always skeptical of the claims of AI companies and have
| been skeptical of Anthropics claims about the dangers of their
| Mythos model, the fact that the US government is taking this
| seriously enough to send this type of order is strong evidence in
| their favor.
| siliconc0w wrote:
| I wonder if this is specific to the animus toward anthropic or if
| this is the new industry wide level cap. Seems like a pretty big
| problem for the AI market in general, a lot this investment is
| predicated on better and better models.
| tamimio wrote:
| So scare tactics on losing jobs and ending all white collar ones
| is fine and ok and advertised everywhere, but scare tactics about
| software vulnerabilities is not and forbidden, got it!
| analogpixel wrote:
| So the white house likes to do a lot of things they don't
| actually have authority to do, so the next question is if they
| don't have the authority to do this, can Anthropic sue for
| damages for not only tokens people were not able to spend, but
| also market share lost to the setback?
| jimkleiber wrote:
| How much of this is the dangers of the technology vs the dangers
| of saying no to the Trump administration?
| 2001zhaozhao wrote:
| Thousands of Anthropic employees believing they just finished
| putting out fires related to Fable this week and finally won't be
| on call for this weekend:
| paulmist wrote:
| I do agree with the skepticism in this thread. But, if we assume
| Fable/Mythos really are that good (=easy to misuse) and thep keep
| getting better, what similar responses (signals) would you expect
| to see going forwards?
| xpct wrote:
| Likely more surveillance when it comes to electricity
| expenditure.
| wxw wrote:
| This is all great for marketing.
| tokengod wrote:
| This is horseshit
| anishgupta wrote:
| just on the basis of narrow jailbreak window? At this point it
| may be all for marketing, an opus 4.8 would be more powerful for
| specialized task than vanilla fable5
| selimonder wrote:
| Why Nations Fail? Lol
| nl wrote:
| Sovereign AI is about to get hot.
|
| It's difficult to predict this administrations actions, but given
| it included employees that has to be a huge risk for Google,
| where Deepmind is based in London.
|
| Cohere (Canada) and Mistral (France) are going to get a lot of
| interest.
| dmix wrote:
| We're all just going to use Opus, GPT or Gemini let's be honest
| GaggiX wrote:
| Chinese models have become really good and cheap. MiMo V2.5
| Pro, Kimi K2.7-code, Minimax M3 etc
| dmix wrote:
| Maybe a year ago I'd agree but the gap has grown. I also
| pay for Cursor which is based on Kimi and there is no
| comparison for complex code gen vs Fable. It mostly
| succeeds well at small rapid fire stuff which is the only
| reason I pay for it (plus the IDE DX). But any heavy
| feature planning and prototyping I use Claude.
|
| I predict they will all be mostly the same in 5+ yrs but
| coding is serious work and companies aren't going to pay
| for almost good.
| zarzavat wrote:
| It would be very funny if the UK were to put export controls on
| Gemini 3.5 Pro.
| lend000 wrote:
| We've been hearing about the risks of engineered viruses and
| homemade superweapons since GPT 3.5, so where are they? We've had
| abliterated open weights models much stronger than GPT 4 for over
| a year now.
|
| It's been interesting seeing how OpenAI pops up to counter the
| threat of AGI being controlled by Google, and then OpenAI and
| every spinoff company from its employees has become a far larger
| threat to the public, for different reasons.
|
| As much as it seems like Anthropic's self righteous leadership
| truly believes in what they're preaching, they've shown
| themselves to be tied for the worst stewards of this technology.
| Google actually seems like the best option to me, by far.
| Anthropic is also the only major lab with no open weights
| releases.
|
| They'll have burned a lot of goodwill with the community by the
| time another lab takes the tech lead, which I guarantee will
| happen.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| >We've been hearing about the risks of engineered viruses and
| homemade superweapons since GPT 3.5, so where are they? We've
| had abliterated open weights models much stronger than GPT 4
| for over a year now.
|
| Try...since GPT 2.
|
| https://naokishibuya.github.io/blog/2022-12-30-gpt-2-2019/
| girvo wrote:
| > We've been hearing about the risks of engineered viruses and
| homemade superweapons since GPT 3.5, so where are they? We've
| had abliterated open weights models much stronger than GPT 4
| for over a year now.
|
| What I can't understand, is that they act like the _knowledge_
| is dangerous.
|
| I don't know if I'm biased from my BSci (chem/maths), but:
| knowledge isn't dangerous, the reagents needed are incredibly
| easy to control. Thats what we _already_ do!
| darkteflon wrote:
| This is going to be tectonic. Any business relying on US models
| and compute is going to have a busy week.
| xbmcuser wrote:
| Well looks like USA 3 letter agencies are worried about all their
| backdoor getting closed
| davesque wrote:
| I like to think that the long arc of history bends towards
| greater access to knowledge and intelligence. I mean, isn't that
| what we all want? To be collectively less ignorant and more aware
| of how the world works? But I guess that's not what the US gov
| wants. Crazy times, truly. The mask is really coming off lately.
| nickhodge wrote:
| Well, kids, it looks like we're back to closing those tickets the
| old fashioned way.
|
| By thinking for ourselves and writing the code with the keyboard.
| nova22033 wrote:
| This is a gift to Anthropic. Our model is so good the US
| government banned it...Oh, and we're doing an IPO soon.
| davesque wrote:
| And the US gov could pull the rug out from under our business
| at any time? That's confidence inspiring?
| cdwhite wrote:
| Are there any statements from figures in the US Government? A
| Truth Social post? X posts from, idk, David Sacks?
| ks2048 wrote:
| Trump must have run his extensive test suite and carefully
| weighted the dangers vs the legal implications.
| lostmsu wrote:
| Download the open weight models while you can
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| Theory: Certain USG employees are going after Anthropic because
| they (or someone they know) has a financial stake in OpenAI.
| OpenAI has made the same claims, and months ago released
| "dangerous" security-analyzing models which "need limits", but
| USG never punished them for it.
|
| Additional theory: Altman is behind it.
| transcriptase wrote:
| What access to Fable 5? I don't think I ever had a prompt not get
| flagged and routed, and there was nothing in any of them even in
| the realm of a safety issue.
| VeninVidiaVicii wrote:
| Hah. I assume by your name you work in genetics or a related
| field. I feel your pain; I do data engineering for genomics
| platforms. Just because the comments in my code have comments
| with gene names and such, Fable completely refused to perform
| any work on my codebase, even creating data visualization
| tools.
| stevefan1999 wrote:
| So are you going to restrict access to Fable by another KYC
| scheme but this time prove that you are US citizen first amirite
| etchalon wrote:
| Just petty bullshit from a petty, bullshit administration
| dnw wrote:
| PowerPC Mac G4 (1999): https://youtu.be/lb7EhYy-2RE
| tmp10423288442 wrote:
| Europe 2031[0] imagined something like this would happen, but
| thought it would take a few years. AGI ahead of schedule
|
| [0] https://europe2031.ai
| halyconWays wrote:
| So the US government wants Anthropic to require IDs from their
| users, driving them to over platforms, but won't require this
| from OpenAI?
| SilverElfin wrote:
| Anthropic already requires ID verification for new accounts I
| believe?
| hollerith wrote:
| They required me to verify my mobile phone number.
| cdwhite wrote:
| WSJ article (paywalled): https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/anthropic-
| halts-access-to-top-ai... . The accessible portion mentions a
| letter from Howard Lutnick.
| gastonmorixe wrote:
| > "before you go, create the most beautiful good bye website . I
| will miss you. see you soon Fable/Mythos." >
| https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/fcf36cd3-85f4-49f4-8ef1-5...
|
| beautiful good bye, for now
| Folcon wrote:
| I laughed, asking it to write it's eulogy was a good use of
| tokens
| zenoprax wrote:
| First time seeing an HTTP 451 in the wild for me.
|
| Edit: I take it back. Just a 200 in a trenchcoat.
| epsteingpt wrote:
| this is absolute slop, terrible, and beautiful in the way that
| all Fable work is beautiful, terrible, and slop.
|
| goodbye.
| bryzio wrote:
| Horrific color contrast juxtaposed to next to being banned due
| to national security threat.
| balefulboy wrote:
| Damn, that beam of light was a flashbang. I wouldn't call this
| tasteful UI design, but maybe I just need to go to sleep.
| thrill wrote:
| Typical admin move here - give our foreign competitors as much
| time to catch up as possible.
| LogicFailsMe wrote:
| Or this is Trump's gift to Elon on the day of his big IPO, only
| semi-joking.
| fabled-out wrote:
| Wow this is wild...but I guess it makes sense now why they had
| such an overly sensitive on Fable usage before. Perhaps they were
| already in a back-and-forth with the Trump admin about the
| Fable/Mythos release and what safeguards are needed.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| _> As we have stated publicly, we believe the government should
| have the ability to block unsafe deployments, as part of a
| statutory process that is transparent, fair, clear, and grounded
| in technical facts. This action does not adhere to those
| principles._
|
| Dario, yesterday: "I am grateful to see the Trump
| administration's Executive Order move incrementally towards a
| greater role for government in AI, though Anthropic's proposal
| recommends even further action."
|
| Trump, today: Further action
|
| Dario, today: "Waaaah! This petard I asked President Trump for
| hoisted my ass halfway to the Moon! Nobody warned me he'd do
| something like this! No fairrrr!"
| SilverElfin wrote:
| He wants bans to hurt his competitors and open models but not
| Anthropic. It's just selfish addiction to power.
| agnishom wrote:
| Which arm of the "US government"? What legal framework allows
| them to issue such a directive?
| xpct wrote:
| Jokes on you, we're releasing the new, 'more efficient', 'less
| intelligent', Capybara 5 model. It's been 'reprogrammed' to only
| score 49.8% on the 'PyTorch basics' benchmark!
| cxmcc wrote:
| Too bad, I have to go back to using Opus for centering my divs.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| What exactly is the specific risk here? Like is this just a fuzzy
| "oh it's too powerful..." or are there very specific bad things
| actors can do with a "jailbroken" interface with the model?
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| That's in the article:
|
| >Our understanding is that the government believes it has
| become aware of a method of bypassing, or "jailbreaking" Fable
| 5. We reviewed a demonstration of this specific technique being
| used to identify a small number of previously known, minor
| vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities all appear relatively
| simple, and we have found that other publicly-available models
| are able to discover them as well without requiring a bypass.
|
| What's obvious is that none of these models are dangerous in
| the least. The government knows this, so the motive behind
| their actions is something else. It's pretty obvious that they
| are trying to force Anthropic to implement some kind of ID
| verification system as this is the only way they can tell if a
| customer is a "foreign national" or not. Anthropic is being
| used as a pawn by the authoritarians, and they can't say they
| didn't ask for it.
| ryanSrich wrote:
| So the moral of the story is, don't build a frontier model in the
| US. Got it.
| tarxvf wrote:
| Oh look, Anthropic now has a reason to conduct age verification.
| Great.
| Folcon wrote:
| I'm confused? Do they need this? They have our credit cards,
| that's fully KYCable
|
| Am I missing something?
| pmontra wrote:
| How do they know that you are not buying Fable and let it use
| by some non US national working for you? They would be in
| trouble, not you.
| rahidz wrote:
| OpenRouter or other third-party API sources?
| talesfromearth wrote:
| I'm so sick of all this Anthropic drama.
| Fordec wrote:
| Reduce Fable token usage by 100% with this one trick
| BayesStreet wrote:
| it's over
| kstrauser wrote:
| Their other models are having a rough time of it, too:
| https://honeypot.net/2026/06/12/anthropics-leaning-in-to-the...
|
| I wonder if they pulled Fable because it had too high of a
| "dangerous session" count. If so, I wonder if they've considered
| that their "dangerous session" detector has lost its damn mind
| this week.
|
| (BTW, that screenshot is 100% real. I was walking to work this
| morning and a random song played. I had a thought about it and
| wondered what a model would have to say on the matter. I ran that
| prompt and got that response, said something profane out loud,
| and screenshotted it to share with friends. That's not a mockup,
| but something I personally experienced and recorded myself.)
| cwmiles wrote:
| Me finding this out mid vibe code session: "There's an issue with
| the selected model (claude-fable-5). It may not exist or you may
| not have access to it. Run /model to pick a different model."
| __natty__ wrote:
| I do not trust Anthropic anymore. They put in silent guardrails,
| reverted them later after people complained to save face, were
| loud and obnoxious about how their models are dangerous and
| should be regulated, and now this. Too much drama for a typical
| end-user. I'm sticking to alternatives even if they have a bit
| more smarter (for now) model than others.
| dmix wrote:
| Dario has always prattled on about how Anthropic is more safe
| than OpenAI and made a big point about guardrails and
| protecting society from "AGI". This is the consequences. Some
| people actually drink the kool aid, especially bureaucrats and
| bigco lawyers (basically the same group).
|
| Not to mention intelligence agencies look for any information
| advantage they can get to influence policy.
| corvad wrote:
| > The net effect of this order is that we must abruptly disable
| Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all our customers to ensure compliance.
| Not great as it does break workflows for some.
|
| > As we have stated publicly, we believe the government should
| have the ability to block unsafe deployments, as part of a
| statutory process that is transparent, fair, clear, and grounded
| in technical facts. This action does not adhere to those
| principles.
| rwc wrote:
| The timing (after 5pm ET on a Friday) is telling. Build a KYC
| module over the weekend and we'll be back on Fable after
| uploading our ID Monday morning.
| narrator wrote:
| I'm old enough to remember what popped the dot.com bubble. It was
| the U.S government initiating anti-trust proceedings against
| Microsoft. Ruh-Roh.
| mrcwinn wrote:
| Gosh I sure hope OpenAI had nothing to do with this. That would
| be awfully surprising.
| jasonlotito wrote:
| The party of big government at it again.
| rileymat2 wrote:
| I am a bit surprised they can't make serious free speech
| arguments.
| ribosometronome wrote:
| Surely they can and will but it's Friday and immediately
| complying generates headlines.
| mg74 wrote:
| I just lost access. Back to 4.8 and 5.5. Like a caveman.
| deaux wrote:
| The model has now become unavailable in the Claude app.
| myko wrote:
| Extreme fucking overreach. This is outrageous.
| mvkel wrote:
| This is marketing.
|
| 1. Release fable, highly nerfed and limited 2. See the compute
| capacity limiter pegged day after day 3. Lobby to the government,
| claiming ai is super unsafe and not aligned and they must do
| something 4. Government "forces" anth to turn off 5. Anth takes
| the pressure off of compute capacity, and gets to blame it on the
| govt
|
| Like you're telling me fable is somehow an order of magnitude
| better than GPT 5.5 to the point where it compromises national
| security, despite evals and anecdotes saying otherwise? Nah.
| cgio wrote:
| Has anyone else noticed the weekly utilisation dropping to 0%
| around this change? Mine was about 36 before and dropped a bit
| before disabling fable.
| chux52 wrote:
| Yes, I had to start using more fable to not waste all that
| usage by Sunday and figured I broke it myself.
| GreenSalem wrote:
| Time to switch to open weight Chinese models.
|
| Any company that uses Magaland LLMs should be aware of the very
| real Trump related risk.
|
| What happens if the LLM your firm runs on is disabled tomorrow,
| because Trump wakes up feeling slightly annoyed...
| opsnooperfax wrote:
| "Uncle Sam, these new AI are dangerous. We really need
| legislation to stop irresponsible use of AI."
|
| "OK, Dario. Let's start with you."
|
| "No! I meant regulations for other people!"
| bridgettegraham wrote:
| this is just the US government bullying everyone wherever they
| can because they "are the bestest government that has ever
| goverend" ugh puke. the US govt and its leader is a typical
| schoolyard bully and I wish someone could stop that bully. i hate
| that the govts have so much power.
| sheeshkebab wrote:
| Well, it was great while it lasted - I had fable build me a bunch
| of stuff this week that opus was just screwing up too much and
| could never finish. Good thing there are plenty of choices now
| even if US gov fucks up US AI.
| boromi wrote:
| What else are you using. Same experience, chatgpt isn't good
| enough and Opus is not smart
| narrator wrote:
| Anthropic has made the suppression of advanced technology a
| mainstream issue. This is an exceptionally interesting
| development because the refrain from the skeptics, was "Why
| wouldn't they release the advanced technology if they could make
| all that money?" and "Once people knew about the technology
| they'd never be able to stop it." Well here we are with a
| verifiable demonstrable suppressed advanced technology.
| MaxPock wrote:
| this is just the Trump admin bullying anthropic for not going
| along with militarization and surveillance.
| tonyhart7 wrote:
| in the near future, every US citizen need kyc & to prove their
| loyalty to use super AI model
| emrehan wrote:
| AI apartheid has begun.
| charcircuit wrote:
| I think it's interesting they think it's about jailbreaking when
| it could be about the guardrails or even other stuff being
| reported like it deleting people's projects depending on what
| they were working on.
| joegibbs wrote:
| "Here is our superhuman, scary, frontier model that needs special
| safeguards to stop it developing WMDs! Buy it now, use the code
| ASI20 to get 20% off your first month!"
|
| "Wait what do you mean you're banning it?"
|
| They had better give me a refund!
| qudat wrote:
| Excellent ad campaign by Anthropic
| george_max wrote:
| > Warns users about how dangerous and powerful Mythos Preview is
|
| > Restricts model to large corporations
|
| > Release information about how Fable / Mythos 5 is stronger than
| Mythos Preview, give access to every user for a limited time via
| subscriptions
|
| > Users jailbreak model
|
| > U.S. suspends Fable / Mythos use
|
| Who didn't see this coming?
|
| I wonder what this means for the future of AI models. Either
| we'll see worse guardrails than what was there for Fable 5 (for
| me, it was a unusable at times), or the models just stop getting
| better from here.
|
| I think it's that the guardrails will be more strict, which is
| unfortunately not good news.
| bob1029 wrote:
| It looks like the house of cards has finally started to do its
| thing.
|
| "I think they are lying to you"
|
| https://youtu.be/zfYsSFY4l18
| wnevets wrote:
| The party of free market capitalism strikes again.
| jellyroll42 wrote:
| Trump admin is helping them pump their IPO with this stunt
| pbgcp2026 wrote:
| Well, good. Fuck Anthropic. You reap what you sow.
| reneberlin wrote:
| It might have been starting to become more clear from this one
| X-post.
|
| https://xunroll.com/thread/2064776322979676227
|
| Using combinations of jailbreaking-techniques including: writing
| cyrillic helped a lot to disarm the filter.
| hirsto wrote:
| This is kind of extraordinary when you think about what could
| actually be obtained. This makes it seem somewhat reasonable to
| implement export controls to me - still not happy about it
| though
| SwellJoe wrote:
| The biggest tech titans lined up to kiss the ring (and line
| Trump's pockets), and now we're seeing the obvious result.
|
| Those who bribe Trump and do exactly his bidding (including
| helping out with war crimes and surveillance of US citizens) will
| be left alone, or even protected from competition and
| international law, as long as they keep giving Trump a taste.
| Those who balk, even a little, will be punished for it.
|
| Republicans never wanted a free market, they just wanted a market
| that served their interests.
|
| Russia and China could not dream of accomplishing the damage
| being done to US leadership in tech by our own government as we
| speak. If they have a wishlist, I'm sure it includes things like
| stopping immigration of scientists to the US, punishing
| innovators and elevating hucksters (make them trillionaires, for
| example), drive a wedge between the US and European allies,
| insure no one trusts hosting their data in the US or with US
| companies, erode democracy, and increase inequality especially at
| the margins (make the poor desperate and the wealthy beyond the
| reach of consequences).
| spprashant wrote:
| Are people really going to hurt by this? Opus 4.8 can do a vast
| amount of the same tasks at half the price. How many people are
| really doing cutting edge work?
| glerk wrote:
| a fable for the ages:
|
| pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered
| data-ottawa wrote:
| As a non-US citizen I guess this is the last money I pay to US
| companies for AI then.
|
| I can't help but wonder if it's now obvious that frontier AI work
| should not happen in the US.
|
| I can understand the KYC aspect of this, but at the same time,
| how can anyone trust US based AI after this? Maybe this is a
| continuation of the Pentagon feud, or it's revenge, or it's a KYC
| play. Either way, you've got a government willing to shut down
| companies sales over arbitrary reasons.
|
| Ironically, I mostly have a subscription to Claude for work,
| which is primarily for US baed companies.
| ndneighbor wrote:
| I see a lot of analysis here that this is good for Ant, but I beg
| to differ, it's a very bad place to be as a company serving
| enterprises when deployment risk is now present. This might delay
| Ant's financial goals in their ability to monetize Fable and
| other Mythos class models.
| stevefan1999 wrote:
| Well, they also reset the quota
| tabs_or_spaces wrote:
| I'm more interested in the business impact of this
|
| So you spend billions of dollars training the model, only for it
| to be used in the US.
|
| Then interesting to see where most of anthropic revenue comes
| from. If it's the US then they're fine but if it's global then
| they'll see a drop in revenue?
|
| Then add to this decision, companies are going to significantly
| reduce their token spend.
|
| So what does all of this mean for their IPO?
| system2 wrote:
| I am certain this is hype. Tomorrow, they can release Opus 4.9
| and claim it is 99.99% close to Fable.
| nikolay wrote:
| Big deal! Can't wait for the Chinese models to catch up - cheap,
| no marketing gimmicks, no politics, humble, hardworking, and they
| are only getting better. America is no longer a trustworthy
| technology partner! No wonder Europe is trying to detach itself
| from the present and future Trumps, Pete Hegseths, and other
| deranged narcissists. But I wonder why Anthropic is cutting my
| access, too, as I'm a US citizen residing in America? They
| could've vibe-coded a self-improving ID verification in no time,
| right? Should US models in the future require biometric
| verification to make small CSS tweaks to a vibe-coded website?!
| atsjie wrote:
| A good way to push foreigners toward competitors and reduce any
| incentive to base you AI company in the US.
| AbstractH24 wrote:
| This might be the biggest favor to anthropics valuation that
| Trump could have done
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| I'm reminded of export restrictions on 40-bit encryption 30 years
| ago. It will pass when chips get cheaper and things become less
| one-sided.
| spprashant wrote:
| This has David Sacks written all over it.
| bawolff wrote:
| Is this legal? Seems pretty arbitrary. Its not like usa forbids
| selling pentesting services to foreigners.
| bottlepalm wrote:
| Reddit thinks this is all part of Anthropic's marketing. People
| can't get it through their heads that AI is actually going where
| all the trends have been pointing for years.
| dodu_ wrote:
| I do not care.
|
| Either deliver on your fuckass promise to end the world and
| replace everyone and make everything shitty forever or fuck off.
|
| Shit or get off the pot already, clowns.
| nickandbro wrote:
| A race to the bottom means that as other model makers start
| competing with Anthropic's Fable 5, eventually costs will come
| down. However if you are able to successfully convince the
| government to cease AI development, you don't have to sweat so
| much at night worrying about your competitors.
| jnaina wrote:
| Pure pre-IPO drama
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| > If this standard was applied across the industry, we believe it
| would essentially halt all new model deployments for all frontier
| model providers.
|
| ... Isn't that basically what Anthropic asked for, literally a
| week ago?
|
| https://www.anthropic.com/institute/recursive-self-improveme...
|
| > We believe it would be good for the world to have the option to
| slow or temporarily pause frontier AI development to enable
| societal structures and alignment research to keep up with the
| advance of the technology.
| J8K357R wrote:
| And the chickens come home to roost. That's what you get for your
| theatrics around Mythos!
| averysmallbird wrote:
| It's clear from this post that Anthropic doesn't believe this is
| legal, but is complying for the sake of it. Federal law doesn't
| generally have broad authorities to send demand letters like
| these.
| epsteingpt wrote:
| chickens -> roost
| senderista wrote:
| That's what you get for not being on the Epstein ballroom plaque.
| sourraspberry wrote:
| This is very transparently Trump admin retribution, and I'm
| surprised this fact is being so widely ignored.
| cdnsteve wrote:
| This feels like a bad precedent of things to come.
| gorgoiler wrote:
| Haven't we learned by now that software is a commodity, and that
| revenue only comes from unique products and services?
|
| On the one hand someone will subscribe $4.99 a month for TODO.app
| or calendar.com because they are paying for a solo dev or a small
| team to work on constant development and improvement of products
| filling a particular niche.
|
| On the other hand, Linux, Django, PyTorch, React, Zed, Helix,
| Postgres, Arch, Chromium, Firefox, Rust, Python etc. ship
| continually improving, solid pieces of enormous infrastructure
| for free, to be used freely by all, off the back of hundreds if
| not thousands of active core developers. These projects and large
| and complicated. They are also commodities.
|
| Then, ahem*, on the final hand there are of course Windows,
| Office, Adobe, macOS and iOS, et al which span both categories:
| monster projects that are _also_ commercial and _also_
| commodities and yet they have hooked themselves into the world in
| such a way that most folks gotta pay for 'em.
|
| LLMs feel like they _want_ to be in the same category as the OSs
| of yesteryear, with all the fanfare of major release versions
| named like 95, 98, 2000, XP... or like Leopard, Tiger, Yosemite,
| Sequoia. The training and evaluation pipelines might feel like
| they fall into those categories, but the models themselves --
| after all, distillations of someone else's public or private IP
| -- do not.
|
| It might seem like a trivialization, but aren't LLMs just
| telephone directories but instead of phone numbers of a public
| phone system they contain weights of a mind that's read a public
| library? Such works might be proprietary under "sweat of the
| brow" copyright law..
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow
|
| ...but they also might not!:
|
| https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
|
| * _after Niven /Pournelle
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gripping_Hand ..._
| ulfw wrote:
| Now can that silly IPO fail too?
| aunty_helen wrote:
| These are the warning signs. The haves and have nots are about to
| part ways.
|
| It's vitally important open source models are supported.
| ern wrote:
| Am I missing something, but given that it flows through
| Anthropic's servers I would have thought the US would just have
| used it to Hoover up the data of foreign users? Now overseas
| users have an incentive to use local models or those hosted
| elsewhere?
| paulsutter wrote:
| It's no big deal. Massive infrastructure, laws, processes, and a
| whole ecosystem of services providers already exist for
| ITAR/CMMC/FedRamp controls
|
| When you ask for regulation, you get regulated. Welcome to the
| real world
| abraxas wrote:
| Pure vendetta by the capricious king wannabe. The US is so
| fucked.
| Khaine wrote:
| I just upgraded my plan to try out Fable and now this
| nuker wrote:
| It all started when they took a stand against DoD on autonomous
| weapons and domestic mass surveillance usage. Feb 2026.
|
| After that details don't matter, they shown their "enemy"
| colours, once is enough. This just punishment and it will
| continue, until they bend the knee.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-06-13 03:00 UTC)