15 ms·

U.S. allows Anthropic to release Mythos AI to ‘trusted’ US organizations

• Henchman21 3mo ago
  This is what “stacking the deck” looks like
• kristopolous 3mo ago
  Next time someone tells you this is the party of free market and small government, I guess you just laugh now?
  • digitaltrees 3mo ago
    If you laugh you’re a communist and against Christianity and part of a satanic cabal.
    • kristopolous 3mo ago
      these days my actual policy is to find whoever is being slandered as a communist and vote for them.
  • ryanar 3mo ago
    [flagged]
    • Klathmon 3mo ago
      But it's not just him, it's the entire party aggressively supporting him and everything he does.
      • atlgator 3mo ago
        They passed one major piece of legislation since he took office and it was loaded with pork to get everyone onboard. I wouldn't call that aggressive. The Right is very fractured right now.
        • jLaForest 3mo ago
          The right is fractured is several ways but there is one unifying value: unquestioning support for Trump
          • atlgator 3mo ago
            I can't tell if you're disingenuous or just ignorant. The Trump admin has been completely coopted by the pro-Israel lobby and Big Tech. He betrayed his entire base. He's ruling by executive fiat (EOs). Anyone that speaks out publicly for the original platform gets a primary challenger funded by Miriam Adelson or threats. See Thomas Massie, MTG, Lauren Boebert, etc. Are you paying attention at all? The Boomers watching Fox News propaganda in their nursing homes all day are not a reflection of party unity.
            • preg_match 3mo ago
              The Fox News boomers were pawns, but everyone knew that. Trump is a “money talks” kind of guy, that’s why people voted for him. Yes that was shortsighted but it’s worked out well for trump. He can basically just… do whatever. Nobody needs to legislate, he’s essentially congress at this point.
        • wk_end 3mo ago
          At least in part that's because they've stopped legislating. The executive now basically just does whatever it wants.
        • jknoepfler 3mo ago
          It's fractured as a consequence of its own actions, which all of its constituent members bear direct responsibility for. Epstein cover up? Iran? COVID denialism? Complete disregard for rule of law? Accepting massive, direct bribes? Trying to control broadcast media? That's all on the Republican party as a collective, who did absolutely nothing to resist it and everything to put him in power TWICE. TWICE.
    • joshgachnang 3mo ago
      And yet the rest of the party falls in behind him.
    • keyle 3mo ago
      It seems people can flip that coin whenever it suits them.
    • malcolmgreaves 3mo ago
      The entire Republican party in all branches of government is supporting Trump. His politics and the Republican party politics are one and the same. The last election the party did not have a platform because, quite literally, they said that whatever Trump says _is_ their platform.
    • afavour 3mo ago
      They have affiliated themselves to him. Watch, within a month of Democrats being back in power they’ll be harping small government, denigrating the national debt they ballooned themselves. There’s no reason to help them attempt to disavow it.
      • kristopolous 3mo ago
        Trump will be called a liberal woke socialist within your lifetime because conservatives will need to distance themselves from him
    • gkoberger 3mo ago
      Trump has an 87% approval rating amongst Republicans as of the last poll I can find. While Trump is a megalomanic and does whatever he wants, he has the mandate of the Republican party, whose elected officials could choose at any moment to end this by withdrawing support. Don't let them off the hook.
      • andsoitis 3mo ago
        > Trump has an 87% approval rating amongst Republicans as of the last poll I can find. It's lower than that. Most polls show below 80%. > Don't let them off the hook. That's not the way.
        • digitaltrees 3mo ago
          80% is cult numbers especially when you consider Trump has changed the platform to be the opposite of basically everything the party stood for.
      • kristopolous 3mo ago
        This is what they want. When they say "small government" they mean "small autocratic ruling party". When they say "personal responsibility" they mean "societal harm burdened on the individual" When they say "liberty" they mean liberty to oppress others ... I've heard this language my whole life. I know what these people stand for and I've seen it in practice. It's heinous and repulsive.
    • ryanmcbride 3mo ago
      it's actually the entire party that's propping him up. If it was just trump he would be living on the street.
    • jknoepfler 3mo ago
      [flagged]
      • trimethylpurine 3mo ago
        [flagged]
        • azan_ 3mo ago
          Covid vaccines are very safe and saved lots of lives. That’s what actual research shows, not your delusions. I’m biochemistry phd so yeah, step up.
          • trimethylpurine 3mo ago
            Math please? Specifically citing the research that the FDA cited from the NEJoM. Please include the published injury rate, and the published efficacy. If you can't make a point with the math, then don't bother replying. My invitation is to discuss with scientists, to be clear. CNN is not qualified as a scientific body, despite claiming to be. I'm aware that most of the US believes that CNN is the arbiter of science. I'm referring specifically to a scientific paper published by the manufacturer of the drug you are pedaling. And that's my point. You can't. You're consuming media and calling it science. You're lying to yourself. Please prove me wrong. Look at the injury rate in the NEJoM study submitted by Pfizer, and look at the rate of disease symptoms (later decreased but we'll ignore that for the sake of driving my point home), and tell me what the rest of us scientists missed. Or at least admit that you didn't really notice that it killed and injured more people in Pfizer's own study than you had realized (for the sake of honest scientists if you care to call yourself one). I'll even overlook the fact that all the "peer reviewers" were Pfizer employees who couldn't bring themselves to the level of shame so as to falsify the results. Instead they themselves published blatantly that the drug is more destructive than the disease it purports to treat. Thankfully we have some moral fiber in the field.
            • azan_ 3mo ago
              But you did not make any point, you keep using buzzword without referencing any data. You did not even link exact study you are talking about (there are lots of nejm covid studies…). You did not reference a single number. So please, if you want math actually make your point without bullshit about me consuming media etc.
    • MaxHoppersGhost 3mo ago
      [flagged]
      • preg_match 3mo ago
        Some things are just true. Rape bad, murder bad, war bad. I have never understood this reasoning. If things are bad are we just supposed to… pretend… they’re not? And that… would help things? Like how? What’s even the mechanism for that?
  • GolfPopper 3mo ago
    I've been laughing when people tell me that for my entire adult life. It remains a pretty funny bit of dark humor, though.
    • z3c0 3mo ago
      Growing up rural, the grift has been obvious my whole ĺife
  • az226 3mo ago
    Not just that, Biden administration started with some AI regulation that the Trump administration nixed, and then outright banning models. Lunacy.
    • deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
  • nutjob2 3mo ago
    Also free speech/the first amendment and various other rights people are supposed to have but don't in practice.
    • DANmode 3mo ago
      Fourth Amendment, through corporate data purchase or exfiltration.
  • Gagarin1917 3mo ago
    Now?
  • paytonjjones 3mo ago
    That's always been a relative, rather than absolute statement. Genuine question: if Democrats take power, do you expect them to be more interventionist or less interventionist with respect to AI? Bernie's jockeying leads me to suspect "more", but I could very well be wrong. (FWIW I personally think modern AI falls in the small realm of potentially dangerous technologies that merit careful, ideally bipartisan, government oversight)
    • brokencode 3mo ago
      I think they’d try to get something through Congress to regulate the industry in a rules-based way. The current admin flies by the seat of their pants and at least creates the perception of political decision making.
      • FireBeyond 3mo ago
        > the perception of political decision making The what? More like "the whims of an eighty year old in cognitive decline and those wishing to curry or keep his favor" - quite an expansive definition of "political decision making".
        • Alupis 3mo ago
          > More like "the whims of an eighty year old in cognitive decline..." The previous administration was totally not exactly what's described here...
          • preg_match 3mo ago
            It wasn’t. Biden largely didn’t do much. The trump administration does illegal things that get struck down in courts on a daily basis. We’re all very desensitized to it. But yes, Biden was old and cognitively not well. But his “whims” didn’t exist much, and they were always fairly reasonable. Trump is the most unreasonable president, most likely in US history. I would even categorize Andrew Jackson as more restrained.
  • jknoepfler 3mo ago
    Ever since I've been conscious (the 80s), it's been the party of fear, violence and greed. They've consistently nominated actual clowns for positions of power. B-movie actor Ronald Reagan... Dan Quayle... Sarah Palin... the current, truly stunning iteration of absolute moral and intellectual bankruptcy TWICE after he killed hundreds of thousands of people due to COVID/vaccine skepticism and staged a violent attack on the capitol after losing a democratic election. Free market? Small government? Big police state, trillions in defense contractor grift, unsustainable tax breaks to the wealthiest leading to massive spending deficits... all while doing everything to erode access to education, healthcare and basic services. It is just utterly baffling to me. I'm... well along the spectrum... so people not responding correctly to obvious information is just something I've gotten used to but just... wow. edit: typo
    • danans 3mo ago
      > It is just utterly baffling to me. I'm... well along the spectrum... so people not responding correctly to obvious information is just something I've gotten used to but just... wow. People get quite a kick out of seeing people they don't like get hurt. They can stay entertained by that for a long time until it bites them. Only now is it finally biting with the collapse of the rural medical clinics, the war induced spike in the price of gasoline, etc. That's probably playing a big part in the seeming shift in the electorate in every election.
    • MaxPock 3mo ago
      Republicans trust Americans with guns and not an LLM. That should tell you something.
      • GolfPopper 3mo ago
        It tells me that the people who buy Republican politicians make money from selling Americans guns, and somebody with influence thinks they can make money by restricting LLM release.
  • jmyeet 3mo ago
    Considering there's no such thing as a "free market" I've been laughing for a real long time. Markets require regulation and enforcement to function. The US government was created to protect the interests of rich, white, male slave owners. And if you look at Louisiana State Penintentiary (often called "Angola"), which is essentialy a Southern plantation with forced labor, you realize not as much has changed as you might otherwise think.
    • paulddraper 3mo ago
      The it did a pretty shit job of it. Within 100 years it was killing hundreds of thousands to fight against that purpose.
      • mullingitover 3mo ago
        The point of slavery was money, and the point of money was power. By the time of the civil war the real power for the ruling class was coming from industrialization.
      • jmyeet 3mo ago
        Lincoln disagrees [1]: > My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. While chattel slavery ended when the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865, slavery continued through debt bondage and convict leasing up until 1941 where FDR suddenly decided to aggressively prosecute the practice for fear of the Japanese using it for propaganda value. I'm referring to Circular 3591 [2]. And while that heavily curtailed abuse (eg by locking people up essentially indefinitely for "vagrancy" or imaged debts), forced prison labor continues to this day, including private companies profiting from prison labor. Also, while the Confederacy lost the Civil War, the South arguably won. Reconstruction saw severe curtailment of newly-established civil rights for former enslaved people. And after Reconstruction came Jim Crow until the 1960s. [1]: https://www.loc.gov/collections/abraham-lincoln-papers/articles-and-essays/abraham-lincoln-and-emancipation/ https://www.loc.gov/collections/abraham-lincoln-papers/artic... [2]: https://www.endslaverynow.org/blog/articles/state-imposed-forced-labor-history-of-prison-labor-in-the-us https://www.endslaverynow.org/blog/articles/state-imposed-fo...
  • paulddraper 3mo ago
    Then cry as you look for the free market/small government leaders.
  • deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  • bilsbie 3mo ago
    Which party is?
    • iAMkenough 3mo ago
      The one currently running the show.
  • seemaze 3mo ago
    Having an a collective economy governed by the “free market” is like having a pile of stones governed by gravity. There exists a primary directive force, but if you want to construct a cathedral or a bomb shelter, you need to impose some constraints, lest you revert to the angle of repose.
    • digitaltrees 3mo ago
      Yes. But that was the “big government democrat” argument that republicans said was evil and un American.
    • m4nu3l 3mo ago
      This is a very bad analogy. Markets behave like an imperfect optimisation algorithm, and you can prove that, under some conditions which are most often met, they give people what they want. In fact, you can almost always expect governments to be less effective and less rational than markets in allocating resources to satisfy the desires of people, even when democratic. You can prove it either by using the same logic that tells you when markets fail (externalities, information asymmetry), or empirically by looking at what was basically the most perfect A/B test we had on society over the 20th century. Although it was a comparison between mixed economies and fully centralised ones, there is no reason to expect the optimum mix of centralisation/distribution to be closer to the worst-performing one (the fully centralised one).
      • plaguuuuuu 3mo ago
        You can't prove your free-market theory because it's not falsifiable. This is why arguments about this go in circles. You either argue from a pure theoretic POV back and forth, or you go off data - at which point, bringing up every failure of free markets (like, obviously, US healthcare) is dismissed as "not really a free market" Even the theoreticians on the free-market side are far less solid than.. all the other sides (behavioural economics, information asymmetry.. even Marx) but I regard it as deeply unpragmatic when there's so much data out there indicating what actually happens in the real world when you go one way or the other.
  • JPKab 3mo ago
    If you think that anthropic wasn't pushing aggressive regulatory capture legislation in the Biden administration, why do you think they hired a bunch of people from it?
    • Alupis 3mo ago
      It's very fashionable to hate on the current administration, despite what the previous administration was doing. That's reality and I'll be punished to hell for saying so.
      • SpicyLemonZest 3mo ago
        If you don't want the current administration to be blindly hated, perhaps you should ask the president to stop publishing daily statements about how much he hates various people. You reap what you sow.
        • Alupis 3mo ago
          It'll never stop amusing me how blind we are to politicians that are "on our side".
          • SpicyLemonZest 3mo ago
            Again, you're seeing this as some kind of clever invariant of politics, but it's not. People are blind to politicians on their side because Donald Trump has spent the past 10 years working hard to make sure that everyone in politics is constantly enraged at the other side. You're being "punished to hell", in your words, because you're blaming Trump's passionate embrace of hatred-based politics on his opponents.
            • Alupis 3mo ago
              > you're seeing this as some kind of clever invariant of politics, but it's not. People are blind to politicians on their side because Donald Trump Yes, sure, it is I who is blind...
  • ch4s3 3mo ago
    They haven’t claimed to be the free market party since Obama was in office. Trump very much ran an anti free market campaign the first time.
    • digitaltrees 3mo ago
      Yes they have.
      • ch4s3 3mo ago
        Not really. They’re all lousy pro tariffs, anti immigration, pro tech regulations, and so on. Paul Ryan is gone.
        • digitaltrees 3mo ago
          They still spout off about free markets all the time with no sense of irony.
          • CamperBob2 3mo ago
            They'll literally tell you it's not raining while you're standing there getting soaked. [1] Anything the Republicans say is meaningless. 1: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/articles/2017-01-23/donald-trumps-inauguration-lies-and-sean-spicers-alternative-facts https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/artic...
          • ch4s3 3mo ago
            Literally who? The young MAGA folks in congress like Josh Hawley certainly don’t. I guess Rand Paul is a free market guy, but he’s pretty much the only one. Even Susan Colins is signing onto tariffs and other nonsense.
            • digitaltrees 3mo ago
              Anyone that complains about socialism or communism as a criticism of democrats is pretending to be a free market capitalist.
  • y1n0 3mo ago
    Well, there are the political ideals expressed or embraced by the populace, and then there are politicians. AFAICT political parties at the national level and state level in the US is pure theater.
  • rikfckfj284 3mo ago
    the question isn’t about size, it’s about who the government works for. Small government can promote private interests by not entering certain societal spaces, leaving them for profit making — education, healthcare, housing etc. But large government can also promote private interests, by directing tax dollars to corporations (and still not entering certain societal spaces). It’s not about size, it’s about where it chooses to operate
  • deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  • jandrewrogers 3mo ago
    The authority under which this was done has been operative and actively used for several decades. It isn't a partisan issue, it is a policy of American governance. Anyone that has worked on frontier "dual use" technologies will be familiar with the legal regime. The only thing that changed is people are writing articles about it in the news media.
    • typeofhuman 3mo ago
      The only correct reply.
      • digitaltrees 3mo ago
        If by correct you mean, inconsistent with the American tradition of the rule of law and commitment to equal protection of the law, and the emergence of an authoritarian kleptocracy that picks winners and losers. Then yes. Correct.
        • dmix 3mo ago
          Which has been obvious trend the last few decades and is now being done openly and shamelessly like a tinpot dicator. Largely through a new populist protectionism ideology that is popular on social media. Which makes it much more public and well documented. Usually companies do this stuff quietly with lots of small new rules via Congress creating barriers to entry or through national security angles like the Chips act which funneled money and tax breaks to huge weathy companies, or Boeing, or the car industry, etc. Anthropic and OpenAI went hard in the paint pushing for AI safety and it backfired into hurting their companies rather than protecting their interests.
          • digitaltrees 3mo ago
            Stop with the false equivalence.
            • dmix 3mo ago
  • sharts 3mo ago
    Free for me, not for thee
• _pdp_ 3mo ago
  Nooice /s
• pertymcpert 3mo ago
  Why would they allow Mythos but not Fable? Fable is the one with more guardrails.
  • layer8 3mo ago
    They only allow it for specific companies and agencies, which are trusted with the less restricted model. The general public is still not trusted to use Fable, apparently.
  • nozzlegear 3mo ago
    To quote famed businessman and philosopher Eugene Krabs: "Money."
  • LoganDark 3mo ago
    The ban was on "Mythos-class models" which unfortunately includes Fable regardless of guardrails.
• tristanj 3mo ago
  Original source: https://www.semafor.com/article/06/27/2026/us-releases-powerful-anthropic-model-mythos-to-some-us-companies https://www.semafor.com/article/06/27/2026/us-releases-power...
  • enraged_camel 3mo ago
    @dang can you change it?
• jauntywundrkind 3mo ago
  * to some US companies. Asterisk the size of a Mac truck. Also this administration having say over who gets access to what AI is just so much more grift corruption and picking your favorites / destroying others, for these incdecent undemocratic in American grifters who've seized our state.
  • wolvoleo 3mo ago
    If this is the way things are now, isn't that going to crash the AI stocks? All those trillions dumped into it probably weren't with the expectation that it could only be sold to a handful of select US agencies and corporations.
    • thrwaway55 3mo ago
      They are all private aren't they? There's nothing to crash since the valuations were all made up funny raise numbers anyway. A donation to the right person likely removes the restrictions
      • bluecalm 3mo ago
        They all get serious investments from public companies and a lot of public companies rely on those private labs buying stuff from them.
      • wolvoleo 3mo ago
        But the effects on the industry as a whole are huge, look at the cost of memory, CPUs and GPUs. Many of the companies that make them are not private.
    • bayarearefugee 3mo ago
      > If this is the way things are now, isn't that going to crash the AI stocks? Maybe, maybe not. Tech stocks are mostly vibes-based now, reality isn't really a concern for them.
    • SpicyLemonZest 3mo ago
• tracerbulletx 3mo ago
  Imposing a licensing system on models for limiting domestic use should require an act of congress but I mean obviously we're well past that red line.
  • tchalla 3mo ago
    Do you remember the export controls on Covid vaccine material during the height of coronavirus? I do
  • coffeemug 3mo ago
    Regulatory agencies limit uses of other products without acts of congress-- cigarettes, vapes, drugs, pesticides, chemicals, explosives. Even firearms, despite a constitutional amendment! Why not models? (Note I am not arguing it's a good idea; I'm making a narrow argument that there is precedent.) EDIT: I agree that it should require an act of Congress to explicitly delegate this power.
    • standardUser 3mo ago
      All of the agencies responsible for those regulations were created by and get their funding from Congress. Currently, they're asleep at the wheel. Or a better idiom might be "cowering in the corner".
      • GolfPopper 3mo ago
        I would say, "sitting smugly astride the monster's back, confident that they will never be fed to it".
    • verelo 3mo ago
      None of those things are knowledge. I think theres something specific around limiting access to knowledge and capabilities that makes this feel insidious.
      • Jblx2 3mo ago
        Information is covered by ITAR, so that's not new. You can illegally export information about an ITAR covered item by just allowing a foreign national the potential to see an item. They don't even have to prove the foreign national actually did see it. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-22/chapter-I/subchapter-M/part-120 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-22/chapter-I/subchapter-M...
• frogperson 3mo ago
  Who needs freedom of speech anyway? I'm just glad the trump admin is looking out for by best interests. /s
  • truthbe 3mo ago
    Sarcasm Detected, -40 Ameripoints have been deducted from your account. Have a nice day!
  • vlian2088 3mo ago
    [flagged]
    • deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
• Hawkenfall 3mo ago
  This appears to be only for Mythos 5 access, NOT Fable 5.
  • sourthyme 3mo ago
    Aren't these the same models?
    • paxys 3mo ago
      Mythos doesn't have the strict safeguards of Fable and is only accessible by a very small number of pre-approved companies.
    • aesthesia 3mo ago
      Under the hood, yes, but Mythos had more relaxed safeguards and was/is only available to a subset of approved customers under Project Glasswing, similar to the situation with GPT-5.6 now.
    • qsxfthnkp2322 3mo ago
      Fable was available to me as a normal person using Claude.ai Mythos never was and I don’t think that’s changing.
      • ryan_n 3mo ago
        Until the chinese make a comparable open source model at some point
        • iAMkenough 3mo ago
          I’d say we’re about 5 years out from the Great Firewall of America, and requiring government ID associated with serial number to legally purchase components. America will do that before gun control.
          • qsxfthnkp2322 3mo ago
• __natty__ 3mo ago
  And we get the news the same time OpenAI releases 5.6. What a coincidence?
  • mrandish 3mo ago
    I think they kind of had to since they allowed OpenAI to do a 5.6 "preview to trusted parties" today. The other driver is that the DoD/NSA wanted to get access to Mythos again. I figure OAI will now do several weeks of 'preview' like Anthropic did with Mythos. When OAI wants to release 5.6 wider to actually start making money with it, I expect Fable will get approved the same day. Back when the administration hit Mythos/Fable with the surprise ban, I figured this would be the endgame. They'd keep Anthropic tied up until a competitor had a roughly comparable model ready, then gate them the same.
  • xorgun 3mo ago
    [dead]
• andrewchambers 3mo ago
  This seems like it will have pretty huge negative affects on startups needing to compete with 'trusted partners'
  • A_D_E_P_T 3mo ago
    Startups don't have as much money to spend on lobbying and gifts, though.
    • ares623 3mo ago
      Will startups be even a thing now that the VCs obviously just need to funnel all their money to 2 or so companies ad-infinitum for guaranteed returns.
      • airstrike 3mo ago
        The single most important question to be discussed on this website right now.
        • redcheeks 3mo ago
          Whatever happened to those network states? It's starting to look like it's them, UAE or Singapore
          • ajmurmann 3mo ago
            Well, the network states were supposed to be a social thing rather than a place, no? Free Cities movement is more focused on actual, physical places.
    • slashdave 3mo ago
      Well... there are crypto startups, and perhaps a generous definition of "money"
      • 3mo ago
• zuzululu 3mo ago
  should see 5.6 any day now
• sscaryterry 3mo ago
  I thought Fable was a "safer" Mythos?!
  • dchftcs 3mo ago
    I suppose the point is that Mythos was released to a smaller set of partners anyway and Fable is for the masses.
• skywhopper 3mo ago
  Why post a content free link to Twitter for this?
• nozzlegear 3mo ago
  Wowee, just happens to be on the same day of OpenAI's Sol announcement. How convenient for Dario and Anthropic!
  • __natty__ 3mo ago
    That’s exactly what I was thinking. Feels like someone is playing a high-stakes game, putting on a show involving the US government.
    • Aeolun 3mo ago
      This should perhaps not be surprising considering the president.
• deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
• outside1234 3mo ago
  Is there a list of the partners that get access? That should be public, right?
  • mikestorrent 3mo ago
    Bless your heart
• paxys 3mo ago
  TL;DR - OpenAI and Anthropic are both allowed to ship their most powerful models to a small number of companies pre-approved by Trump.
• aryonoco 3mo ago
  Land of the free, land of the brave. Free market. Freedom of speech. Market economy. These words don’t mean what they use to anymore. Newspeak is in full swing. Words still sound the same and are written in the same way but now mean something completely different. If Mao and Stalin were alive, they would be nodding approvingly.
  • wasting_time 3mo ago
    Free for me, not for thee! I hope the Chinese models catch up soon so I can stop contributing to the American economy.
    • 1over137 3mo ago
      Stop contributing now. Why wait?
      • wasting_time 3mo ago
        Claude makes me a 10x better programmer. Giving that up I might as well switch to llama farming.
        • nozzlegear 3mo ago
          It just makes you think you're a 10x better programmer. In reality you've just given yourself 10x more busywork because "Claude can handle it." For the parts that Claude has actually improved your programming, the open models compete just fine.
• SwellJoe 3mo ago
  "I have determined that appropriate safeguards are in place to permit certain trusted partners to access the Claude Mythos 5 Model" I assume "trusted partners" means, "companies that have bribed Trump an appropriate amount". A few million for the inauguration, a few million for the ballroom, a few million on a movie about Melania, the don wants a taste.
• jimmydoe 3mo ago
  Congrats sama. Such a great sophisticated 5d chess move.
  • llelouch 3mo ago
    Please explain. Do you think Altman wanted this to catch-up?
    • jimmydoe 3mo ago
      I think it’s a complex dynamic but he certainly preferred this to happen than not, and someone might have nudged the development to his favor while aligned well with this admin’s interests.
  • cute_boi 3mo ago
    I think we should also thank Dario for constantly beaming "Mythos is dangerous". That's why I keep saying we shouldn't support Closed AI and Misanthropic.
• mlinsey 3mo ago
  I understand why Anthropic might not want to fight this particular one in court, because they're trying to convince the administration to let them move forward. But would another company who is not on the trusted partner list and has less to lose taking on the admin have standing to sue here? On the basis of the export control being illegal and this putting their business at a disadvantage vs. competitors with access
  • threethirtytwo 3mo ago
    Also there’s no incentive to fight. They already have one of the best models. Mythos remains a trump card when a competitor releases an even better model.
    • bluegatty 3mo ago
      There's huge incentive. The government has arbitrary commandeered their business. This could ruin Anthropic. They are walking a tight rope with respect to revenues, hype, IPO. If this kills their hyper growth prospects, it could kill the IPO. If there's a serious change the gov. is out of line, the judges could put a stay and possibly throw this out. There may however be enough of a case, in which there's maybe not much they can do. Having a crazy person completely control your business is very, very bad.
      • koolala 3mo ago
        Maybe they would prefer Nationalization more than an IPO.
        • bluegatty 3mo ago
          Definitely not. If this technology has export restrictions, then Anthropic and OpenAI will go out of business. Anthropic's revenues are already 66% international.
          • koolala 3mo ago
• olalonde 3mo ago
  It feels the U.S. is moving closer to a textbook definition of crony capitalism. Really sad but unsurprising with the current administration.
  • mullingitover 3mo ago
    I don't think you can move closer to something that you're already fully enmeshed in. The rate that the ruling class ran into crony capitalism at the first chance they got is something that needs to be remembered. They'll try to act like they were always against it at some point in the near future.
    • olalonde 3mo ago
      Milton Friedman was prescient on this: > The two biggest enemies of the free market are two separate groups: my academic colleagues and business people. Business people are enemies of free markets, not friends. > [...] > The business people are just the opposite. They're all in favor of freedom for everybody else, and at the drop of a hat you can get any leading businessman to give you an eloquent speech on the virtues of a free market. But when it comes to their own business, they want to go down to Washington and get a special tariff to protect their business. They want a special tax deduction. They want a tax subsidy. And Chrysler is on the verge of failing, which it should have done. It should have been allowed to fail. Chrysler goes down and exercises political influence and tries to get the government to lend it money to subsidize it. > So businessmen in general — not all, there have been some notable exceptions — and I don't want to include everybody. But in the main, most businessmen are enemies of free markets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhgaPVO8aw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhgaPVO8aw8
• deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
• alanwreath 3mo ago
  I’m not sure what the US government is trying to do. At first it seems like they are just trying to stifle some company that said no. Now they are just doing free publicity. It’s like never before have I wanted to try something out as much as this. They’re in effect saying “nothing else is as powerful as what Anthropic put out”. Even though that might not really be the case it’s what it sounds like.
  • drcode 3mo ago
    they're flailing is what they're doing
    • conception 3mo ago
      They are collecting tribute is what they are doing.
      • altcognito 3mo ago
        And they are just getting started. It sounds insidious, and it probably would be if they weren’t so damn dumb.
  • deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  • SpicyLemonZest 3mo ago
    Is there any evidence at all that would convince you that they're trying to mitigate real risks that actually exist?
    • JackC 3mo ago
      I mean, we're talking about an administration that has already over-reached in regulating this specific company out of personal bias; is openly seeking leverage over companies for favoritism and graft; hires on the basis of loyalty to whims of a narcissist; makes fun of the whole idea of competent government based on expertise; provides a range of conflicting explanations for whatever it chooses to do; and has been unable to field a team capable of understanding or explaining whatever real risks are here. Your question is like asking what evidence would convince us that a bag of rocks doesn't have rocks in it. Easy, just take the rocks out.
• kdawag 3mo ago
  To the surprise of absolutely nobody following the news
• standardUser 3mo ago
  Meanwhile, China is pushing the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization (WAICO), which, in the face of internal divisions and impotent leadership among Western nations, could prove to be the first global regime that China gets to build and lead.
• Havoc 3mo ago
  One more aspect where the US can no longer be counted on. Let's hope this creates a bit more fire under the asses of other countries
• avaer 3mo ago
  I wonder if the Founding Fathers knew about AI, they would include it in the 2nd? The spirit is to provide effective tools for the people to resist federal military tyranny, and Mythos seems like it would be a good tool to defend against that, for so many reasons.
  • taintlord 3mo ago
    [dead]
  • tyre 3mo ago
    Could you explain this like I'm 35?
  • aesthesia 3mo ago
    I'm not sure that analogy works: pretty much everyone agrees that there are some types of weapons civilians shouldn't be able to have, even though they might be very effective for resisting military tyranny.
    • digitaltrees 3mo ago
      I don’t think everyone agrees on that. It’s just that the government has been able to legislate that as technology evolved. That being said many legal scholars say the state militia was intended to be the defense against tyranny not individual citizens because there were government led crackdowns on rebellion under Washington and other presidents from the earliest days of the republic. State militias have the full range of weapons
  • deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  • TheDong 3mo ago
    As Iran is showing, the federal government is worried about nukes. I feel like a modern 2nd amendment should ensure every US citizen has a right to up to three (3) nuclear weapons.
  • deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
• naturalmovement 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  • gensym 3mo ago
    Just because a policy is legal doesn't mean it cannot be disastrous.
    • andsoitis 3mo ago
      "disastrous" seems hyperbolic to me. what disaster do you foresee?
      • gensym 3mo ago
        Favored companies get access to frontier models, which gives them a competitive advantage, starving out smaller companies. Any smaller companies that do manage to innovate ultimately get acquired by the favored companies since they are worth more with access to frontier models than without (which is effectively a discount on the purchase price of those companies). I'm not saying that's going to happen, but it is one possible scenario that, over time, would be disastrous for innovation and freedom.
      • nickthegreek 3mo ago
        Foreseeable corruption by the state. A further slip into cronyism. A large puzzle piece that when simply connected with the recent actions like demanding shares in companies, removing funding for energy projects not aligned with other lobbies, pardoning of white collar criminals. It seems pretty plain and obvious the type of disasters that await.
  • Capricorn2481 3mo ago
    I'm not being facetious, can you direct us to which laws are in play here? Specifically, why different models can be classified as different exports that need separate approvals?
    • 3mo ago
• truthbe 3mo ago
  Open source should create a new license where it specifically doesn't allow release to these "trusted partners".
  • digitaltrees 3mo ago
    And blocks not just training on the oss code but use of it by models. If they want to build on the shoulders of us plebes they shouldn’t be able to include our code in their vibe coded bs
• Alien1Being 3mo ago
  Don't start to rely on it . The US might remove access next month in a fit of pique. The Chinese models look increasingly more reliable and safer.
  • DANmode 3mo ago
    Safer?
    • micromacrofoot 3mo ago
      well at least they're a little further away
    • hajile 3mo ago
      If I can run it locally, it is certainly more safe than running on some cloud server somewhere.
      • DANmode 3mo ago
        Others nations’ models run offline, too.
  • tyre 3mo ago
    This is a pithy internet comment, but terrible advice. Between the Chinese government and Anthropic, I know which one I'd rather send tokens to. For all of the problems of the US, for-profit corporations, data harvesting, etc. the CCP (and, perhaps more troublesome, its allies) is far less likely to align with your interests.
    • plandis 3mo ago
      > I know which one I'd rather send tokens to. Do you have access to Mythos? If not the choice has already been made for you.
    • jeroenhd 3mo ago
      I don't buy that anymore. The day America threatened to invade Canada and Denmark was the day America showed they cannot be trusted any more. It's not like China can be trusted either, but China isn't planning any direct invasions to the west. Taiwan, perhaps, but they're playing a long-term tactical game rather than a "invade the country we don't like this week" game. They might get some info on you, but the data brokers in the west will sell a lot more details about you, pre-categorized and all. If you're afraid of industrial espionage, Chinese companies may be a risk, but in that case you shouldn't be uploading your secrets to an AI company in the first place.
• hmokiguess 3mo ago
  I identify as a trusted partner, can I have one Mythos please.
• andai 3mo ago
  Weren't they already doing that?
• bastard_op 3mo ago
  China will just buy a "trusted partner" one way or another. It's like the epidemic of scam nvidia cards being resold without gpu or memory - where do you think those are going?
• theturtletalks 3mo ago
  >> More than 100 companies and institutions will now have access to Mythos 5, including many Fortune 500 companies, a source familiar with the new directive said, declining to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter. Who are those 100 companies? Clearly they can't compete on merit and have rubbed some hands to be picked as winners...at least for now.
  • itopaloglu83 3mo ago
    I don’t know if this has something to do with the administration or access to export controlled technology. There could be a licensing process, but I don’t think it would be public information, we don’t know whom each defense contractor sells to as public.
  • fma 3mo ago
    May have an overlap of which political campaign they donate too.
• micromacrofoot 3mo ago
  america is worrying about a civil war and missing the corporate takeover
  • deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
• chungus_amongus 3mo ago
  despicable
• bluecalm 3mo ago
  Is there any scenario where it's not catastrophic for for the frontier labs? They just got their market cut to a fraction. Investing in new tech is now very risky because even if things work out you might not be able to sell anything. There were already serious doubts about ROI for the frontier labs. If they can only sell to 100 or so entities it's over business wise. What's the endgame here?
  • dansquizsoft 3mo ago
    It's bad, very bad, for the frontier labs.
• kevinten10 3mo ago
  [flagged]
• exabrial 3mo ago
  How does my small company become a "trusted partner"?
  • willsmith72 3mo ago
    Oh you thought this was a competitive free market?
    • t0mas88 3mo ago
      I thought "Free market!!1!" was basic US policy. But apparently you can't do any consumer protection laws, but you can regulate AI access to only your wealthy friends / campaign sponsors.
      • lantry 3mo ago
        "there are in-groups that the law protects but does not bind, and out-groups that the law binds but does not protect" i.e. freedom for me but not for thee
  • goatlover 3mo ago
    This administration doesn't care about small companies anymore than it cares about regular Americans.
    • Dig1t 3mo ago
      Anthropic has been touting how their newest model is basically a cyber weapon and is so dangerous that they need to only role it out to trusted people and make sure it has super restrictive guard rails. They are begging to be regulated. This is exactly what they’ve been asking for.
      • vinay427 3mo ago
        > This is exactly what they’ve been asking for. This doesn't directly follow from the first part of your comment, and more importantly seems inaccurate with respect to Anthropic's public statements on this situation. For example: > 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. https://www.anthropic.com/news/fable-mythos-access https://www.anthropic.com/news/fable-mythos-access
• tonyrice 3mo ago
  I'm looking forward to better open source models. Now I just need to afford the compute to run these models.
  • randomNumber7 3mo ago
    Most people can't afford 6 digits for hardware that deprecates in a couple of years.
• chopete3 3mo ago
  It is interesting that there is no public announcement from the US government or Anthropic on this topic. That means there is no form to apply to be a trusted partner. Does it mean US is allowing accessing to governments' exclusive list?
• wewewedxfgdf 3mo ago
  I wonder if Anthropic and ChatGPT will continue to scream at the top of their lungs how dangerous their services are and how they will break the security of everything everywhere? Or may they'll decide to be a little more quiet and less end-of-the-world-is-nigh-if-you-use-our-services?
• zacksiri 3mo ago
  This reminds me of the following quote "When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you - When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - You may know that your society is doomed." ― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
  • SwellJoe 3mo ago
    I'll point out that a lot of the current administration and Republican Congress that enables the current administration are Ayn Rand fans.
    • zacksiri 3mo ago
      They cherry pick and choose the parts of her work that fits their agenda, while forgetting the other parts.
      • SwellJoe 3mo ago
        Of course. No true Scotsman would ever do such a thing.
• layla5alive 3mo ago
  The Cantillon Effect applied to machine intelligence..
  • jandrewrogers 3mo ago
    +1 Insightful
    • Bluestein 3mo ago
      Indeed. Very much so. It puts a name to something that is happening.-
• monksy 3mo ago
  I can't wait till employees start helping with the distillation process.
• jchook 3mo ago
  The entire arc reads as a marketing stunt rather than a legitimate national security threat. Maybe Anthropic asked the US for this action to be taken. edit: > Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick (lol) Fable was out for 3 days, not really long enough for us to properly evaluate it, but the "Sorry we had to remove Fable. Read more. (because it's too powerful btw)" is loudly shown every chance they get for weeks. It creates a halo. Reminiscent of the 1999 Apple G4 commercial where they displayed it next to military tanks. "For the first time in history, a personal computer has been classified as a weapon by the U.S. government."
• espeed 3mo ago
  Are Cyber Verification Program (CVP) members included in this?: "We also intend to scale up our Cyber Verification Program, which would grant Mythos-class capabilities to many more organizations for specific cyberdefense tasks" (https://www.anthropic.com/news/expanding-project-glasswing https://www.anthropic.com/news/expanding-project-glasswing).
• Cryptosale75 3mo ago
  I personally believe that Dario Amodei is probably one of the 'less shitty' AI leaders. But literally no one is going to convince me that either 1. He overplayed his hand and fucked up 2. This is at least 'majority' PR.
  • brokensegue 3mo ago
    You mean neither?
  • jraph 3mo ago
    Did you mess up your double negation?
• theahura 3mo ago
  usgov picking winners and losers in AI --> usgov picking winners and losers in every industry (speedrun, any %)
• theahura 3mo ago
  > “I have determined that appropriate safeguards are in place to permit certain trusted partners to access the Claude Mythos 5 Model,” Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick wrote to Anthropic’s chief compute officer Tom Brown Friday why is the commerce secretary making this decision
  • naturalmovement 3mo ago
    [flagged]
    • kurthr 3mo ago
      So no need to do any deep consideration or evaluation, just the approval of the Epstein class.
      • nickpeterson 3mo ago
        You're completely wrong here, they make sure the check clears.
    • jchook 3mo ago
      And it's Howard Lutnick... the guy who lived next door to Epstein and magically wasn't at work on 9/11.
      • bflesch 3mo ago
        Downvotes every time this topic comes up because Epstein was deeply ingrained into the VC world.
        • malfist 3mo ago
          And why is that?
    • nazgob 3mo ago
      Does it apply to USA citizens and organizations as well?
• jurschreuder 3mo ago
  It's a win-win game because both Anthropic and the Government are on the front page again pulling on important leavers. In the mass-marketing world it's less about who's right or wrong but who is perceived by the population to be pulling the leavers on the front page again.
  • gizzlon 3mo ago
    I think this could crash the stock market: Their TAM is now a small percentage of what it was, with all the second and third otder effects that follow from that
• xyst 3mo ago
  "trusted" meaning "paid millions to trump admin slush fund account"
• bel8 3mo ago
  This makes me sad since it implies that the best LLM I will ever be allowed to use is GPT 5.5 and Opus 4.8. Anything smarter than that is deemed too risky. So much wasted potential. And why would I pay Anthropic or OpenAI once consumer hardware gets powerful enough to run an open weight Chinese version of Opus 4.8? Even more so when mobile phones are able to run similar LLMs. Their financial growth looks doomed. It looks like they will be heavily regulated just like the next missile factory. This is antagonist to VC led turbo growth startup regime.
  • johnisgood 3mo ago
    Cannot you just obtain them the same way you would obtain any copyrighted material and use them locally?
  • timurlenk 3mo ago
    Well, now I'm rooting for the Europeans/chinese to develop something better and release it. One can hope.
  • andxor 3mo ago
    That's not what is implied. Fable may still be widely available.
    • deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
    • deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
    • cubefox 3mo ago
      ... in the US.
      • 9dev 3mo ago
        Be gentle, foreigners using the internet is still a pretty new concept to them
  • 3mo ago
• chvid 3mo ago
  It never made same sense that the most capable model was used by the CIA to create vault 7-like exploits while the same model was being used by another government project / random little people to patch up the vulnerabilities the exploits relied on.
• ksimukka 3mo ago
  ok, who in the EU is working on our own frontier model? surely we have the drive and ability?
  • alecco 3mo ago
    EU just shrunk their AI projects and picked a very, very dodgy Italian company who has been burning money with nothing to show.
  • pembrook 3mo ago
    EU has the talent but not the ability due to structural issues and fragmentation. And even if they solved that (it will take them 40 years of bickering), it’s not something you can top-down create, unless you want the AI equivalent of the Yugo. China has the drive and the ability. It’s communist in name only, and has truly turned into a hyper-capitalist super producer (less government spending as % of GDP than even the US). It will beat out both the EU and US and sweep both the digital economy (the US’s golden goose) and industrial economy (the EU’s golden goose) over the next 20 years.
    • ksimukka 3mo ago
      are you located in that region?
  • dansquizsoft 3mo ago
    The EU is dead in the water on this front mate...
• zsoltkacsandi 3mo ago
  And this is how Chinese AI companies will win over the U.S. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
• sehw 3mo ago
  [dead]
• HexPhantom 3mo ago
  Hard to see how this does not turn into export controls for models, just with a lot more ambiguity
• OtherShrezzing 3mo ago
  What’ll happen when Google Deep Mind go to release their next models, developed mostly in London? Are Google going to end up in a situation where the people working on their models cannot use the models after launch?
  • t0mas88 3mo ago
    These are export restrictions, so if the model is in London (how do you determine that? The weights? The training itself?) there is no need to export it from the US. Then Google may have found gold. They can sell it to everyone that can't get the best OpenAI or Anthropic models.
    • spacebanana7 3mo ago
      Usually export controls are applied to stuff where some significant % is made in America so a few US based engineers could make the project export controllable.
      • itopaloglu83 3mo ago
        Or in the case of ASML machines, any company you can pressure to comply with your policies either by restricting their access to the technology you control or politics between governments.
        • t0mas88 3mo ago
          But do they want to start a game of chicken with Google? Doing it to Anthropic is one thing, they're much smaller and less B2C. But Google is far more powerful and likely to defend their UK/EU business because they're also fucked if they don't.
          • itopaloglu83 3mo ago
            Possibly. But we also need to keep in mind that Google gave governments access to their internal data center traffic unencrypted for years.
• __alexs 3mo ago
  I don't understand how this doesn't entirely screw the TAM for these companies? As an EU company I think I now basically have to consider US AI as hostile and avoid it.
  • vld_chk 3mo ago
    > now Unfortunately, Europe should had made this conclusion at least 18 months ago, not now. Watch out European politics procrastinate for at least one more year hoping that Trump will reverse. Then procrastinate more, because “elections soon, maybe Dems will win and reverse”. I live in Europe and will never go to work in the US; but EU/UK inability to solve national security problems is beyond pathetic.
    • __alexs 3mo ago
      Oh sure the EU is terrible at all technology policy but it also seems like this is sort of a don't interrupt your enemy when they are making as mistake situation. If the US commit to handicapping their AI industry like this it's going to destroy the competitiveness of those companies globally. All of those US spending commitments on data centres etc are going to collapse, or americans will need to pay 2x the token cost of the rest of the world. Both very bad options.
  • subscribed 3mo ago
    AFAIR there was the evidence posted for the specific three letter creeps snooping specifically on Airbus and sending everything to Boeing, long time ago, when "Echelon" was considered a tinfoil hat conspiracy.
  • bvcp 3mo ago
    Watch the eu do the same thing
    • dgellow 3mo ago
      By doing it, as leader in the industry, the world hegemon, and self-titled „leader of the free world“, the US gave the implicit permission for any other country to do the same
• jimnotgym 3mo ago
  This will be more validation that the rest of the world needs to be very wary of US technology.
• OkWing99 3mo ago
  So what happens to their $1T valuations now, given they can't sell the product to consumers, and open-weight models are closing in on competition?
  • DrProtic 3mo ago
    I have a feeling that’s the same question Whitehouse asked Anthropic and OpenAI.
  • dgellow 3mo ago
    Ask SpaceX. There is no rational for those valuations, it’s pure FOMO
  • cogman10 3mo ago
    Yeah, it seems like this makes a massive cut into their possible revenue.
• goldenarm 3mo ago
  Is there a world where frontier labs move to somewhere else like London to escape the business hurdles of the US? There are trillions at stake, is it a plausible scenario?
  • merek 3mo ago
    Why London of all places?
    • goldenarm 3mo ago
      Talent concentration, little tech regulation, English speaking, decent funding, close to GMT. There's a reason why a big chunk Google deepmind is already there.
      • dansquizsoft 3mo ago
        > Talent concentration Lol
        • xpct 3mo ago
          To my knowledge there's still talent left in London, even after the wage stagnation.
    • cherryteastain 3mo ago
      It's the place outside US and China with the greatest concentration of AI talent. Deepmind was founded in London for instance. Sadly UK is fully into nanny state "safetyism" culture so I am not convinced it'd be better.
    • ascorbic 3mo ago
      Deepmind is based there. Anthropic's biggest research base outside the US is there. OpenAI has just announced a big new office there.
  • theplumber 3mo ago
    London sucks, not to mention the UK’s political future seems even more nationalistic than MAGA
• niraj898 3mo ago
  The funny thing is, they are planning to just use it for US government and not allow public to use fable 5 atleast..
• baq 3mo ago
  I’m on record saying mistral needs 50B euros asap; I’ll admit this was wrong, they need more sooner
  • re-thc 3mo ago
    Doesn’t help unless they get GPUs or equivalent to train.
    • notrealyme123 3mo ago
      With enough money this problem is solvable. GPUs alone are only a fraction of a frontier model.
      • jstummbillig 3mo ago
        Musk tried, no?
      • dgellow 3mo ago
        Im really not convinced that can be solved with money alone. China has the money and infrastructure, they don’t have the chips. Europe doesn’t have the infrastructure or the money but may have some chips
        • Davidzheng 3mo ago
          oh so they should team up
        • petcat 3mo ago
          What chips does Europe have?
          • vachina 3mo ago
            STM32
            • 3mo ago
• swingboy 3mo ago
  How would export controls apply if OpenAI or Anthropic released a model as open weights? Not that they would, but asking out of curiosity.
  • echoangle 3mo ago
    It would be illegal for them to release the weights
• pheggs 3mo ago
  https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1u7j3xc/comment/os5dxi7/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1u7j3xc/comment...
• qprofyeh 3mo ago
  No one seeing this as Musk and SpaceX leveraging government support to close the IPO doors on OpenAI and Anthropic? I know it’s a bold statement but look at this timing and their valuations going south.
• lwhi 3mo ago
  The current digital hellscape that's developing is something we've been warned about consistently over the past 30 years. All these dangers were known and predicted. There's an uncanny parallel with the climate crisis. Fatalistic somnambulism.
  • dgellow 3mo ago
    But contrary to the climate crisis and what all the AI boosters are saying, it is not inevitable. Its something that is actively being built, it’s not something that just happens. It can be stopped, a different system can exist. The AI crowd also hasn’t proven at all that what they are building can self sustain. So far the economics are monstrously bad, there is no viable business model
    • Gud 3mo ago
      The climate “crisis” was also completely preventable but we chose not to.
      • dgellow 3mo ago
        It was, yes. The difference is that if we stop the AI stuff, it stops. There is no external feedback loop that sustain itself. The climate crisis, after we pass some thresholds (and we likely did), that becomes out of human control
        • Gud 3mo ago
          There is, because even if “we” stop “they” will continue.
          • dgellow 3mo ago
            By „we“ I meant humans
            • Gud 3mo ago
• penguin_booze 3mo ago
  Trusted US organisation: this must be the latest oxymoron.
• metaworkers11 3mo ago
  presumably those targeting Gaza, Lebanon and Iran? more effective genocide. A wonderful two party system we have here.
• dagaci 3mo ago
  So the general public get to bail-out & subsidize Anthropic / and downstream xAI/SpaceX via the State Wallet, but of course with no access.
  • KoolKat23 3mo ago
    It's fairly obvious at this point, it's a plutocracy.
    • Oarch 3mo ago
      Makes me question whether de-planetizing Pluto was just a clever tax dodge
    • morbicer 3mo ago
      Rather cleptocracy. Pedocracy or kakistocracy would also fit.
• acallaghan 3mo ago
  When AI bubble pops, no bailouts. I'm not paying for this BS
• amarant 3mo ago
  Dear anthropic, please consider moving your entire business to Canada or Europe where you will be allowed to conduct your business without vindictive and Kafkaesque government interference. I would like to have access to your models too!
  • daseiner1 3mo ago
    famously friendly business environments europe & canada lol
    • mschuster91 3mo ago
      Well, as long as you stick to the rules you can do business in Europe and it can't be taken away from you. As long as you are in the US? No one protects you. Asset forfeiture, arbitrary sanctions, arbitrary tariffs, your employees can get arrested and deported right off the street if they happen to have non-white skin and live in a city under siege by ICE, and if you oppose the regime or just dare to not kiss the ring, say goodbye to planned mergers. Rule of law matters, and rule of law is gone in the US.
      • 2838383838 3mo ago
        [flagged]
        • amarant 3mo ago
          Hi I'm from Europe and I'm about to start my second business. I don't have friends in high places, and the process is entirely online and takes about an hour to complete followed by 1-5 weeks of waiting for tax approval etc. Pro tip: most American anti-Europe propaganda is propaganda.
          • 2838383838 3mo ago
            I do work in a bureaucracy heavy activity in Europe, and without my friends in high places I'd be shut down. I've had wait times for bureaucracy cut from 2 years to 2 weeks, licenses given after a dinner when official processes were denied, etc. I've never had these problems when trying to start the American branch. Competition yes, having to wine and dine local politicians nephews no
• someguyornotidk 3mo ago
  If this becomes the norm, what incentive does the rest of the world have to keep their markets open to the US? If US companies have a large unfair advantage such that domestic competitors are no longer able to compete, then wouldn't it make sense for governments around the world to ban or tariff US products and services? If I was responsible for national economic policy, I would place this at the top of my non-emergency agenda. The world needs to act quick before their industries fail.
  • grumple 3mo ago
    Is the rest of the world really that dependent on emerging AI? I don’t think so. The US could cut off all foreign access to AI, nobody would notice.
    • basisword 3mo ago
      It would definitely be a problem. A big one. Think of all the multi-national tech companies that have rolled out AI not only to their engineering teams but to their business teams now too. Suddenly your employees in the US can do more and do it quicker than your employees elsewhere. It would be a nightmare to try and manage.
      • graemep 3mo ago
        That only applies to things Mythos does better than Opus. Mythos is supposedly very good at things such as finding vulnerabilities, but is it better at business tasks? IN the short time I had access to Fable it did not seem noticeably better at things I tried it for (lots of small tasks). Maybe it is better at vibe coding or finding security flaws, but at how much is it sufficiently better to be worth paying the extra?
        • basisword 3mo ago
          You're assuming this export restriction won't apply to any future models. The problem is a couple of years from now when the ROW is still on Opus and US workers are on something much better.
• VortexLain 3mo ago
  Welcome to the permanent underclass everyone.
  • globular-toast 3mo ago
    So close to making it 250 years before becoming just like UK/Europe...
• chinathrow 3mo ago
  Begun the AI wars have.
• Havoc 3mo ago
  Dario really fucked us all with his fear mongering regulatory capture approach cause there is zero chance this reverts back to government deciding it doesn't want the power.
• edyos 3mo ago
  They play the game of China, they are stupid. US, as EU, lost everything with this stupid posture.
• everyone 3mo ago
  This is just more marketing hype imo.. "omg its sooo good it has to be restricted"
• WhereIsTheTruth 3mo ago
  When will the world retaliate? They have been stealing data globally
• gcanyon 3mo ago
  Hopefully this points toward Fable becoming available again.
• K0balt 3mo ago
  The real reason, afaik, that the US is trying to restrict access to SOTA models is that a very large component of USA tailored access and surveillance relies on exploits and weaknesses that these models will easily detect. Thus, it really is an export control issue, but it has nothing to do with offensive capabilities. Offensive capabilities always exist, but pervasive defensibility would upset the asymmetric advantage that attackers, especially the USA, currently have. There are now Asian models coming , optimized focused on cybersecurity defense at a high level, so I suspect this will be a relatively moot point soon. LLMs are not great at creating exploits, but they are really good at detecting them. That asymmetry alone is enough to destroy the “offensive capabilities” narrative. Yes, mythos can find exploitable bugs, even write bench exploits. But real exploits require a good dose of human psychology, and most of the tools needed are off the shelf available anyway. You still need a real cybersecurity expert to effectively weaponize a zero day into a deployable exploit. But an LLM can inspect payloads, packages, and blobs en masse and find those exploits in a way that was wholly impractical before, so the asymmetric attack advantage is dissolved by strong LLMs. The USA is trying to protect its cyberwarfare advantage, not protect against attackers. The exact opposite, actually. Porous security is a huge advantage to technologically advanced state actors.
  • sneak 3mo ago
    If only we had a good term for someone good at this stuff less unwieldy than “cybersecurity expert”. (Then someone could start a news site for us.) As someone in the field for 30+ years, I find that, generally speaking, the only groups that use this term are charlatans and military/military-adjacent. The military use has been slowly leaking into the general public, but I quite wish it would stop.
    • K0balt 3mo ago
      Yes, it should have been cyberwarfare technician.
  • wrsh07 3mo ago
    This is the most credible-seeming claim about why a competent administration might suspend access (by any means necessary, but also by export controls) to models like Fable However, I haven't seen any prominent articles proposing this theory, I haven't seen anyone in the administration gesturing towards this as the reason (but haven't been following too closely) Do you have any sources? (And in fact, it seemed like an obvious hypothesis that wasn't getting much air time in the first weekend, but again, I didn't see anybody really staking a claim to it except in a few comments or tweets like this one)
• lobocinza 3mo ago
  This is great for open-source tooling and models. And bad for AI hype which depends on exponential continuous growth.
• OptionOfT 3mo ago
  Well, I think right now Antropic is going crazy with their safety rules. I got banned after creating a new account for a new employer. Went through some code with Claude Code, and that's... it. Came back the following morning and I was banned. 10 days for an appeal is too long. Company is a startup, so no team/enterprise support.
• zrn900 3mo ago
  God... Nobody else would be able to destroy the US dominance harder and faster than Trump... Though the other party was going to do the same - albeit slowly and more civilly. (Obama admn. started the trade war way back).