14 ms·
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
by SXX 4mo ago
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.
- avaer 4mo agoThis affects more than just Anthropic. It's a game of thrones and everyone using this technology loses. I wouldn't cheer for that.
- ignoramous 4mo ago> It's a game of thrones and everyone using this technology loses Everyone? There's worlds outside of the United States government overreach.
- panny 4mo ago>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 4mo agoThis 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 4mo agoI'm pretty sure it's the people paying for it that decide who profits off it.
- satvikpendem 4mo agoIntellectual property is not a good thing.
- beepbooptheory 4mo agoYeah but doesn't all the ai stuff kinda either way exacerbate the issues we might have with IP? Like, if it wasn't already the case that such laws are fundamentally sided with huge pools of capital who arbitrarily "own" different sequences of bytes, it certainly is now. It's like its trying to destroy intellectual property and then put this deranged hyper-financial game of energy expenditure in its place.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- ks2048 4mo agoIt appears to affect only the companies that Trump decides it should affect.
- goatlover 4mo agoWhen did conservatives abandon the free market?
- gmoore 4mo agowhen has the market ever been free?
- CamperBob2 4mo agoAn hour ago?
- ks2048 4mo agoA 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 4mo agoImmediately. It's always been a smokescreen, and markets have never been truly free. Thumbs on scale, at all times.
- thatguy0900 4mo agoTrump doesn't actually stand for basically a single conservative value outside of immigration and somehow he's eaten the entire party
- mullingitover 4mo agoThe immigration-baiting isn’t even a conservative position, most of the history of conservatism has been pro-immigration. Instead it’s simply the answer to the question, “how do you convince the last vestiges of the labor unions to drink poison and vote for the people who openly plan to destroy them.”
- EnPissant 4mo agoPay? This is the best marketing they could have hoped for.
- SXX 4mo agoThere 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 4mo agoAnthropic has been angling for regulatory capture this entire time, to an even greater extent than OpenAI.
- blackqueeriroh 4mo agoY’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 4mo agoLet'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"
- neuronexmachina 4mo agoBased 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 4mo ago> the level of capability displayed there is widely available from other models Is this Dario leveraging it into a ban on open models?
- PlasmaPower 4mo agoNo, he specifically gave a proprietary OpenAI model as an example (unless you meant OpenAI models instead of open source models)
- ceejayoz 4mo agoThat’s a safe assumption, considering they tried it a few months back too. https://www.npr.org/2026/03/09/nx-s1-5742548/anthropic-pentagon-lawsuit-amodai-hegseth https://www.npr.org/2026/03/09/nx-s1-5742548/anthropic-penta...
- Eridrus 4mo agoThe 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.
- optimalsolver 4mo agoWould be funny if they got themselves nationalized. I mean, better safe than sorry, right Dario?
- p-e-w 4mo agoNo way the US is going to nationalize a tech company regardless of what happens. The exodus of capital would be unimaginable.
- vmg12 4mo agoThe 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 4mo agoThey took 10% of Intel and the only reaction was my stocks increasing in value 5x.
- oskarkk 4mo agoTaking a 10% stake in a company is far from nationalization. And the big increase in Intel's stock price happened months after that.
- rvz 4mo agoThis 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 4mo ago> 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 4mo ago> 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 4mo agoActually, 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. 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-gulf-state-investments-according-to-ceos-leaked-memo/ https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/anthropic-to-seek...
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- greatgib 4mo agoI 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.
- scriptsmith 4mo agoAnd now is this going to be a one-off, or routine with every new generation of models?
- karmasimida 4mo agoEvery. There is no reason the government will let go the power it has obtained, that is never how it works
- neuronexmachina 4mo agoIs there any reason they couldn't also apply export-control to older models, just to screw with Anthropic?
- nathanasmith 4mo agoThere won't be any new generation of models more powerful than Fable since the argument against Fable would apply even more. Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 is the best we'll ever see from this point forward. Soon low cost Chinese models will catch up to those thereby destroying Anthropic and OpenAI's pricing power which will mark the beginning of the end for them too.
- tw1984 4mo agoyou need to be 8yo to believe Chinese are going to give you SOTA models at low prices. being open is not compatible with the Chinese culture. Chinese here, no racism card here please.
- gmueckl 4mo agoIt depends on the end goal. Free good enough models are a way to drastically devalue Anthropic and OpenAI. A well timed release of a capable model that can run on obtainable hardware, so that a small/medium company can afford self hosting, has the potential to destroy one or both of these companies. This would narrow down the frontier model oligopoly and give the Chinese government a lot more power beyond its borders. It really depends on whether the Chinese government wants to make good money or "win" the current AI bubbke.
- SubiculumCode 4mo agoYou 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 4mo agoNobody 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 4mo agoYeah, LLMs are a national security issue on par with spellcheck.
- mensetmanusman 4mo agoLLMs are piloting EM-proof kamakazi drones and destroying logistics networks today.
- maplethorpe 4mo agoThis is good PR for them. They get to tweet about how scary and powerful their models are in the lead up to their IPO.
- dpkirchner 4mo ago"Our models are so good the government decides whether or you get access -- so you better not depend on them!"
- karmasimida 4mo agoIncorrect. Heavy government regulation means it is limited how they can sell this model and to whom.
- nandomrumber 4mo ago[dead]
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- chrismsimpson 4mo agoCratering their user base outside of the US is hardly going to be good for their IPO.
- idiotsecant 4mo agoThis is just a case of not greasing the right palms. Some contributions will be made and this goes away.
- bag_boy 4mo ago“Anthropic buys 75% of Truth Social’s ad inventory”
- 256BitChris 4mo agoFunny. But unfortunately this is well within the realm of possibilities these days.
- ihsw 4mo ago[dead]
- bluerooibos 4mo agoProbably 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 4mo agoWas WWII a marketing ploy to inflate the value of German and Japanese stocks?
- holmesworcester 4mo agoThe 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_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
- geraneum 4mo agoAh yes we are being told to believe in sincerity of people running trillion dollar corporations.
- SilverElfin 4mo agoYes 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 4mo agoIt was about spam and scam generation which mostly was true as we can see...
- mkagenius 4mo agoYes 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 4mo ago“OpenAI's CEO says he's scared of GPT-5” https://www.techradar.com/ai-platforms-assistants/chatgpt/openais-ceo-says-hes-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.
- 0000000000100 4mo agoAre 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 4mo agoI 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.
- gmueckl 4mo agoThis honestly sounds like a tweaked system prompt more than anything. Maybe it is an attempt to make the model appear stronger?
- 0000000000100 4mo agoAh that I will admit. It gets shit done one way or another haha. This is why a sandboxed environment and a reproducible test DB is key here. I give read only access to my dev DB to my Claude, really removes the temptation that it increasingly has to “cheat”. E.g. doing something hacky and fixing the DB manually in a way that doesn’t solve the problem everywhere. Personally I love when the AI has this amount of problem solving. But you have to build the environment around it that encourages solving problems right the first time, versus taking the easy way out and hacking out a solution. It’s just all about constraining the behavior of the LLM into productive and permanent directions. The more advanced it gets, the more it feels like designing engineering processes rather than coding. Personally it’s a fun change of pace and it’s giving me a lot of opportunities to look at the project in working on at a wider lens. I find having to pump out features makes you myopic in a sense. I really miss the control I had over writing it all by hand, but I love just being able to build software. At the end of the day, what do you want? That’s the question I’ve had to grapple recently. Personally I don’t mind switching gears to the bigger picture of why the software exists and what purpose it serves
- pluralmonad 4mo agoThey obviously want heavy regulation to make sure they do not have to compete long term. This is all just part of the base strategy.
- notnullorvoid 4mo agoIt's a stupid strategy that will put the rest of the world ahead of the US on AI. Anthropic's value will suffer for it.
- bbor 4mo agoThey never claimed to be “so much ahead”, they just claimed to be honest.
- airstrike 4mo agoWhich, to be clear, does not mean they are actually honest.
- Salgat 4mo agoIt's ironic isn't it? All the marketing of how dangerous and powerful Mythos is and the government went "bet".
- bottlepalm 4mo agoAnthropic's marketing is playing 5D chess. 4D was telling everyone it is dangerous, they knew the government would take the bait and shut it down. Or maybe Anthropic isn't playing chess at all - these models sell themselves they are so useful and the Reddit/HN crowd is just full of larping tech bros commenting conspiracy theories non stop.
- ifwinterco 4mo agoYeah 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
- solenoid0937 4mo agoShould they lie and say the model is not dangerous?
- ifwinterco 4mo agoIf you're actually worried then do the right thing and don't make the model, or do make the model and admit you are doing it to make money. You don't get to have your cake and eat it by making the (supposedly) world ending model but also getting on a moral high horse. It's the hypocrisy and obvious mendacity that's obnoxious to me. Having said that, OpenAI is just as bad (probably worse) and they're friendly with the admin, so this isn't really a case of any kind of justice unfortunately
- solenoid0937 4mo agoFalse dichotomy. You can make a safe, aligned model that blocks dangerous actions, even at the expense of overblocking benign ones. You can release the powerful model to companies that will use it to fix instead of break.
- ifwinterco 4mo agoOnce a technology exists it will be used for good and for ill, you can't create it and put it in a box forever. If you really think a technology could be dangerous then the only morally correct thing to do is not help to create it. They're not doing that, so either they're lying about it being dangerous, or they're lying about the fact they care (maybe a bit of both)
- solenoid0937 4mo ago
- averysmallbird 4mo agoThis is OpenAI and Meta using their leverage over the White House to screw over their competitor.
- nullbio 4mo agoIt's Anthropic facing consequences for their years long marketing plays. They're so greedy and narcissistic as a company and culture they believed they were special enough to be excluded from sanction internally, and that their behavior would only affect their competitors or would lead to outcomes positive for themselves: ergo, they get to hold the keys to the castle. Like Dario said in his negotiations with the DoW, he wants a seat at the big boys table. It's all about power for him. Unfortunately though, they're not smart enough to realize the long term damage to the industry that they're doing without any hint of remorse will negatively affect them and will have the opposite effect: Highlighting how imperative it is we all switch to open-source and remove our reliance entirely from them. So not only are they going to take the whole industry down out of their own greed and stupidity and ruin it for everyone in the short term, but they're going to put themselves and the other labs out of business in the long term. Well done Anthropic. Well done Dario. You played yourself. 5d chess.
- TiredOfLife 4mo agoIn this case it was Amazon reporting Fable jailbreak to government
- cromka 4mo agoElaborate please?
- anon373839 4mo agoIt is Amazon who reported the jailbreaks to the government, according to WSJ. Yes, the same Amazon that owns 19% of Anthropic. Hmm. https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/anthropic-halts-access-to-top-ai-models-after-u-s-ban-on-foreign-use-a4bca2cc https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/anthropic-halts-access-to-top-ai...
- unethical_ban 4mo agoI can't tell whether you think Fable/Mythos aren't capable, you think it's good the US government is shutting down this business model of all things for "safety", or both. Either way, ick.
- nozzlegear 4mo agoThey're enjoying the schadenfreude of Dario "AI is so dangerous, we really need to ban and regulate everyone" Amodej getting his models banned by the US government.
- koolala 4mo agoThey didn't get banned by the government. The government says they they want to track the Identity of everyone who uses it. Same way they track identity when using an airplane.
- nozzlegear 4mo agoDario cried wolf one too many times, the Trump admin believed there was a wolf, and now Anthropic users can't use Mythos or Fable. It is effectively banned until the government says otherwise.
- koolala 4mo agoIt's a ban until they add ID tracking / face tracking. That is worse than banning it. It is only effectively a ban because so far they refuse to do that.
- hnfong 4mo agoJury's still out whether they refuse to do that. Currently it's just that they can't immediately implement those checks. They'd need some biometric check on API calls and some magical way to prevent the authenticated persons from reselling the service to unauthorized people.
- hnlurker22 4mo agoI can only imagine how many engineers got fired when fable came out
- softwaredoug 4mo agoThe administration should not be able to arbitrarily punish companies they don’t like. Full stop. We need a neutral regulatory body for AI with objective, predictable standards. Not random bans based on whether the president likes you. Unless GPT 5.6 also gets a ban, this will look extremely bad for the administration. Our economy depends on fair application of rule of law. Not anti-growth cronyism based on who is friends Trump. The precedent set here would be broad and scary. Treating any API like an export makes it very easy for the administration to bully companies they disagree with.
- s3p 4mo agoYou: "We should improve society somewhat" "And yet you participate in society! Curious. I am very intelligent"[1] [1]https://iea.org.uk/yet-you-participate-in-society-in-defence-of-mr-gotcha/ https://iea.org.uk/yet-you-participate-in-society-in-defence...