7 ms·

I still am struggling to understand why they informed the government about something that is known to be an issue in every LLM. There is no LLM that cannot be j

by Topfi 4mo ago

I still am struggling to understand why they informed the government about something that is known to be an issue in every LLM. There is no LLM that cannot be jailbroken, so unless this means that we have reached the absolute maximum publicly accessible US made LLMs are allowed to operate at with GPT 5.5, this is not grounded in any sane regulation attempt. Does anyone know what limits Fable 5 has overstepped in the eyes of the government? Parameter count? Certain benchmark results? Training computer? Cause if it’s just the ability to assist with cyberattacks and being jailbreakable, there is no model previously released that isn’t equally guilty. Remember that for GPT 5.5 and 5.4, OpenAI also restricted the cybersecurity focused use under designated models, otherwise rerouting to 5.3-codex like Fable did with Opus 4.8. And both OpenAI models can also be jailbroken all the same. Basically, what was the reason to tell the government now and not with Opus 4.5 or GPT 5.4? sama has been doing the rounds with apocalyptic predictions…

vrganj 4mo ago
Its not Fable 5 that overstepped in the eyes of the US government. It's Anthropic. This is transparent revenge for them daring to try and push back a little on enabling war crimes.
- logicchains 4mo ago
  >This is transparent revenge for them daring to try and push back a little on enabling war crimes. Don't be so pessimistic, maybe they're just trying to give their buddy Musk and XAi a chance to catch up.
  - Topfi 4mo ago
    Anthropic is one of the two consistent revenue sources for XAI via their colossus deal. I have been critical of this man longer than most, but I don’t see him hurting his own bottom line.
    - no-name-here 4mo ago
      It could be the Trump admin incompetently attempting to help Trump’s primary benefactor? (As I haven’t yet seen anyone say that the current actions are a competent approach to AI regulation.)
    - vanviegen 4mo ago
      He seems to have gone out of his way too alienate just about any demographic likely to buy an EV...
- Cider9986 4mo ago
  >This is transparent revenge for them daring to try and push back a little on enabling war crimes. Anthropic wasn't pushing back on enabling war crimes. They said they didn't want the models to work with autonomous weapons because the the models weren't good enough.
  - dandellion 4mo ago
    Whether you or me or Anthropic think it was pushing back or not is besides the point.
    - Cider9986 4mo ago
      I can agree on revenge, but it's important to not paint it as a good vs evil when it isn't.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - alpinisme 4mo ago
    Arguably it’s a worse (or different) war crime to knowingly target people incompetently and thus kill more innocent civilians. In this respect, they showed themselves against one war crime. Not “war crimes” in general but a specific misuse of ai in war.
  - inigyou 4mo ago
    That's pushing back. The regime doesn't care if the models are good enough, they want the optics of killing lots of people using cutting edge tech, they don't really care if it's the right people.
- TiredOfLife 4mo ago
  Antropic models are the ones that designated that school as valid target
  - thrill 4mo ago
    People designated that school as a valid target - using fancy calculators does not remove that the pass/fail rests with people. AI models have no agency. Even if they are given autonomy - it is given.
  - no-name-here 4mo ago
    What is the basis for that claim? There’s been lots of wild conjecture, but as The Guardian reported, “Almost none of this had any relationship to reality” and “LLMs-gone-rogue dominated coverage, but had nothing to do with the targeting.” https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/mar/26/ai-got-the-blame-for-the-iran-school-bombing-the-truth-is-far-more-worrying https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/mar/26/ai-got-the-blam...
  - flawn 4mo ago
    That's wild misinformation. There was an outdated military database at play, and not just Claude. It doesn't exclude AI interference of course but your statement is just not correct.
- skybrian 4mo ago
  Why not both?
- Art9681 4mo ago
  It's the AWS CEO being a little snitch to gain favor from the Government. That is what this is about.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
- noelsusman 4mo ago
  Anthropic is perfectly fine with the US government using Claude to commit war crimes. The US military has done hundreds of extra-judicial killings in the waters around South America over the last year and Anthropic hasn't had anything to say about that.
  - felixgallo 4mo ago
    Use nuance and judgement, friend. Anthropic notably pushed back on completely autonomous no-human-in-the-loop drone killings and mass surveillance of the US population, where others like OpenAI scrambled to agree. Anthropic isn't perfect but that doesn't make them equally bad.
    - firesteelrain 4mo ago
      Trust no one, friend. Believe what you want to believe.
    - noelsusman 4mo ago
      I didn't say or even imply that OpenAI and Anthropic are equally bad on this front. It's just not accurate to say Anthropic has issues with the US military using Claude to commit war crimes. They don't.
      - felixgallo 4mo ago
        They literally do -- see above, where the red line they refused to cross involved fully autonomous kill bots (which would be a war crime), and for which they were branded a supply chain risk, thrown out of Pentagon contracts, and now enjoined from releasing their product. You can not like that Claude was involved in the planning that led to the murder of a bunch of schoolgirls, but stop playing pretend.
        noelsusman 4mo ago
        It's just a fact that Claude has already been used to commit war crimes and Anthropic has had zero issue with it. I don't know what else there is to say about it. Also, not that it really matters but building a fully autonomous kill bot is not actually a war crime.
- zerd 4mo ago
  [dead]
- Spooky23 4mo ago
  Clarification: They want someone who isn’t them to make the decision to commit the war crime. They are happy to facilitate.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
lebovic 4mo ago
Claims of retribution aside, one steelman is that Mythos is likely the most capable model that's usable by folks like the NSA [1], and decision-makers across the USG and industry partners have seen a stream of reports of Mythos successfully finding serious vulnerabilities over the past couple months due to Glasswing. So even if GPT 5.5 is just as capable in these scenarios (which, imo, it largely is), it is not known by the government apparatus as having the same capabilities. Personally, I think we crossed the threshold of capabilities with Opus 4.6 [2], which translated to an even more capable open-weight GLM 5.1 (which it is rumored to have distilled Opus 4.6) [3][4]. But the USG and its partners aren't fully rational actors with perfect data, so it's possible they're only viscerally aware of these capabilities in the context of Mythos. [1]: https://www.reuters.com/business/us-security-agency-is-using-anthropics-mythos-despite-blacklist-axios-reports-2026-04-19/ https://www.reuters.com/business/us-security-agency-is-using... [2]: Opus 4.6 was used for https://www.noahlebovic.com/testing-an-autonomous-hacker/ https://www.noahlebovic.com/testing-an-autonomous-hacker/ [3]: See GLM 5.1 scoring in https://www.cybergym.io/cybergym/ https://www.cybergym.io/cybergym/ [4]: https://dualuse.dev/posts/chinese-models-are-sometimes-better-even-if-distilled https://dualuse.dev/posts/chinese-models-are-sometimes-bette...
- Topfi 4mo ago
  I doubt that the capabilities of GPT-5.5-cyber aren’t known by the US government considering OpenAI is their primary LLM partner after Anthropic had concerns about using models for autonomous weaponry and mass surveillance of US citizens. If anything, they should have more experience in GPT-5.5s full feature set due to longer access and may even already have GPT-5.6 access.
  - lebovic 4mo ago
    They made a deal for access, but I'm unsure if it's usable, scaled, and has vulnerabilities attributed to it at this point. But I have no inside information here, so I could be wrong.
    - throwaway85825 4mo ago
Jcampuzano2 4mo ago
The reason is pretty obvious. Anthropic tried to play hardball with the government and now they are under their thumb for scrutiny of any and every little thing they do. That's what this admin is known for. If you do even what a normal person would think is sane but they don't like it, well now they need to make you bow down and break you so you "learn your lesson". It doesn't help that they themselves marketed this model as being especially dangerous in the publics hands. If this was just another model drop and none of the fear mongering I don't doubt this probably wouldn't have had any issues.
- nxm 4mo ago
  Previous administration was same way… intentionally not including Tesla in an EV summit
  - megabless123 4mo ago
    > intentionally not including Tesla in an EV summit this comparison is orders of magnitude different
  - sailingparrot 4mo ago
    This is lacking any nuance. The CEO not being invited to a meaningless ceremony vs being designated a supply chain risk by the DoD and being forced to shut down your product. Use judgment.
    - smallmancontrov 4mo ago
      It's astonishing how that summit sparkles the Tesla sowflakes. We gave them tens of billions of dollars in subsidies and a 100% tariff on the Chinese competition! Huge, substantive policy assistance! But Biden wanted to pal around with some union supporters and that's supposed to be some horrible slight? Please. Elon didn't drop millions on the Trump campaign and throw a double Sieg Heil at the 2025 US presidential inauguration because Biden refused a photo-op. He did those things because he believes in them, because he believes the things he says on twitter. The EV summit thing is the least believable "you made me do it" excuse I've ever seen.
giancarlostoro 4mo ago
Reminds me of people freaking out about the Grok Bikini thing, but GPT and Googles image model they all do the same behavior. Clearly biased against Elon Musk despite it being a problem for every single image model out there.
nowittyusername 4mo ago
The simple answer is that Trump has a stick up his ass against Anthropic and is also fond of stock market manipulation. No need to get too deep when it comes to dealing with that orange shmuck.
- downrightmike 4mo ago
  This is just another shakedown like with Tylenol etc, knock the product, lower the stock price and have a competitor hostile takeover, or get kickbacks
  - arcanemachiner 4mo ago
    This is a hypothesis, and a viable one. But I caution you against drawing conclusions from your hypothesis and calling it a day, instead of taking in the available data and using it to broaden your understanding of what's actually happening. This could be many things: a shakedown, Trump's pettiness, marketing kayfabe, an actual government reaction to a very weaponizable technology, and so on. But if you call it "just another shakedown" and go about your day, then you're doing yourself a disservice, because the story is still unfolding and we don't have all the facts. You don't actually have the full story, so don't delude yourself into think you do.
    - whattheheckheck 4mo ago
      Its been 10 years of historical abuse. You're a battered spouse in a bad relationship with the most audacious narcissist that has ever lived.
      - arcanemachiner 4mo ago
        I'm not American, and I definitely don't support Trump. Care to spin the outrage wheel again and lob another unfounded insult at me? At any rate, feel free to indulge in (plausible) conspiracy theories until further details of the story have emerged.
themgt 4mo ago
I submitted separately, but this Axios report has some details that call a lot of the speculation in this thread into question, i.e. that this wasn't much of a "jailbreak" at all and that it's not Anthropic-specific - the White House intends to generally regulate Mythos-class models (whatever exactly that means): Between the lines: The government's response "seems way out of line with what's actually in the research report," Luta Security CEO Katie Moussouris, who Anthropic shared the Amazon report with, told Axios. Moussouris said the researchers were able to find security vulnerabilities by asking questions normal defenders would ask AI, which is exactly what the model was intended to do. An administration official told Axios they do not view other models as national security threats because they do not surpass the bar that Mythos set. Anything at Mythos level or above would need to go through the administration to ensure the government's national security apparatus is hardened enough, the official added. https://www.axios.com/2026/06/13/anthropic-amazon-white-house https://www.axios.com/2026/06/13/anthropic-amazon-white-hous...
- Topfi 4mo ago
  Interesting. Hope there is any clarification on what "Mythos level" is and why 5.5-cyber doesn't arise to it. Any metric I could come up with (parameters, pre-train compute, benchmark scores, etc.) seems somewhere between imperfect and utterly nonsensical. Pure speculation, but GPT-5 series models including the new 5.5 pre-train appear far closer to Sonnet than Opus or Fable in pure parameter count, so maybe that's it, but the "they do not surpass the bar that Mythos set" line sounds more like there is a believe that Mythos/Fable are more capable in cybersecurity tasks, whereas the data [0] doesn't seem to bare this out. I did not do any cybersecurity assessment of Fable 5 myself, partly due to personal reasons that make that something I'm abstaining from, but my coding evals showed that while task adherence and assessment wise it was neck and neck with 5.5, the task inference was a major jump again (something prior Anthropic models tended to already do incredibly well on) and while that makes it a far better model to work with for UX experiments, I don't see how that translates to cybersecurity, along with the aforementioned publicly available evals by AISI. Seeing as neither Mythos nor GPT-5.5 had been pre-trained with a particular focus on cybersecurity, this would have to mean any model that benchmarks better than GPT-5.4 or Opus 4.6 on these tasks cannot be used by None-US-Citizens. If such guidance isn't enforced for all US labs, I think that's irrefutable evidence that this isn't about cybersecurity or "the bar that Mythos set"... [0] https://xcancel.com/AISecurityInst/status/2054589763173126339 https://xcancel.com/AISecurityInst/status/205458976317312633...
thayne 4mo ago
The only reason I can see is because Amazon wanted something like this to happen. But I'm not sure what Amazon would gain from that, since they don't have their own competing frontier models.
- conradkay 4mo ago
  My guess is that they liked the status quo with Project Glasswing and didn't want Fable to be public, especially if anyone is jailbreaking it into Mythos and using it for cyber But then it backfired spectacularly and now it seems they can't use Mythos currently
- brianjking 4mo ago
  ...Not to mention that they're investors in Anthropic.
- lumost 4mo ago
  This is either a complete own goal by Amazon… a play to consolidate compute/model access. Will Chinese models be allowed on the market… at all? Will startups be banned from training models of equivalent capacity?
  - gopher_space 4mo ago
    At this point would I be outsourcing my knowledge work or would I be entering self-exile?
- carlossouza 4mo ago
  Of course, Amazon wanted this to happen. They own 20% of Anthropic. Anthropic bleeds cash. They have to raise capital. There are only 2 ways: an IPO or follow-ons from existing investors. If the IPO gets delayed because of these restrictions, Anthropic will be forced to raise more capital from existing investors. And existing investors (Amazon) will end up owning more of Anthropic at a cheaper valuation.
  - milch 4mo ago
m3kw9 4mo ago
Because based upon on what Anthropic has told the “AI people” and military, it is dangerous if an adversary gets its hands in the cyber capabilities. Knowing that if they ignored it and something did happen, heads will roll. Blame Anthropic for that, or wait if they are all for safety, they shouldnt complain.
irthomasthomas 4mo ago
They literally asked for it. Two days ago Amodei wrote an essay urging the government to regulate them. He explicitly cited Mythos, as proof that frontier AI has acquired autonomous hacking capabilities that threaten critical infrastructure and national security. "Mythos Preview scrambled the global cybersecurity landscape. But its broader significance is that it proves beyond doubt that AI models are now tools of global and national strategic consequence." "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. This power must be scoped to the above four specific risks and there must be protective measures against political favoritism or arbitrary decisions" https://darioamodei.com/post/policy-on-the-ai-exponential https://darioamodei.com/post/policy-on-the-ai-exponential A third-party demonstrated that it was possible to jailbreak the safety measures of Fable to access the raw Mythos abilities. Abilities which Anthropic say are too dangerous for the public. Edit. From David Sacks: — A highly credible trusted partner of both Anthropic and the USG who was testing Fable came forward with a jailbreak of those guardrails. The Admin asked Dario to fix the jailbreak or de-deploy the model. Dario refused. — In their blog post, Anthropic defended its decision by saying the jailbreak isn’t serious. That is not what the trusted partner and the USG believe; nor is that kind of minimizing language consistent with Anthropic’s brand as the AI safety company. It’s difficult to fathom how they could claim a jailbreak allowing operability of a cyber weapon could be defined as not “serious".
- sigmarule 4mo ago
  > A third-party demonstrated that it was possible to jailbreak the safety measures of Fable to access the raw Mythos abilities. Abilities which Anthropic say are too dangerous for the public. Pressure test this assumption before getting behind this position.
  - irthomasthomas 4mo ago
    I will certainly revisit it as more information comes out, but is it your contention that Anthropic solved jailbreaking with Mythos?
trinsic2 4mo ago
>I still am struggling to understand why they informed the government about something that is known to be an issue in every LLM. There is no LLM that cannot be jailbroken, so unless this means that we have reached the absolute maximum publicly accessible US made LLMs are allowed to operate at with GPT 5.5, this is not grounded in any sane regulation attempt. I wondering where you are getting the idea that there is an sane regulation right now?
agrijakhetarpal 4mo ago
> I still am struggling to understand And? Does it matter?
ReflectedImage 4mo ago
Probably a con job. The AI companies don't think they will be able to significantly improve their models in the next year or so, so they are stalling with government regulations whilst taking in investor money.
SilverElfin 4mo ago
Anthropic themselves have played up the dangers of Mythos, limited its release, etc. So if it can be jail broken then it specifically deserves controls, per Dario’s own manifestos. David Sacks - the “AI Czar” - also said the government asked Anthropic to patch the issue but they refused, which is bizarre. And that led to the export ban.
- naveen99 4mo ago
  sama says think more about what direction you want to go in, and then go in that direction. Some people think in one direction and go in the opposite direction.
zaptheimpaler 4mo ago
This is corporate Game of Thrones, nothing more. Amazon, maybe in alliance/deals with others as well saw an opportunity to hurt their rival. Or maybe they were instructed to report this by the WH themselves. Hegseth and the WH will happily take any excuse to hurt Anthropic after the confrontation with DOW, being the vindictive cronies they are.
- spprashant 4mo ago
  I thought Amazon has a stake in Anthropic, and would want them to succeed.
classified 4mo ago
> why they informed the government Having no moat, they want to manipulate the government into creating one for them.
sagarpatil 4mo ago
Doesn’t Amazon own 14% of Anthropic?
vessenes 4mo ago
I’d invert - given their significant competition for government business, what would be a reason for not doing this?
metalspot 4mo ago
This is obviously political and the entire narrative is fabrication. David Sacks is publicly gloating about it: https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/2065853007619588171 https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/2065853007619588171 I can't really say that Anthropic didn't get what they deserved. They exploited security threats to sell their product and play political games, and now their rivals are rubbing it in their faces.
- mgfist 4mo ago
  > This is obviously political and the entire narrative is fabrication. I agree with this > David Sacks is publicly gloating about it: https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/2065853007619588171 https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/2065853007619588171 I do no like David Sacks but how do you say this is gloating about it? Again, I do believe this is political, but Sacks is saying "you said this is dangerous and wanted regulation, and we believe you. Fix this because it's dangerous and we'll let it out again". How is this gloating?
  - Aeolun 4mo ago
    It is gloating in the context of it being the exact same form of dangerous as all the other frontier models out there?
  - metalspot 4mo ago
    > How is this gloating? he is emphasizing that they used their own words against them. everyone knows the security threat is a pretext. the message is that he is smart and they are stupid and he won, which is what I call gloating. > "Those trying to misdirect and tie this action to the prior DoW/Anthropic issues are wrong." an obvious lie, which is inserted to emphasize that it is a lie. when you purposefully lie, not to deceive, but with the intent that the counter-party knows you are lying and must accept the lie, that is an assertion of power.
    - VikRubenfeld 4mo ago
      "everyone knows the security threat is a pretext." On what planet? Anthropic itself made a big stink about Mythos being able to hack every app out there, and very dangerous as a result. Many reports have confirmed this.

by Topfi 4mo ago

vrganj 4mo ago

Its not Fable 5 that overstepped in the eyes of the US government. It's Anthropic. This is transparent revenge for them daring to try and push back a little on enabling war crimes.

logicchains 4mo ago
>This is transparent revenge for them daring to try and push back a little on enabling war crimes. Don't be so pessimistic, maybe they're just trying to give their buddy Musk and XAi a chance to catch up.
- Topfi 4mo ago
  Anthropic is one of the two consistent revenue sources for XAI via their colossus deal. I have been critical of this man longer than most, but I don’t see him hurting his own bottom line.
  - no-name-here 4mo ago
    It could be the Trump admin incompetently attempting to help Trump’s primary benefactor? (As I haven’t yet seen anyone say that the current actions are a competent approach to AI regulation.)
  - vanviegen 4mo ago
    He seems to have gone out of his way too alienate just about any demographic likely to buy an EV...
Cider9986 4mo ago
>This is transparent revenge for them daring to try and push back a little on enabling war crimes. Anthropic wasn't pushing back on enabling war crimes. They said they didn't want the models to work with autonomous weapons because the the models weren't good enough.
- dandellion 4mo ago
  Whether you or me or Anthropic think it was pushing back or not is besides the point.
  - Cider9986 4mo ago
    I can agree on revenge, but it's important to not paint it as a good vs evil when it isn't.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- alpinisme 4mo ago
  Arguably it’s a worse (or different) war crime to knowingly target people incompetently and thus kill more innocent civilians. In this respect, they showed themselves against one war crime. Not “war crimes” in general but a specific misuse of ai in war.
- inigyou 4mo ago
  That's pushing back. The regime doesn't care if the models are good enough, they want the optics of killing lots of people using cutting edge tech, they don't really care if it's the right people.
TiredOfLife 4mo ago
Antropic models are the ones that designated that school as valid target
- thrill 4mo ago
  People designated that school as a valid target - using fancy calculators does not remove that the pass/fail rests with people. AI models have no agency. Even if they are given autonomy - it is given.
- no-name-here 4mo ago
  What is the basis for that claim? There’s been lots of wild conjecture, but as The Guardian reported, “Almost none of this had any relationship to reality” and “LLMs-gone-rogue dominated coverage, but had nothing to do with the targeting.” https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/mar/26/ai-got-the-blame-for-the-iran-school-bombing-the-truth-is-far-more-worrying https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/mar/26/ai-got-the-blam...
- flawn 4mo ago
  That's wild misinformation. There was an outdated military database at play, and not just Claude. It doesn't exclude AI interference of course but your statement is just not correct.
skybrian 4mo ago
Why not both?
Art9681 4mo ago
It's the AWS CEO being a little snitch to gain favor from the Government. That is what this is about.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
noelsusman 4mo ago
Anthropic is perfectly fine with the US government using Claude to commit war crimes. The US military has done hundreds of extra-judicial killings in the waters around South America over the last year and Anthropic hasn't had anything to say about that.
- felixgallo 4mo ago
  Use nuance and judgement, friend. Anthropic notably pushed back on completely autonomous no-human-in-the-loop drone killings and mass surveillance of the US population, where others like OpenAI scrambled to agree. Anthropic isn't perfect but that doesn't make them equally bad.
  - firesteelrain 4mo ago
    Trust no one, friend. Believe what you want to believe.
  - noelsusman 4mo ago
    I didn't say or even imply that OpenAI and Anthropic are equally bad on this front. It's just not accurate to say Anthropic has issues with the US military using Claude to commit war crimes. They don't.
    - felixgallo 4mo ago
      They literally do -- see above, where the red line they refused to cross involved fully autonomous kill bots (which would be a war crime), and for which they were branded a supply chain risk, thrown out of Pentagon contracts, and now enjoined from releasing their product. You can not like that Claude was involved in the planning that led to the murder of a bunch of schoolgirls, but stop playing pretend.
      - noelsusman 4mo ago
        It's just a fact that Claude has already been used to commit war crimes and Anthropic has had zero issue with it. I don't know what else there is to say about it. Also, not that it really matters but building a fully autonomous kill bot is not actually a war crime.
zerd 4mo ago
[dead]
Spooky23 4mo ago
Clarification: They want someone who isn’t them to make the decision to commit the war crime. They are happy to facilitate.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

lebovic 4mo ago

Claims of retribution aside, one steelman is that Mythos is likely the most capable model that's usable by folks like the NSA [1], and decision-makers across the USG and industry partners have seen a stream of reports of Mythos successfully finding serious vulnerabilities over the past couple months due to Glasswing. So even if GPT 5.5 is just as capable in these scenarios (which, imo, it largely is), it is not known by the government apparatus as having the same capabilities. Personally, I think we crossed the threshold of capabilities with Opus 4.6 [2], which translated to an even more capable open-weight GLM 5.1 (which it is rumored to have distilled Opus 4.6) [3][4]. But the USG and its partners aren't fully rational actors with perfect data, so it's possible they're only viscerally aware of these capabilities in the context of Mythos. [1]: https://www.reuters.com/business/us-security-agency-is-using-anthropics-mythos-despite-blacklist-axios-reports-2026-04-19/ https://www.reuters.com/business/us-security-agency-is-using... [2]: Opus 4.6 was used for https://www.noahlebovic.com/testing-an-autonomous-hacker/ https://www.noahlebovic.com/testing-an-autonomous-hacker/ [3]: See GLM 5.1 scoring in https://www.cybergym.io/cybergym/ https://www.cybergym.io/cybergym/ [4]: https://dualuse.dev/posts/chinese-models-are-sometimes-better-even-if-distilled https://dualuse.dev/posts/chinese-models-are-sometimes-bette...

Topfi 4mo ago
I doubt that the capabilities of GPT-5.5-cyber aren’t known by the US government considering OpenAI is their primary LLM partner after Anthropic had concerns about using models for autonomous weaponry and mass surveillance of US citizens. If anything, they should have more experience in GPT-5.5s full feature set due to longer access and may even already have GPT-5.6 access.
- lebovic 4mo ago
  They made a deal for access, but I'm unsure if it's usable, scaled, and has vulnerabilities attributed to it at this point. But I have no inside information here, so I could be wrong.
  - throwaway85825 4mo ago

Jcampuzano2 4mo ago

The reason is pretty obvious. Anthropic tried to play hardball with the government and now they are under their thumb for scrutiny of any and every little thing they do. That's what this admin is known for. If you do even what a normal person would think is sane but they don't like it, well now they need to make you bow down and break you so you "learn your lesson". It doesn't help that they themselves marketed this model as being especially dangerous in the publics hands. If this was just another model drop and none of the fear mongering I don't doubt this probably wouldn't have had any issues.

nxm 4mo ago
Previous administration was same way… intentionally not including Tesla in an EV summit
- megabless123 4mo ago
  > intentionally not including Tesla in an EV summit this comparison is orders of magnitude different
- sailingparrot 4mo ago
  This is lacking any nuance. The CEO not being invited to a meaningless ceremony vs being designated a supply chain risk by the DoD and being forced to shut down your product. Use judgment.
  - smallmancontrov 4mo ago
    It's astonishing how that summit sparkles the Tesla sowflakes. We gave them tens of billions of dollars in subsidies and a 100% tariff on the Chinese competition! Huge, substantive policy assistance! But Biden wanted to pal around with some union supporters and that's supposed to be some horrible slight? Please. Elon didn't drop millions on the Trump campaign and throw a double Sieg Heil at the 2025 US presidential inauguration because Biden refused a photo-op. He did those things because he believes in them, because he believes the things he says on twitter. The EV summit thing is the least believable "you made me do it" excuse I've ever seen.

giancarlostoro 4mo ago

Reminds me of people freaking out about the Grok Bikini thing, but GPT and Googles image model they all do the same behavior. Clearly biased against Elon Musk despite it being a problem for every single image model out there.

nowittyusername 4mo ago

The simple answer is that Trump has a stick up his ass against Anthropic and is also fond of stock market manipulation. No need to get too deep when it comes to dealing with that orange shmuck.

downrightmike 4mo ago
This is just another shakedown like with Tylenol etc, knock the product, lower the stock price and have a competitor hostile takeover, or get kickbacks
- arcanemachiner 4mo ago
  This is a hypothesis, and a viable one. But I caution you against drawing conclusions from your hypothesis and calling it a day, instead of taking in the available data and using it to broaden your understanding of what's actually happening. This could be many things: a shakedown, Trump's pettiness, marketing kayfabe, an actual government reaction to a very weaponizable technology, and so on. But if you call it "just another shakedown" and go about your day, then you're doing yourself a disservice, because the story is still unfolding and we don't have all the facts. You don't actually have the full story, so don't delude yourself into think you do.
  - whattheheckheck 4mo ago
    Its been 10 years of historical abuse. You're a battered spouse in a bad relationship with the most audacious narcissist that has ever lived.
    - arcanemachiner 4mo ago
      I'm not American, and I definitely don't support Trump. Care to spin the outrage wheel again and lob another unfounded insult at me? At any rate, feel free to indulge in (plausible) conspiracy theories until further details of the story have emerged.

themgt 4mo ago

I submitted separately, but this Axios report has some details that call a lot of the speculation in this thread into question, i.e. that this wasn't much of a "jailbreak" at all and that it's not Anthropic-specific - the White House intends to generally regulate Mythos-class models (whatever exactly that means): Between the lines: The government's response "seems way out of line with what's actually in the research report," Luta Security CEO Katie Moussouris, who Anthropic shared the Amazon report with, told Axios. Moussouris said the researchers were able to find security vulnerabilities by asking questions normal defenders would ask AI, which is exactly what the model was intended to do. An administration official told Axios they do not view other models as national security threats because they do not surpass the bar that Mythos set. Anything at Mythos level or above would need to go through the administration to ensure the government's national security apparatus is hardened enough, the official added. https://www.axios.com/2026/06/13/anthropic-amazon-white-house https://www.axios.com/2026/06/13/anthropic-amazon-white-hous...

Topfi 4mo ago
Interesting. Hope there is any clarification on what "Mythos level" is and why 5.5-cyber doesn't arise to it. Any metric I could come up with (parameters, pre-train compute, benchmark scores, etc.) seems somewhere between imperfect and utterly nonsensical. Pure speculation, but GPT-5 series models including the new 5.5 pre-train appear far closer to Sonnet than Opus or Fable in pure parameter count, so maybe that's it, but the "they do not surpass the bar that Mythos set" line sounds more like there is a believe that Mythos/Fable are more capable in cybersecurity tasks, whereas the data [0] doesn't seem to bare this out. I did not do any cybersecurity assessment of Fable 5 myself, partly due to personal reasons that make that something I'm abstaining from, but my coding evals showed that while task adherence and assessment wise it was neck and neck with 5.5, the task inference was a major jump again (something prior Anthropic models tended to already do incredibly well on) and while that makes it a far better model to work with for UX experiments, I don't see how that translates to cybersecurity, along with the aforementioned publicly available evals by AISI. Seeing as neither Mythos nor GPT-5.5 had been pre-trained with a particular focus on cybersecurity, this would have to mean any model that benchmarks better than GPT-5.4 or Opus 4.6 on these tasks cannot be used by None-US-Citizens. If such guidance isn't enforced for all US labs, I think that's irrefutable evidence that this isn't about cybersecurity or "the bar that Mythos set"... [0] https://xcancel.com/AISecurityInst/status/2054589763173126339 https://xcancel.com/AISecurityInst/status/205458976317312633...

thayne 4mo ago

The only reason I can see is because Amazon wanted something like this to happen. But I'm not sure what Amazon would gain from that, since they don't have their own competing frontier models.

conradkay 4mo ago
My guess is that they liked the status quo with Project Glasswing and didn't want Fable to be public, especially if anyone is jailbreaking it into Mythos and using it for cyber But then it backfired spectacularly and now it seems they can't use Mythos currently
brianjking 4mo ago
...Not to mention that they're investors in Anthropic.
lumost 4mo ago
This is either a complete own goal by Amazon… a play to consolidate compute/model access. Will Chinese models be allowed on the market… at all? Will startups be banned from training models of equivalent capacity?
- gopher_space 4mo ago
  At this point would I be outsourcing my knowledge work or would I be entering self-exile?
carlossouza 4mo ago
Of course, Amazon wanted this to happen. They own 20% of Anthropic. Anthropic bleeds cash. They have to raise capital. There are only 2 ways: an IPO or follow-ons from existing investors. If the IPO gets delayed because of these restrictions, Anthropic will be forced to raise more capital from existing investors. And existing investors (Amazon) will end up owning more of Anthropic at a cheaper valuation.
- milch 4mo ago

m3kw9 4mo ago

Because based upon on what Anthropic has told the “AI people” and military, it is dangerous if an adversary gets its hands in the cyber capabilities. Knowing that if they ignored it and something did happen, heads will roll. Blame Anthropic for that, or wait if they are all for safety, they shouldnt complain.

irthomasthomas 4mo ago

They literally asked for it. Two days ago Amodei wrote an essay urging the government to regulate them. He explicitly cited Mythos, as proof that frontier AI has acquired autonomous hacking capabilities that threaten critical infrastructure and national security. "Mythos Preview scrambled the global cybersecurity landscape. But its broader significance is that it proves beyond doubt that AI models are now tools of global and national strategic consequence." "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. This power must be scoped to the above four specific risks and there must be protective measures against political favoritism or arbitrary decisions" https://darioamodei.com/post/policy-on-the-ai-exponential https://darioamodei.com/post/policy-on-the-ai-exponential A third-party demonstrated that it was possible to jailbreak the safety measures of Fable to access the raw Mythos abilities. Abilities which Anthropic say are too dangerous for the public. Edit. From David Sacks: — A highly credible trusted partner of both Anthropic and the USG who was testing Fable came forward with a jailbreak of those guardrails. The Admin asked Dario to fix the jailbreak or de-deploy the model. Dario refused. — In their blog post, Anthropic defended its decision by saying the jailbreak isn’t serious. That is not what the trusted partner and the USG believe; nor is that kind of minimizing language consistent with Anthropic’s brand as the AI safety company. It’s difficult to fathom how they could claim a jailbreak allowing operability of a cyber weapon could be defined as not “serious".

sigmarule 4mo ago
> A third-party demonstrated that it was possible to jailbreak the safety measures of Fable to access the raw Mythos abilities. Abilities which Anthropic say are too dangerous for the public. Pressure test this assumption before getting behind this position.
- irthomasthomas 4mo ago
  I will certainly revisit it as more information comes out, but is it your contention that Anthropic solved jailbreaking with Mythos?

trinsic2 4mo ago

>I still am struggling to understand why they informed the government about something that is known to be an issue in every LLM. There is no LLM that cannot be jailbroken, so unless this means that we have reached the absolute maximum publicly accessible US made LLMs are allowed to operate at with GPT 5.5, this is not grounded in any sane regulation attempt. I wondering where you are getting the idea that there is an sane regulation right now?

agrijakhetarpal 4mo ago

> I still am struggling to understand And? Does it matter?

ReflectedImage 4mo ago

Probably a con job. The AI companies don't think they will be able to significantly improve their models in the next year or so, so they are stalling with government regulations whilst taking in investor money.

SilverElfin 4mo ago

Anthropic themselves have played up the dangers of Mythos, limited its release, etc. So if it can be jail broken then it specifically deserves controls, per Dario’s own manifestos. David Sacks - the “AI Czar” - also said the government asked Anthropic to patch the issue but they refused, which is bizarre. And that led to the export ban.

naveen99 4mo ago
sama says think more about what direction you want to go in, and then go in that direction. Some people think in one direction and go in the opposite direction.

zaptheimpaler 4mo ago

This is corporate Game of Thrones, nothing more. Amazon, maybe in alliance/deals with others as well saw an opportunity to hurt their rival. Or maybe they were instructed to report this by the WH themselves. Hegseth and the WH will happily take any excuse to hurt Anthropic after the confrontation with DOW, being the vindictive cronies they are.

spprashant 4mo ago
I thought Amazon has a stake in Anthropic, and would want them to succeed.

classified 4mo ago

> why they informed the government Having no moat, they want to manipulate the government into creating one for them.

sagarpatil 4mo ago

Doesn’t Amazon own 14% of Anthropic?

vessenes 4mo ago

I’d invert - given their significant competition for government business, what would be a reason for not doing this?

metalspot 4mo ago

This is obviously political and the entire narrative is fabrication. David Sacks is publicly gloating about it: https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/2065853007619588171 https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/2065853007619588171 I can't really say that Anthropic didn't get what they deserved. They exploited security threats to sell their product and play political games, and now their rivals are rubbing it in their faces.

mgfist 4mo ago
> This is obviously political and the entire narrative is fabrication. I agree with this > David Sacks is publicly gloating about it: https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/2065853007619588171 https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/2065853007619588171 I do no like David Sacks but how do you say this is gloating about it? Again, I do believe this is political, but Sacks is saying "you said this is dangerous and wanted regulation, and we believe you. Fix this because it's dangerous and we'll let it out again". How is this gloating?
- Aeolun 4mo ago
  It is gloating in the context of it being the exact same form of dangerous as all the other frontier models out there?
- metalspot 4mo ago
  > How is this gloating? he is emphasizing that they used their own words against them. everyone knows the security threat is a pretext. the message is that he is smart and they are stupid and he won, which is what I call gloating. > "Those trying to misdirect and tie this action to the prior DoW/Anthropic issues are wrong." an obvious lie, which is inserted to emphasize that it is a lie. when you purposefully lie, not to deceive, but with the intent that the counter-party knows you are lying and must accept the lie, that is an assertion of power.
  - VikRubenfeld 4mo ago
    "everyone knows the security threat is a pretext." On what planet? Anthropic itself made a big stink about Mythos being able to hack every app out there, and very dangerous as a result. Many reports have confirmed this.