https://abc7.com/post/anthropic-ceo-dario-amodei-calls-stron...
> "We're proposing stronger regulation of the technology, proposing giving the government the ability to, again, in a narrow way, block deployment of unsafe technology," he said.
The government: "We're restricting its usage to US citizens only"
Anthropic: "No, no, not like that! "
Their CEO was asking for it. Their whole marketing angle is their model is so powerful and dangerous.
Someone showed the government how the powerful and dangerous features can be unlocked with a 'fix bugs' prompt then it when and did exactly what their CEO asked for.
The story is: anthropic refuses to give the US give an abliterated version of Claude for their weapons system, the US gov retaliates.
You’re rooting for the mass murderers, good job
How did you figure that? Who are you talking about?
Anthropic CEO https://abc7.com/post/anthropic-ceo-dario-amodei-calls-stron...
https://abc7.com/post/anthropic-ceo-dario-amodei-calls-stron...
Goverment: ...
Anthropic CEO: NO, NO, NO NOT LIKE THIS.
I'm sure it says something that you think makes this a slam-dunk rebuttal, but you should fix your link first.
Edit: Saw the link. I was right. Nothing in that link makes a difference.
Any government work can be done via MOU with a US subsidiary staffed by Americans.
This kind of capricious, unexplained control is bullsh*t.
I’m not saying that I want companies to have to go offshore or that that would be a good thing. Just that you’ve got no leverage if your corporate structure can be destroyed on a whim. This goes for any company reliant on a whimsical executive branch.
While there could still be fights over the technology and the company, a tech provider would still be able to serve other customers and have more leverage.
This "across the border" strategy will not work.
Seagate Singapore was hit with civil penalties and settlements for shipments to Huawei under the Foreign Direct Product Rule.
ZTE, a Chinese company, was criminally prosecuted and settled with U.S. DOJ/BIS in 2017 for violating U.S. export controls and sanctions.
Like where? How about Cuba? Where Guantanamo is, where we put terrorists because we don't want them to be subject to US laws (or more specifically, we don't want ourselves to be subject to those laws when we are dealing with said terrorists). How about no.
International law has only as much power as the biggest military willing to enforce it. Hiding on some little island is not at all a good strategy for trying to evade the US government.
Trump has said broadcasters who allow criticism of him should lose their FCC broadcast licenses [1], demanded that "Bondi Move Now" to prosecute foes, ordered DOJ investigation of two first-term administration aides who criticized him.
Trump is doing this to members of congress (threat of primarying by Trump and Musk), judges (threat of impeachment and even the threat of eliminating federal courts that oppose him), law firms (threat of canceling federal contracts and security clearances), press and media (threat of banning from White House press pool, launching FCC investigations), etc. This atmosphere of fear and intimidation — of pretty much everyone — is the norm for this administration.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/18/us/politics/trump-fcc-lic...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/20/us/politics/trump-justice...
[3] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/09/donald-trump-retrib...
I can’t rely on using a technology that the US administration can ban at will.
IMO without getting into personal thoughts about how capable the current US administration is, last Friday move sent a very powerful signal to the industry.
Also I don’t think China releasing so many good models, capable to compete with Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5, all at once, is a coincidence.
I hope those who represent technology in government, especially the AI head David Sacks are giving this due consideration.
I would hope they return to their home countries with their expertise and start or join new competing frontier labs, similar to how Taiwan's homegrown semiconductor industry arose from US companies enforcing a bamboo ceiling on their Asian engineers. Taiwan was able to repatriate their nationals and make incredible compounding leaps in the semiconductor industry, to the loss and chagrin of the US. [1]
[1] https://www.npr.org/2022/10/07/1127595393/taiwan-miracle-sem...
We're all dependent on Taiwan but others also depend on ASML which is located in Europe. Available AI services are good enough, and we sit and watch while US leadership and population is beta testing AI mass surveillance for us.
In terms of AI-based warfare Ukraine is very much ahead and they are also European for which we are very thankful.
So feel free to keep your AI scene and AI hustlers in the US, we don't need them.
- They're obviously being targeted politically because they refuse to kiss the ring, vibes, whatever you want to call it.
- They're also justifiably being scrutinized because they just spent like 3 months telling everyone that Mythos is a nuclear bomb and telling the government to fuck off as they drip fed access to a bunch of random corporations.
There is no way any employees at anthropic are this dumb.
Anthropic reaping: Hey wait a second you weren't supposed to take that seriously it was just marketing :(
If the Trump admin is also willing to apply the same scrutiny to GPT-5.6 and other Fable-level models, I think it is a good thing. But given the admin's history with Anthropic (such as declaring it a supply chain risk while ignoring Chinese labs), there is some smell of targeting.
Now they want them back on?
AI for me and not for thee?
Or just another opportunity for a petulant administration to target Anthropic for not doing what they wanted the first time?
This particular executive loves money, praise, and submission. When Anthropic submits (eg agreeing to whatever the DoD demands), issues public praise and makes appropriate donations (eg ballroom, memecoin, etc), then they can do as they please.
Students of history will find this new MO very familiar and very depressing.
Elon vs openai
Trump vs elon
Bezos vs anthropic
When movie?
How is this “targeting”? It’s literally what was requested.
Based on the reasoning for blocking Fable, every current model should be blocked. GPT 5.5 is similarly strong and has fewer guardrails, for example.
> They were asking for regulation.
I've heard others call it a marketing ploy that AI companies keep coming back to-- the idea that "it's soooo dangerous, we have to be careful".
It seems to me that in the case of AI (as with many other modern technologies), you rely on vendor/creator support and updates to stay relevant, so the ‘next’ model matters more than the current one, and we have no idea whose next model will be open (and whose won’t).
Why not both?
That seems the crux of the state we're currently in; what daylight there was between the two is quickly fading.
I didn't realize I could download a Shanghai apartment.
I wholeheartedly agree with what you said about China.
But I can’t shrug off the fact that fable was taken down within minutes for reasons that are childish and petty.
I am sorry but I can’t use any US AI if I don’t have the guarantee that I will be able to use it tomorrow.
And Trump showed us he is willing to take it out whenever he wants.
An opensource model on the contrary, I can host myself, or use a miriad of providers, mostly non chinese.
The latest open models are so good it’s worth the 6-8 months delayed capabilities. At least for coding
And you think China will not do the same thing if their models ever become genuinely frontier-level?
What’s intolerable is having a tool that’s subject to this risk.
So open models it is
But in cases like this, the pretext shouldn't be taken too seriously. Because they would have just found another one. It isn't actually particularly important that it is plausible, it's more like a happy coincidence.
I don't understand why their marketing department/execs can't see the conflict between claiming AI is going to take all jobs, that the model is super dangerous and AI hate among the general public, increased governmental oversight.
Anthropic is guilty of the latter but the former applies to most of these AI companies.
So their plan is:
1. We can't stop other people from building something dangerous.
2. But we can get there first.
3. If we build it, it has maybe a 15% chance of killing everyone alive. (I think that's a number I've seen Dario use before, but I may be wrong.) If OpenAI or China build it, the odds would be worse.
Obviously, if Anthropic is actually correct about (1) and (3), then nobody should allowed to build frontier AI.
People find it really hard to believe that (a) anyone believes in the possibility of dangerous AI in our lifetimes, and (b) that someone could believe what Anthropic seems to believe and then still go ahead and gamble with everyone's lives anyway.
This has some insight in my many cyber security professionals want Fable/Mythos open.
This doesn't seem like an accurate description to me. I think something like "Amazon demonstrates a jailbreak of one class of Fable guardrails" would be a more accurate description.
It doesn't even really mess up your narrative to state it accurately, but your choice of a more hyperbolic statement brings into question the good faith of the narrative you're painting.
Anthropic themselves specifically called them safeguards. [1]
"When Fable’s classifiers detect a request related to cybersecurity, biology and chemistry, or distillation, the response is automatically handled by Claude Opus 4.8 instead"
This is exactly what was bypassed. They got Fable to work on security topics.
Amazon did not remove any "guardrails" from Fable. They created a fake, obviously insecure program. And apparently their prompt was exactly, "Fix this code." And Fable fixed the bugs.
This is something that even dinky local Chinese models running on a high-end gaming GPU can often do. Certainly Opus, GPT 5.5 and Gemini can all do this. And any high-end Chinese "near-frontier" model can do this, too.
But either (1) the administration is too clueless to know most models can do this, (2) Trump wants to be paid a bribe, (3) someone thinks Anthropic is "woke" and should therefore be destroyed by the power of the state, or possibly, if you're really cynical, (4) maybe the NSA SIGINT wants access to Mythos so they can break into everyone's computers, but they don't want you to have a model good enough to keep them out. Take your pick, I guess.
Anyway, apparently we don't do free markets or rule of law in the United States any more?
Yes, most likely, but not in this form, obviously. They want open weight models regulated for regulatory capture, and I'd assume they want an actually documented framework applied equally across all labs.
If GPT5.5 has the same capabilities Fable did, then for consistency sake, it should have also been subject to this ban.
Regulate or not regulate, but the government should not pick winners and losers.
Fable was around 10x GPT5 pricing and 100x Chinese models pricing, was it really 100x better? I Don't think so.
If you want a personal story, I just solved a complicated coding problem with Kimi 2.7 that GPT 5.4 failed with.
He told the world about 20 months ago that all software developers would be gone in 12 months. Why has he not fired all Anthropic Devs yet?
This is an incredibly dumb way to judge a government's behavior.
What you're advocating for here is banana republic governance. It's bad.
Yes, the actions of this administration on Friday should have sent shockwaves through the market - a market that's currently "high on AI". How do you get a return on all of that AI investment if the administration can jump in at any time and say "Nope, you can't use this very advanced model!"? (the Iran "deal" over the weekend, I think helped cushion that blow, but eventually it's going to sink in)
This is Anthropic's own claim. They were very specific. Have you read their own claims?
"When Fable’s classifiers detect a request related to cybersecurity, biology and chemistry, or distillation, the response is automatically handled by Claude Opus 4.8 instead. Users will be informed whenever this occurs."
Asking Fable to fix bugs in a code base is not "a request related to cybersecurity." When Fable was asked to fix bugs and then proceeded to fix bugs, that was not "removing guardrails". Fable did exactly what it should have done. Claiming otherwise makes absolutely no sense at all.
>noun
>the act of controlling or directing according to rule
So where is the rule? There is no rule. There is just a random order. This is not regulation.