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…
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-hous...
The governments national security apparatus was using a public signal group and invited a reporter into it. I don't think we should use them as the standard for secure.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/prev... the government using this terminology shouldn't be entrusted to make such decisions.
Why amazon? I bet the three letters had a hissy fit field day worrying that their expensive hancrafted zero days would evaporate and software would get more secure. So, the government is throwing a wrench for the NSA
That’s a terrible way to create AI regulations
If they actually cared about this issue we’d have predictable laws and regulatory bodies that let companies actually plan
There’s a reason royal fiat doesn’t lead to healthy economies. It’s just confusing and chaotic. It’s not clear why anyone would invest in a new model now.
Then the next administration comes in and instantly, by fiat, they decide to lift the ban. The market just gets jerked around with no ability to plan long term investments.
It’s a great way to regulate if you’re corrupt. When the rules are opaque and arbitrary, there’s a lot more room for corruption.
[flagged]
Whether or not you agree with how US laws are drafted, this administration has no logical foundation for anything it does which is a massively different and worse problem by orders of magnitude.
This administration runs on whims. This is horrifying and there is real harm in this we have yet to see the full repercussions of.
This administration has been slapped back by the courts more then I would have expected though. If we had fewer laws granting pretty broad powers to the executive branch I have to assume more of the administration's actions would be stopped.
It just means that the entire system has not been captured by insane people that there is still some pushback.
Anyone who believes in the Unitary Executive Theory likely believes that the President wears imperial robes. The idea that the President should have unchecked power over the executive branch is insane and mocks the whole idea of coequal branches of government or checks and balances.
You can argue for reform, but nothing currently going on is reform. It is entirely running on fumes. The recent AI executive order is representative of this as is the constantly shifting policy driven by whoever has Trump’s favor at any point in time. There's nothing grounding any recent policy change of the United States.
I agree with you mostly, but that's beside my point. Some of the things the administration is doing fall under existing executive powers granted by congress, either directly or in enough gray area that it would require court challenges. Removing laws granting those powers should lead to either the administration avoiding the attempt if they know they'll lose in court or courts having a very simple case to deem said actions illegal.
You are not constructive when you only want to strap gov. powers. The resulting void is ripe for the private sector to capture. To counter this, you need capable public institutions, so a constructive approach would mean, more precise regulations with balanced liberties and bureaucratic aid, not plain less of it. (IMO, this general rejection without a propper problem description nor solution is a product of corporate propaganda to achieve this exact void.)
Its worth noting that I'm specifically talking about federal powers in the US here. I have a lower bar for state and local governments. The whole point of that system is to allow states to try different approaches and policies, if enough states agree on similar approaches maybe it can be pulled up to the federal level.
In the case of the Trump administration, this thread didn't have specific policies people took issue with but I'd say most likely candidates roll back to issues that I wouldn't want to see the federal government responsible for. Immigration is probably an outlier, though that's a whole can of worms and I disagree with most immigration restrictions in part because of the interplay between immigration and entitlement programs.
> this thread didn’t have specific policies people took issue with
Can you give me a consistent principal that that the government of the day is doing outside of flopping around screaming America First while shooting itself in the foot while harassing citizens and critics it deems undesirable? Meanwhile Trump preens about like a pig prancing in front of a mirror and everyone is too weak to publicly acknowledge the farce we have all helped facilitate.
- The immigration policy is nonsensical, incoherent and basically driven by, “I don’t like others”. If it were consistent we would have proper review processes. A respected Somali FIFA referee would not be banned from the US for reasons that apparently cannot be disclosed.
- The AI policy is just based on whatever exec has the right person’s ear as demonstrated by the export controls being enforced on Anthropic’s recent models entirely due to Andy Jassy talking to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
- Onshoring jobs has not moved in any meaningful manner, there is no evidence of this outside of Trump screaming about unproductive and illegal tariffs which he continues to try and argue are not the consumer tax that they are.
- Deconstructing science and practical field work has caused a humanitarian and supply chain disaster. Pest prevention programs are in chaotic states, diseases that the US helped limit worldwide are on the rise, and we have destabilized multiple regions where we used to provide food security which also helped prop up American agriculture.
- There is no crypto policy in the United States. Crypto businesses have spent money trying to stop this. What does crypto actually facilitate? The central bank wasn't created just to annoy people or impede their ability to profit. Should we go back to JP Morgan locking bankers in his personal library and berating them until they agreed to start lending money again?
Well I'm definitely not one to justify what the current administration is doing, maybe someone else coming by could try to help make that case.
I largely agree with your criticisms of them. Where I expect we differ is that I would rather remove powers currently granted to them rather than see further federal powers created.
For example, I don't want to see a crypto policy in the US and I'm not aware of what problem it would be solving. If people want to gamble on crypto that's their choice. If they get taken by rug pulls and scams, well that is the result of decisions they made. What I don't want is an ethos expecting the government to know what is best for everyone and force rules upon us because they believe we won't make good decisions and can't or won't be responsible for the outcomes.
Edit: I missed the very end of your comment. No, I don't think we should empower banks to imprison individuals based on unpaid debts. That's already covered though, it isn't legal for a corporation or and individual to imprison a person. Why would we be reverting to such a world?
The lack of a logical foundation isn't the novelty. The whole system has run on whims and backfilled reasoning for a long time. That's the problem.
If it had always been the rule of law until now then we would have an apparatus set up to impose checks and balances and accountability on government officials, but because those things have so atrophied from continuous contempt and neglect, no one knows how to demonstrate that what Trump is doing is wrong without also conceding that half of what the government has been doing for decades is wrong. But they also don't want to stop doing those things and therefore have rather a dilemma.
Of course, that's assuming you actually demand logical consistency. If you don't care about that you can do whatever you want -- which is kind of the trouble.
While I agree as implemented today our system of checks and balances is faltering, those systems do exist. Separation of powers and our three branch system was designed precisely to try and force checks on power.
It may be failing, but the problem isn't that those systems weren't put in place.
You are biased, previous administration war on crypto was worse IMO. The attacks on private banking for companies dealing with crypto and 0 laws by the SEC.
This is a fact regardless if you like/dislike crypto.
I'm not sure how to weigh the previous administrations war on crypto and the current ones complete embracing of it. Not only does the president literally have his own cryptocurrency, they're trying hard to create a digital dollar based on crypto and likely amounting to public bank accounts directly with the federal reserve.
You may be right, but there is a significant difference in how badly regulating crypto affects the broader economy compared to what the current administration is doing.
In countries other than the US, most regulatory bodies are outside the government for exactly that reason - to take the power away from the political elite, whilst continuing to ensure safety and reason come first.
The new law the US is proposing here, is the exact opposite. A kingly appointed adjudicator to decide things.
I must have missed something very important in the article. What law is being proposed here?
> That’s a terrible way to create AI regulations
This administration doesn't do regulations, its extortion. Same as the tariffs. Just grease someone's palm and then the vague restriction is lifted.
I still can get de minimus from China no problem, as long as it’s Ali express. I wonder why? When anthropic answers that question, we will have access to fable again.
And that is the same as previous administrations, now you just see it openly.
Not that I'm ever one to support anything this regime does but I'm kind of okay with them pumping the brakes on this until we really get a handle on what the
The USG has limited capabilities on technologies from GPS chips to thermal imaging with "national security" implications for a while and now they're doing it but it seems people don't like how ill defined "Mythos-class" means. Would it be better if it was some %X on some benchmark that the frontier model peddlers could just limbo under to make it "acceptable" for release? Do we just accept that jailbreaking will never be prevented?
The part of all this I do have a problem with is the national state cybersecurity cat-and-mouse this kicks off. Will the US tech landscape have enough time to safely get a "Mythos-class" model to harden itself before China releases or leverages a "Mythos-class" cyber munition?
"pumping the brakes" would be fine. This is slamming to a full stop on a crowded freeway and causing a three car pile-up. Warning and advanced notice are the difference between regulation and tyranny, and in this case we're just getting tyranny
Same problem as always. This administration never figured out that how you do things matters. They love the drama of the crash more than actually implementing functional policies.
The goal of this administration has never been effective policy or at least not policy effective at doing things other than self-enrichment and disenfranchisement.
It's not even that. If Anthropic finds a way to variate citizenship the cat is back out of the bag. None of the AI-related worries I've ever heard about are addressed by limiting access to US citizens.
Given the current climate I'd be inclined to declare "tyranny" also but in this case I think given the degree of potential damage the slamming on of brakes is warranted when the alternative is, to strain a metaphor, going full speed off a cliff at relativistic speeds.
Fable was already out for three days. They could have made the call before it was released. They could have given Anthropic the weekend to fix the bug. They could have publicly announced what the issue is once Fable was offline (and they regularly do announcements on the weekends).
If the brakes really were warranted, the administration still screwed up terribly by leaving it out in the open for 3 days. But I'm not aware of any major tragedies in that 3-day window, so I have trouble believing it's really as dangerous as they say.
They didn't slam on the brakes though. They asked access to be limited to US citizens which ended up being hard to implement but is implementable and IMO addresses zero real concerns.
Yeah, we have a lot of critical infrastructure connected to the internet. Based on the trend the last few weeks, I expect major cyber attacks this year.
I expect that to happen no matter what we do (since the open source models are rapidly catching up), but gating access to the frontier models for a while sounds like a reasonable precaution — as annoying as it is to me personally, to be deprived of such shiny toys!
Fable is a massive step up and I didn't expect it public for another month or two. Something tells me we'll get it back in a few weeks though.
The government software infrastructure has holes that makes Swiss cheese look solid as a rock.
There is no way these systems could be secured in a decade, but I don’t believe they will even try. Knowing developers that have walked those halls, it is not and will not be a priority.
Expect systems to start failing.
I'm feeling strong alignment with your perspective here. Thanks
> and in this case we're just getting tyranny
You expected different with this administration?
Of course I expect the government to act better than this! But I am not so naive as to assume my expectations will be met.
A broken clock is still occasionally right.
I have no insider information so this is all appreciation, but:
When it comes to legislative things, there is pretty much always a timeline in which to become compliant. I do wonder if there was opportunity to give warning etc. but Anthropic decided to perform an immediate full stop deliberately causing the metaphorical three-car pileup, because the more painful for the users, the more pressure from the people there will be on the government to undo this.
See also: those painfully annoying cookie banners that are malicious compliance in the most irritating way possible, which GDPR does not require, in order to make people think GDPR is dumb.
> The USG has limited capabilities on technologies from GPS chips
Are you referring to Selective Availability? That ended decades ago.
Selective Availability accuracy restrictions ended decades ago, but GPS technology is still subject to various military and export-control restrictions.
Not selective availability. COCOM Limits that prevent a GPS chip from operating above a certain speed and altitude.
It’s funny because it’s just (relativistic) math. It would cost a couple hundred bucks to roll your own with no restrictions.
In a parallel universe where we have Biden (or Democratic Party) administration, how different do you think the regulations / approach would be for this fast moving and unpredictable technology?
It’s hard not to see this ban as being motivated by retribution for refusing to use the models for spying and autonomous warfare.
Probably using the rule of law in some way? Talking about it in public? Legislating? You know... government type stuff?
Like Biden did for crypto? Oh wait, no he had a backdoor war using the banking system and refused to enact new laws.
Refusing to enact new laws around a thing most people don’t like, don’t want, and don’t care about (oh and is used for scams often) is quite different than a secret back door war.
The crypto "industry" had a series of multi-$B scams, seems like strong regulation would be called for. On the other hand, Trump executed a rug pulling token for himself and his wife days before his 2nd term and sells pardons to fraudsters and money launders. I know that inspires confidence.
Yes you’re right. Paying off POTUS’s family through a series of pump and dump schemes is much better than what Biden did.
They at least wouldn't depend on how extensively you publicly glaze the President.
There is not a single chance this would have happened under that admin. Not one single chance.
They probably would have been in line with Executive Order 14110, the Biden administration's detailed description of a principled approach to regulation of the AI industry. It would have been aligned with the Trump administration's stated goals as well, but a coalition of rich VCs successfully bribed him to rescind it as one of his first acts in office, because the primary principle of Trumpist government is that people who pay Donald Trump a lot of money get what they want.
It doesn’t really matter what party does it
The ideal case is a statutory agency with regulatory authority that sets very clear standards for what model capabilities can and cannot release. Those are set ahead of time and well known by frontier model providers.
Most normal regulations are managed through the administrative procedures act process. That’s a legal requirement that involves deliberation and public comment.
I’d argue you could pretty easily enumerate most capabilities that have been obvious concerns for a while. For example, cyber security.
This structure can last decades and reassure players they can operate in the market without rules changing suddenly without warning.
Some kind of sudden, temporary action like this export control tool is legally fragile. Even if sometimes necessary in exceptional cases. But if the administration sees this as a permanent way of working, they won’t be helping anyone (but maybe themselves through grift).
If the administration truly cares about functional regulation (which maybe they don’t) they need a sturdier legal structure that lasts past Trump. Not flimsy edicts that change with the wind
I wholeheartedly agree with what you’re saying in general. I do wonder though, given how rapid advancements in AI are occurring, if even an agency with statutory authority would be able to establish a predictable regulatory environment, let alone do so while maintaining a lengthy public comment period and a whole of government approach. There are obvious flaws with the current administration’s approach to, well, almost everything. But I’m not sure if this is even a tractable problem with the governance structures we have been employing over the last 50 years.
Nothing being talked about with Mythos wasn’t a known AI risk 12 months ago. Those rules could have been established to guide frontier labs.
But yes crazy things happen. Maybe it won’t catch everything.
The right answer are giving the govt / this agency explicit legal, short term model pause capabilities to let the rule making process happen if something completely out of band happens. Or let the agency study/approve models prior to release.
Not sudden, unexpected application of export laws.
Yet in this case, for Fable, cybersecurity risks have been well know for some time. A rule created years ago when we knew this would happen could have given frontier labs and the market predictability.
> the White House intends to generally regulate Mythos-class models (whatever exactly that means)
This is not at all surprising. And I hope people don't make the mistake that it's a "this administration" problem.
It was obviously from the early days of these LLMs that the shoe was going to drop and we (as Joe public) would not retain access. I mean that once ChatGPT3 dropped it was clear there was some level of functionality at which we would be denied further access.
The only carve out will be as per older technical innovations the US is more concerned with foreign national access than US citizen access at home.
I don't remember the details with encryption but it was basically you have to ship a breakable version for the rest of the world, and you generally sometimes ship a backdoored version.
And Anthropic is more concerned by what they are asked to do to US citizens than the broader group.
Same story with encryption, CPUs, GPUs, blah blah blah.
Yet unlike CPUs/GPUs, there's currently zero way to lock down who has access.
Giving access to 'citizens', with the current way the Internet operates, is absurd. One back door into a desktop, workstation, and 'validated citizens' are now 'hackers from where-ever'.
>and 'validated citizens' are now 'hackers from where-ever'.
Yes, because knowledge is power, and information is meant to be free.
> I don't remember the details with encryption but it was basically you have to ship a breakable version for the rest of the world, and you generally sometimes ship a backdoored version.
I do remember the details: the result of Bernstein v. United States was that you have a First Amendment right to publish code because it is a speech act and so the USGOV cannot prevent you from publishing effective encryption algorithms. Will model weights be afforded the same protection? What about serving a model without publishing its weights? We shall see.
[flagged]
Your anti-semitism is vile and you should be shunned by any upstanding person in society.
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/205458976317312633...
Firefox bugs found per month, actively advertised as a sign of how powerful Mythos is: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F...
I am, thus far, not aware of 5.5-Cyber managing anything similar to "Project Glasswing"
That said, the government also knew about Mythos since Project Glasswing was announced... April 7th, two months ago, so if they wanted to block a public release, they had more than enough time to do it in an orderly way.
And basically every sign that Mythos is well above the previous baseline was pretty publicly known by early May, when we started getting stuff like the Firefox bug reports.
I can see an argument that Mythos is just barely a "cut above" enough to regulate, but I cannot see any argument for doing this by a fiat order three days after the release.
Let everyone feed their hardest problems for a week. Get their data for free without giving much in return. Just a thought.
Anyway you guys are trying to extrapolate reason and fairness from politics and bureaucratic logic. Amazon concerns even if unfunded triggered US Gov action which demanded Anthropic to pause Fable. Anthropic didn't comply and is being made an example via export restriction.
[flagged]
This is obviously political and the entire narrative is fabrication.
David Sacks is publicly gloating about it: 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.
> 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
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?
Sacks works for the government now. Everything is political. This happening on the day SpaceX IPO’d? It’s a flex, and a message.
what's the flex? what's the message? how does it relate to the IPO?
Isn't Grok part of the IPO?
> 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.
"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.
He is reinforcing his point by referencing Anthropic’s statements.
Virtually every debater is gloating by that measure.
It is gloating in the context of it being the exact same form of dangerous as all the other frontier models out there?
anthropic would see a crazy boost to its ipo for releasing " so good that we had to ban it" model .
i dont see how it effects them negatively at all given their opus models are already on par or exceed any other model out there.
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.
https://darioamodei.com/post/policy-on-the-ai-exponentialA 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:
David Sacks could not be further from a reliable or impartial narrator on this topic.
And before someone calls this an ad hominem, it isn’t; I am not saying he is bad or morally wrong or anything else (you are free to think that or not, as am I).
But Sacks has skin in the game. And that makes him both unreliable and partial.
Cynically: this is an attempt to quash open source or discount model competition through regulatory capture.
I'm sure it's also a step towards requiring id and limiting access for us plebians to real power and keeping it for maintaining or growing power of those in charge. It's all an excuse to give us a Westworld season 3. Probably a better example out there..
[dead]
> 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.
I will certainly revisit it as more information comes out, but is it your contention that Anthropic solved jailbreaking with Mythos?
What you claim contradicts Anthropic’s statements. I assume that is the contention.
That is a strawman. My contention is what you just implicitly acknowledged - there is not information put out yet to validate the quoted claim. There are claims to the contrary, as well, from Anthropic themselves.
In the absence of information, maybe it’s better to ask which claim is more extraordinary.
That,
A. Anthropic solved the llm jailbreak problem with mythos (despite no claim to have done so on their part)
B. That a full jailbreak of mythos is possible.
That’s not what the claim is though.
Anthropic’s claims are as follows if you read their post:
* this is not a universal jailbreak method
* the jailbreak affords you the same capabilities you get already with other models, not Mythos.
In this situation it’s which party do you trust more and history would suggest this administration is very playful with the truth, especially when it comes to economically damaging the company that’s become their political enemy
There is not an absence of information.
There is information, from Anthropic, concerning the jailbreaks that motivated this action, that directly contradicts the statement.
There is just an absence of information backing the statement I responded to.
I find it so odd this is apparently so contentious a take.
The existence of a jailbreak free llm in 2026 is extremely contentious to me. You can argue about the specifics of this exact jailbreak, but generally pliny and amazon both reported mythos jailbreaks in <7 days. It seems very reasonable to expect that a well funded state actor could achieve better results given significantly more funding, determination and most importantly unfettered access.
Nobody here is claiming fable is jailbreak free. Not anthropic and not in this thread. This was known before launch. The question remains one of degree and capabilities.
Yeah, if you're arguing that "this, according to anthropic, existentially dangerous model has only had its safeguards partially circumvented so we shouldn't step in" ... it's hard for me to take you seriously?
Put another way, the thing we are all concerned with is the complete circumvention of safeguards that is normally possible with llms. If you _aren't_ arguing that this isn't possible, you're not engaging in discussing the the thing that is concerning to regulators or those discussing the regulation.
Im pointing out what is the argument. You were saying it is something different.
Now you add the word "complete". Anthropic IS arguing _complete_ circumventing is NOT possible.
A disappointing trend is to frame the opposing argument in extreme terms rather than engaging with the substance of the assertion.
The latter portion is grand standing about how incredulous the commenter is that someone might trust an LLM company about the strength of their harnesses' if-then-else statements for request routing.
Why bother with an unsubstantial comment?
What assumption?
The one I quoted, which contradicts Anthropic’s post and has no supporting evidence publicly available. That a jailbreak was found that accesses the model’s _raw_ capabilities. Something Anthropic has explained was not the case.
It is pretty clear, no? Anthropic claims that the jailbreaks they were made aware of did not access the model’s raw capability, explained that there are protections to mitigate the impact of successful jailbreaks, etc. Coming here and stating something to the contrary with zero explanation or actual evidence is the assumption.
“This power must be scoped to the above four specific risks and there must be protective measures against political favoritism or arbitrary decisions.”
> They literally asked for it.
Yes, and rape victims are "asking for it" by wearing short skirts. I thought we stopped with this nonsense a couple decades ago?
There's a huge difference between "we want regulation", and the government swinging it's dick at random.
If the government had said, a week ago, don't release Fable? That wouldn't have gotten nearly this reaction. And the government has known that these capabilties exist since they were announced TWO MONTHS 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?
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.
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.
There's a much simpler explanation: Amazon's business is selling cloud services. Amazon is constantly under threat of attack and anything that disturbs the balance between attackers and defenders is bad for Amazon. Amazon also needs to keep their AWS customers safe.
This is Amazon prioritizing their 100% stake in AWS over their 20% stake in Anthropic. It's also possible that Amazon knows things that are not public.
The fact that Amazon is willing to report this despite owning shares in Anthropic and being close to a liquidation event points to whatever they found being actually serious.
Why would they have launched Fable on Bedrock if they knew they were going to be shutting it down a day later?
I'm just stating facts:
- Amazon's CEO knew what he was doing and the possible consequences
- Anthropic must raise cash, and there are only 2 ways: an IPO or follow-ons
- If the IPO is blocked, existing investors will be able to increase their stake on Anthropic at a very attractive lower valuation
- Amazon has 20% of Anthropic: so, they benefit from it
"Amazon's CEO knew what he was doing" is not a fact. That's speculation.
When it comes to highly technical, fast moving developments like frontier AI and blue team / red team perspectives, I could see any CEO getting out over their skis. Now mix in some incompetent Trump admin officials, including apparently Howard Lutnick. I am guessing many of these people don't understand the subject matter very well at all.
They would have no internally/externally defensible justification to stop the launch as they are partners/part-owners of Anthropic. They would have to let the rank-and-file keep moving on the Fable launch.
IIRC Anthropic models haven't all been available on day 1, so it does feel like a deliberate choice, especially since they are partners/part-owners like you say. No one would have bat an eye about some corporate PR thing "blah blah mythos is too powerful and too intelligent and so we've decided to focus our capacity on Opus 4.6/4.7/4.8 for now until we have the proper safeguards in place blah blah"
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
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?
At this point would I be outsourcing my knowledge work or would I be entering self-exile?
...Not to mention that they're investors in Anthropic.
Did it cross your mind that Amazon cares about the security of the United States and reported the jailbreak to protect it?
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...
[2]: Opus 4.6 was used for https://www.noahlebovic.com/testing-an-autonomous-hacker/
[3]: See GLM 5.1 scoring in https://www.cybergym.io/cybergym/
[4]: https://dualuse.dev/posts/chinese-models-are-sometimes-bette...
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.
Hanlon's razor. Are the people with the right access talking to the right people? Wouldn't be the first time for miscommunication in the executive branch.
Fair point, not unlikely, though my personal assumption is that, like with Nvidia export controls, there will be a sudden reversal with no tangible, actual, technically based reason the second a certain person has their ring kissed...
Why not both? The current executive has missed the mark on appointments pretty badly a number of times due to the prizing of loyalty over competency.
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.
If it had vulnerabilities the marketing copy would already be written and published.
[dead]
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Real question; what are we supposed to do about that information delay when it directly enables corruption and usury? This is an ongoing issue with historical precedent; the repeal of glass-steagall, MKULTRA and COINTELPRO, Iran-contra, watergate, the list is indefinably long.
All of these all surfed in on that very temporal ambiguity, and the fact that we have zero recourse in a plurality of cases - a situation that has eroded over time, not gotten better, and could feasibly be credited with a large part of the palpable social decay that real people are suffering from every day right now.
So what do we do about it? "Indulging in plausible conspiracy theories" could also be read here as "trying to get out ahead of this imminent yet undclear threat"
There's nothing wrong with pattern recognition. I'm just cautioning against a knee-jerk reaction based on the current information, which is limited, and will become more clear over the next few days.
I don't think the outcome will be particularly unexpected (I assume that Anthropic will have to kiss the ring), but it's not yet clear what the outcome is. I mostly take issue with uninformed people claiming with ignorant confidence that they KNOW exactly what is happening in this scenario, which they, in all likelihood, do not.
So yeah, we all probably know how this will shake out to some degree, but those who claim they KNOW it's a "shakedown like with Tylenol" are just guessing, a.k.a making shit up. This may be part of the usual playbook, but it will likely have its own twists and turns, or could turn out to be something different altogether.
I'm with you on the uninformed / confident vector in general, but you do seem fairly level-headed so I still want your take on the question: what do we do about it? How do we approach the problem of "most of our problems stem from an intractable information asymmetry, and this could be existential"?
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.
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.
Holy crap, I didn't realize that some many people had been killed, over 200 according to a New York Times report: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/31/world/americas/us-boat-st...
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.
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.
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.
Trust no one, friend. Believe what you want to believe.
>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.
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.
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.
Whether you or me or Anthropic think it was pushing back or not is besides the point.
I can agree on revenge, but it's important to not paint it as a good vs evil when it isn't.
It's the AWS CEO being a little snitch to gain favor from the Government. That is what this is about.
Clarification: They want someone who isn’t them to make the decision to commit the war crime. They are happy to facilitate.
Why not both?
[dead]
>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.
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.
He seems to have gone out of his way too alienate just about any demographic likely to buy an EV...
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.)
Antropic models are the ones that designated that school as valid target
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.
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-blam...
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.
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.
It is important to note this formula doesn't require understanding any subject.
People keep seeking logic where there is non. We have an internet full of theories assuming there is more to it.
I mean the logic is simple but people don't want to admit it, you must pay the vig if you want in on the action. Before this type of naked corruption would take the form of boardroom seats/book deals/speaking gigs after you leave office but now it's more open so others will take note.
It also helps if you bust a few kneecaps in the process to show what happens if you go astray.
>The reason is pretty obvious. Anthropic tried to play hardball with the government
that is one.
Another is who is going into the first IPO. Troubles for Anthropic IPO would channel all those money into OpenAI's one. Check financial interests of this admin. Hint - they aren't with Anthropic.
Third - most of the export and access controlled tech of the past wasn't productivity multiplier, nor human replacement. AI is a different case - the more capable AI the more its general economic benefit. Export and access control of AI allows you to more and more control the whole domestic and large part of global economy, not just military capabilities like in the past.
Political - coming into elections with "this evil new tech was coming after your jobs, yet we reigned it in and protected your jobs". After all such approach has been for decades working great when it comes to coalminers.
Note that specific bug-finding capabilities of a specific model is a red herring here, and other leading models are almost there, and definitely will be there in a month.
It is all about revenge, money and power.
Alternatively, this is the best advertising for which Anthropic could hope: "Our product, and nobody else's, is so good that the government declared us a threat to national security." If they bring it back for US-nationals only, maybe demanding ID for users, people will think it's the bees knees: "so dangerous that non-Americans can't have access" probably sounds like a ringing endorsement to some C-level decision makers.
Crowdstrike took down airports in July 2024, and its stock was back up by October; it's double the price now. Everyone saw how systemically important it was and how it took down entire industries, and they asked why they weren't using it themselves if it's so important. See also the 2025 cloud outages.
What good is advertising if they can't actually sell the product?
Customers (especially large ones) don't so much buy individual specific products, they buy into a company and its prospects. Customers don't want to chop and change. They want to lock in with the leader.
This whole thing shrieks out that Anthropic is at the head of the pack, with the most capable models.
It hardly matters in the customer's mind that today they can't buy this specific model.
The same customers that are barred by law from using antrhopic on any government contracts. If they get past that, they are then cant have any foreign workers use state of the art anthropic models. SOTA anthropic models also can work with working in any secure government clouds or with sensitive customer data due to retention policies.
It is hard to see being a new benefit for anthropic.
> Crowdstrike took down airports in July 2024, and its stock was back up by October; it's double the price now. Everyone saw how systemically important it was and how it took down entire industries, and they asked why they weren't using it themselves if it's so important. See also the 2025 cloud outages.
Truly, too big to fail. Capitalism is broken when companies aren't punished but rewarded for screwing up. What point do stock markets serve when bad behavior has no incentives at all to be prevented?!
Not even limitoto companies, if you prevent a problem you get fired because your work isn't visible, if you create a problem and then fix it you're a hero
meant to write: not even limited to companies
>Troubles for Anthropic IPO would channel all those money into OpenAI's one.
Troubles for Anthropic would almost certainly affect OpenAI, significantly. Yesterday just proved that the government sees it within their remit to shut down AI models. All current and future AI investment now has to contend with this risk. You should even see the effect of this decision on SPCX on market open despite X.ai being whatever tiny fraction that it is.
The administration is not known for taking into account second order effects.
The instantaneous instinct to strike an opponent when one can is not much more contemplated than that.
>> Another is who is going into the first IPO. Troubles for Anthropic IPO would channel all those money into OpenAI's one. Check financial interests of this admin. Hint - they aren't with Anthropic.
Yep. Kushner owns private shares of OpenAI.
> The reason is pretty obvious
I would argue the simple reason is that Amazon wanted to fsck Anthropic to set them back, despite whatever partnership they may claim. The competition at that level is intense and these guys do not play by the same rules that regular people do. They can't flat out murder each other (yet) so they find other ways to do it.
Why? Amazon makes tons of money serving Anthropic models through Bedrock and they seem to have basically given up on their own frontier models.
Previous administration was same way… intentionally not including Tesla in an EV summit
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.
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.
You'll notice the tariffs were helping legacy auto more than Tesla
Or that the tariffs were ham-fisted, arbitrary, and lacking in rational justifications. I’m not sure one can draw too many firm conclusions from that particular “policy”.
[flagged]
> intentionally not including Tesla in an EV summit
this comparison is orders of magnitude different
Wasn't that a UAW summit about EVs? Tesla does not work with UAW, so they wouldn't appear at a UAW event.
Give me a break with this. You are not so thick as to think the two things are remotely comparable.
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.
I thought Amazon has a stake in Anthropic, and would want them to succeed.
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.
I’d invert - given their significant competition for government business, what would be a reason for not doing this?
Doesn’t Amazon own 14% of Anthropic?
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.
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.
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.
> why they informed the government
Having no moat, they want to manipulate the government into creating one for them.
> I still am struggling to understand
And? Does it matter?
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.