This makes these models unusable in the settings where people are actually benefiting from these models being on Bedrock (e.g. they have customer contracts that limit who they can share data with, etc).

If the lift from these models is high enough and no alternative springs up, people will find a way to get to yes, but if OpenAI is willing to ship a Fable-class model on Bedrock without this, all the traffic will just move there. I say this because there is not much reason to use Bedrock unless you care about data sharing limits (ok, it seems more reliable than Anthropic's serving, but I don't think that's the major reason).

Of course, they could both decide they don't want the competitive advantage that having an AWS-controlled inference stack brings, but this is basically throwing out that advantage.

Note that this announcement is not just about Mythos, but also Fable, which is restricted from doing any Cyber work in the first place.

No, we are unhappy because there is no guarantee that my corporate documents wont be shared or trained on. We are already paying plus for using bedrock instead of the API version from Anthropic, so now there is no reason to use bedrock anymore. This whole thing about this model being too powerful to share is just the usual BS. Is an advanced model that dont have guardrails, just like the models that have been shared with the US government for years.

This narrative any criticism about Anthropic is emotional is such corporate cope that it boggles the mind to see people defend a trillion dollar corporation time and time again all while the same corporation actively makes things worse for the average person.

Cool. Everybody is doing it. Doesn’t make it right or make it good for the people. Everyone should complain and help others wake up that Anthropic isn’t the “good guys” like their narrative in Feb/march led so many to believe.

"Consensual"?

> Let’s be real, chances are that the people with a lot of money on the line have given it more thought than the passing thought that you gave this comment.

In theory, definitely.

But this seems like a really, really, really no-good seriously bad decision from Anthropic. Like, I get why they want this (and can see it from their perspective), but many of their largest clients literally cannot allow this without regulator sign-off, which almost certainly won't be forthcoming.

Like, if the Fed and the ECB say this is OK then it might work, but other than that I predict that this decision will be reversed ~soon.

They give it some thought, but Anthropic and AWS have the whole menu of compliance and security checkboxes needed to reassure CISO it doesn’t need to be “the office of no” and can allow the AI onboarding. The pressure to adopt and adapt to AI is so high right now that there’s nothing a CISO or CFO can say to stop its adoption. And the more they say “no” or “wait,” the more at-risk they put their job.

> chances are that the people with a lot of money on the line have given it more thought

Sure, but considering the average person and how short-term their thinking tends to be, I'm not sure I'd jump straight into "think about how much money they could lose, of course they think long-term".

You would be very, very surprised

Intelligent individuals tend to make rational decisions very often this doesn’t result in rational behavior on the organizational level.

Large corporations like Microslop, Google, Meta etc. were frequently behave like headless chickens

Yeah, the AI bubble has been inflated to this size because the money people are thinking carefully and rationally.

You've mistaken "a lot of money" with "intelligence." Which is why I think the AI crowd really really wants this magical machine god thing to succeed. Then they can really have money = intelligence whilst keeping the rest of us poor and stupid. You know, like how they used to prevent literacy among the slaves.

Counter point - Marisa Mayer and Stephen Elop.

right, and they realize the money doesnt exist unless they inflate the values in shadow circles of flow.

I mean, all the competitors need to do is to have a big context window and minimal guardrails and magic, the AI can now hack your server!

That remains to be seen.

It's notable that Anthropic are still using SWEBench as a coding benchmark rather than the newer more difficult DeepSWE which shows them well behind GPT 5.5

https://deepswe.datacurve.ai/

Bear in mind that all the marketing efforts such as solving Erdos problem are the result of concerted RL training to impart those narrow capabilities, and how much of any benchmark results, or "early access" paid shill vibe reports, reflect improved performance for more general real-world use cases remains to be seen.

For how long though? The past two months have seen a ridiculous number of model releases.

Well I have just tested it and GPT 5.5 is still smarter. It catches bugs that Fable doesn’t. Anthropic Fable is basically still sloppy like Opus 4.x. And I got also the downgrade for “cyber violations” trying to build a custom Debian ISO…that tells me their safeguards are sh**. I didn’t ask it to hack anything. Just to make a script that builds a custom Debian distribution with various settings…so this Fable thing seems like a flop&slop already. That warning plus the privacy change is the wake up call to move from Anthropic

Why don't you think that? What I've read is that other models can find the same bugs.

Bedrock doesn't offer zero data retention for OpenAI's latest models either

> For OpenAI GPT-5.4 and GPT-5.5, classifier-flagged traffic will be retained for up to 30 days for automated offline abuse detection

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/bedrock/latest/userguide/abuse-d...

> I mean, they were already capacity constrained and just introduced a larger model that takes more capacity to run

I am willing to bet that the SpaceX deal is probably why Fable's launching now, as they are much less compute constrained than they were a month ago.

Is it a larger model or just better trained? Anthropic does not actually claim it is a larger model anywhere that I can see.