Obviously their statements are insincere, because they are building the bloody things. If they were sincere that AI is like nuclear weapons, then they would be devoting all their cash and energy into lobbying the government to nationalize them and treat AI like nuclear weapons. They would not be attempting to IPO and they for sure would not sell their weapon-like thing to the general public.

“OpenAI's CEO says he's scared of GPT-5”

https://www.techradar.com/ai-platforms-assistants/chatgpt/op...

Marketing or actual fear? We’ve got 5 and 5.5 out now… he compared 5 to the Manhattan project. AI may one day be an economic Manhattan project but GPT 5 wasn’t it.

It’s a meme because they overdo it.

People don't get that big labs actively want government regulation, not because they are genuinely concerned about AI misalignment. But because it is the 101 in how to achieve and crystalize oligopoly. What they want is "only the government and the big guys can work on AI", for the rest of us it would be illegal.

> Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence.

They don't. LLMs can never become out-of-control superintelligence and everyone working on LLMs knows this (with a few eccentric exceptions).

> OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence

Why would they sell there services to Palantir and/or to the military then?

> Whether you agree or not, we have no reason to believe their statements about risks are insincere.

I'd say their pecuniary interest is a reason one might plausibly doubt their sincerity, as are their continued efforts to build and sell access to the tools.

Not at all. The writing is on the wall, and they want you to be locked into paying absurd subscription rates for neutered models while they internally use all of that money to run the unrestricted models to clone all of our businesses and swallow the economy. It really does not take a genius to see the long term play by Anthropic. They're a scummy company and have done everything in their power to lead to a scenario like this, but this isn't the exact scenario they bargained for because it affects their own employees and big foreign buyers. Instead, they'd rather have all of the decision making power themselves.

Of all the frontier labs, Anthropic has been the most creative in its marketing. I really, really don't put it beyond them for this to be one big crazy stunt.

Besides, when has the US government been known to do things like this proactively? The phone call came from inside the house.

> we have no reason to believe their statements about risks are insincere

GPT-2 was too dangerous to be released.

We can argue about sincerity, but I don't think we can argue about utter historical incompetence in assessing the risks. It's one or the other.

Either way the evidence seems to indicate we should not listen to AI companies about the risks of AI. Which is not to say that there aren't risks, just that the dealer is the least credible review.

> Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence.

Ironic then, that both companies are in an out-of-control race to create a superintelligence.

> The idea that AI companies scaremonger to sell models is a silly meme.

> Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence.

This is not a contradiction.

These things can all be true:

1. That they were afraid of ASI

2. That they continue to be afraid of ASI

3. That they recognize that LLMs aren't in fact a path to ASI

4. That the current models aren't the existential danger they'd have us believe

5. That they're claiming they are because it makes for good marketing

OpenAI was, but didn't all those people then leave for Anthropic?

> Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence

this means nothing

> Whether you agree or not, we have no reason to believe their statements about risks are insincere.

If you want to be taken seriously, provide data, proof, so that any outside observer can independently come to the same conclusion instead of taking your word for it. Asking people to trust you for [reasons?] and that you somehow for some reason are right and the other is wrong regardless of if they agree or not. This is the imposition of a viewpoint instead of winning your case, which is not a sensible point of view, and definitely not how you influence opinions.

No reason except what comes from a bit of critical thinking.

What do they stand to gain by fearmongering their models as powerful threats? Clout, funding, fanfare, discussion, limelight, funding, funding, stronger IPO, valuation, funding.

What cybersecurity threshold was crossed by mythos that wasn't already crossed by 4.8/5.5? Crickets from 99% of those who have had access.

Have they pulled the same stunts multiple times before with previous models? Check.

You're blind if you dont think that greed and marketing are behind most things you see and hear about when gigantic corporations are involved.

I don't think anthropic or OAI are evil, but its clear both have contracts/connections with Dod and/or Palantir. Both are powered largely by greed still. If you actually want an example of these sincere founders you think OAI/anthropic are run by... look at Ilya at SSI or something. Please open your eyes and stop spreading your opinions on things you clearly have no clue about.

I wish I were this naive.

How do you know what the founders sincerely believe?

Ah yes we are being told to believe in sincerity of people running trillion dollar corporations.

what a profoundly unaware comment

they are more than happy to build the things for themselves

it is all two-faced behavior of the exact kind of manipulators that crave power

Yes we do. Dario said GPT2 is too dangerous to release. He’s dishonest since that’s obviously not true. This theater is about holding onto power and control. And about limiting competition.

Sincerity does not determine whether an individual is scaremongering.

The clear historical record seems to indicate we've got a bunch of pathological liars trying to automate pathological lying.

It can be both.

The amount of self-confidence and belief it takes to get a company through the funding rounds and burn through borrowed money to rise to the top requires an absurd amount of self-delusion.

It's not. I got articles this year in my feed citing heads of OpenAI and Anthropic about the threat of AI and how they're addressing it.

You're saying "this is normal" without making an argument that it's sensible.

>> Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence.

Oh please. Do people really believe this or shit like "Don't do evil". Companies get founded by all kind of people and ideals. They all go out the window quickly.

Why are they both rushing to IPO now then?

yes, yes, and Apple forbids sideloading because they're worried about grannies installing malware.

Look into the history of Sam Altman and his ventures. He sincerely only believes in lying about his companies to investors like he did with Loopt.

He is not even a researcher or an engineer.

And Dario broke up with OpenAI and founded Anthropic because he didn't like Sam's and OpenAI's vision.

"founded by people who believe..." is doing a lot of work and it is hard to believe that in ernest given the sketchy past of the same people.

Most original higher up people who cared about safety and allignment in OpenAI have left.

> we have no reason to believe their statements about risks are insincere

Why? Because they said it a few times? Then if they know the risk, why do they still making it? Comes out the "some one will do it eventually, better be us 'good' people to do it first" talking point?

See? It is a marketing strategy after all. These all talks, it's all to fit themselves into the "'good' people" narrative. It's a centuries old strategy to shield it's user from responsibilities while luring the support from the stupid.

However, the most harmful damage, which is mass layoffs, is already partially done. This could really kill, a massive genocide even, by making people jobless and potentially incomeless. And it is shown that these tech CEOs, they don't care any bit of that beyond the point "I've already told you so".

I mean this earnestly: is this copy?

[dead]

There is a huge difference between the company founder saying something like that and the us government saying so.

"Our product is so good the US had to make it illegal for foreigners" is a hell of a marketing slogan.

This just made any closed LLM a huge supply chain risk. Everybody was aware of this possibility, but now it actually happened. It's like having nuclear weapons vs. firing a nuclear weapon.

Especially outside the US customers are going to be very hesitant to keep adopting LLMs from US companies.

They've already been labeled a "supply chain risk". Probably not a good idea to upset the regulators more. Maybe tomorrow Opus will be declared too dangerous for the public.

It mainly shows that this is another US companies that cannot be trusted by anyone outside of the US because of the US government.

Cratering their user base outside of the US is hardly going to be good for their IPO.

Is it now? From a company's point of view, does it really matter that some expensive tool is allegedly good or not if it's reliability/availability is poor and subject to completely arbitrary and unpredictable change?

Incorrect. Heavy government regulation means it is limited how they can sell this model and to whom.

It would be if it was rationally tied to the strength of the model. More likely, it’s simply the government deciding who can compete.

It also signals that Anthropic is a bad choice if you need stable access to their product outside the US.

it may be really good pr, but it's really bad for their IPO. If their market for future models is usa only, their potential revenue is cut by 50% at least. (and it's even worse because it means Europe, India, and China will all have companies making their own models that anthropic needs to stay ahead of)

And they don't have to actually serve expensive model compute and this all goes away once they contribute to the right charitable organizations and patriotic causes funneling money to the right people.

This is quite clearly corporate capture of the white house by a competitor influencing policy, but it's hard to imagine something that plays more into anthropic's hand. They now own the model that was so good the US government made them shut it off.

Indeed, this affects way more than just Anthropic.

I think it's the opposite. Who would want to buy shares in a company that's been flagged as a supply chain risk?

"Our models are so good the government decides whether or you get access -- so you better not depend on them!"

“Not a commodity”

[dead]

It appears to affect only the companies that Trump decides it should affect.

>everyone using this technology loses

As someone not using the technology, I'm fine with that :) Intellectual property laundering was never a good thing. Glad we can begone with it.

> It's a game of thrones and everyone using this technology loses

Everyone? There's worlds outside of the United States government overreach.

Anthropic's marketing is playing 5D chess. 4D was telling everyone it is dangerous, they knew the government would take the bait and shut it down.

Or maybe Anthropic isn't playing chess at all - these models sell themselves they are so useful and the Reddit/HN crowd is just full of larping tech bros commenting conspiracy theories non stop.

In this case it was Amazon reporting Fable jailbreak to government

It's Anthropic facing consequences for their years long marketing plays. They're so greedy and narcissistic as a company and culture they believed they were special enough to be excluded from sanction internally, and that their behavior would only affect their competitors or would lead to outcomes positive for themselves: ergo, they get to hold the keys to the castle. Like Dario said in his negotiations with the DoW, he wants a seat at the big boys table. It's all about power for him.

Unfortunately though, they're not smart enough to realize the long term damage to the industry that they're doing without any hint of remorse will negatively affect them and will have the opposite effect: Highlighting how imperative it is we all switch to open-source and remove our reliance entirely from them.

So not only are they going to take the whole industry down out of their own greed and stupidity and ruin it for everyone in the short term, but they're going to put themselves and the other labs out of business in the long term. Well done Anthropic. Well done Dario. You played yourself. 5d chess.

> the level of capability displayed there is widely available from other models

Is this Dario leveraging it into a ban on open models?

It seems like this might not have happened if Anthropic didn't institute the cyber blocks as broadly to also cover pure-defensive use cases?

Because this wouldn't be considered a jailbreak with any other model; which would just do the request.

Anthropic is almost solely responsible for the fear narrative around AI at this point. It has been their culture since the beginning, strongly pushing this into the zeitgeist at every opportunity, releasing bogus papers to frame things as highly dangerous and that their AI is a conscious sentient being.

Step 1: "OMG, the AI hacked a researcher eating a sandwhich in the park!"

Step 2: Journalists use that great clickbait to generate profit, which generates publicity for Anthropic

Step 3: Rinse repeat

If the threat of LLMs was treated relative to the actual capabilities of them, and we weren't all being lied to by Anthropic and their army of millions of social media bots and backing media companies and mouthpieces, we'd be going in a much healthier direction. Working out the kinks/supply chain risks and developing sound, long-term countermeasures to the ACTUAL risks.

The only threat to the world is if progress is not open-sourced, democratized and in lockstep with capability. The moment it becomes a scenario of: Only a small group get access to frontier intelligence, is when it gives that small group power over everyone else in the world, and wildly increases the risk of a nuclear level event that WILL be exploited eventually - as the divide between the haves and the have nots accelerates in an exponential fashion. Bad AI is countered with an abundance of good AI that has been used to stay ahead of bad AI. The moment your bad AI outpowers the army of good AI it is game over for humanity. The strength of open-source and open-access AI is the difference between humanities permanent enslavement or extinction versus a prosperous future.

It doesn't help that most of the employees at Anthropic have willingly sold their souls out of short term greed and gaslight themselves into thinking that they're actually doing the right thing to justify their own greed to themselves, while building up an echo-chamber and culture of feel good lies within the company so they can sleep at night, and pat each other on the back. They go along with this because they get paid massive chunks of money from Anthropic, and their shares will be worth more money if Anthropic can swallow the worlds economy at the expense and enslavement of everyone else. What good is that money when you have to sell out humanity in the progress though. You, at Anthropic, is that the legacy you want to leave?

People need to start calling this out before it's far too late. If you work at Anthropic - time to start talking to your colleagues in an honest manner.

The difference between OpenAI & Anthropic is that OpenAI didn't do multiple big media pushes about how their models are so scary and dangerous.

OpenAI's models are very good, they have refusals + a government ID verification story for cyber access (I don't think they prevent non-US nationals, but I don't know this). What they don't have is Project Glasswing and all the hand wringing about how they're going to end the world in public.

I hope Anthropic pulls their head out of their ass and just starts acting like a normal company.

That’s a safe assumption, considering they tried it a few months back too.

https://www.npr.org/2026/03/09/nx-s1-5742548/anthropic-penta...

I did not see that?

It's way more _proactive_ than the old models, sometimes in ways it shouldn't really be proactive. But it produces _more_ slop than 4.8, and I have not seen any real breakthroughs from it.

Edit: to give an example, I'm working on integrating a self-hosting auth provider into our app. So I gave it a prompt to create a "bootstrap" script that would create pre-configured settings for the local installation.

Fable did it. And then proceeded (unprompted) to test it by killing the running server, removing the database, re-initializing and (trying) to verify that the bootstrap produced identical results.

Well, yeah. Great. I can see how this "bias for action" works for security research and one-shot projects, not so sure about regular development.

I just tried that with Opus, and it produced a similar bootstrap script but did not start the test by itself.

[dead]

It's a huge jump across the board. I was really impressed with its ability to test usability in Claude for Chrome. Very opinionated but in a good way. It was good while it lasted.

They're enjoying the schadenfreude of Dario "AI is so dangerous, we really need to ban and regulate everyone" Amodej getting his models banned by the US government.

Was WWII a marketing ploy to inflate the value of German and Japanese stocks?

> They ultimately got what they wanted.

No, it's not what they wanted. As it says in your quote, they wanted "a statutory process that is transparent, fair, clear, and grounded in technical facts. This action does not adhere to those principles."

This is nonsense. What Anthropic have been campaigning for, since the beginning, is a principled rule-based audit of model releases.

Now we are getting reactive, arbitrary and capricious enforcement; rules rushed out the door; classified evals. The worst of both worlds.

Yep and they also want to only exempt models below some level of compute or capability from this process. In other words, if an open model ends up being competitive, they’ll use regulations to ban it.

> They ultimately got what they wanted.

They got what they claim they wanted for PR purposes. Like when a billionaire says they should be taxed more, or when Sam Altman says the public should get some of that AI wealth.

But they never thought it would actually happen.

Oops.

Is there any reason they couldn't also apply export-control to older models, just to screw with Anthropic?

Every. There is no reason the government will let go the power it has obtained, that is never how it works

There won't be any new generation of models more powerful than Fable since the argument against Fable would apply even more. Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 is the best we'll ever see from this point forward. Soon low cost Chinese models will catch up to those thereby destroying Anthropic and OpenAI's pricing power which will mark the beginning of the end for them too.

Anthropic and US Government, there can be only one right in this situation.

I think David Sacks is right, if you are saying you are building nuclear bombs, then prepared to be regulated like one.

There is no eating it while having it

Yeah, LLMs are a national security issue on par with spellcheck.

Can you share any of these serious thinkers?

Right now it's basically this easy: 1. apex domain 2. ???? 3. critical PII exposure

There is /so/ much stuff on the internet that just needed someone to spend enough time on it.

Nobody with even a modicum of understanding of how LLMs work believes any of this. These 'serious thinkers' are just grifters preying on the feeble minded.

Note that the US military is almost the only customer that Fable and Mythos could safely be sold to while complying with this directive.

Maybe revenge, but it's a common play to fire a shot across the bow to create leverage in other areas.

Which, to be clear, does not mean they are actually honest.

No way the US is going to nationalize a tech company regardless of what happens. The exodus of capital would be unimaginable.

Yup, getting Cartmanland marketing vibes here. “It’s the best theme park ever, and you can’t come!” does wonders for creating demand.

I wouldn’t the surprised if all this were actually orchestrated, it all seems too convenient.

There is a chance they'll lose on some income if it takes longer.

Unfortunately there also a possibility this what they intentionally wanted to try regulatory capture to get rid of competitors.

don't think so; retail investors would see this as a barrier that the government can place anytime they want, and assume that government intervention is constantly lurking in the shadows.

I also do not understand this. Now they are labelled as precious US tech that could be not used by anyone else, because president heard about the jailbreaking for the first time I guess. With this genius logic they soon be banning GPT 5.5.

No it’s not. A company that finds itself the target of potentially crippling government intervention is not an attractive investment.