No one commenting on the fact that oAI is releasing a Claude Mythos-class model - with apparent 0 restrictions or concerns by the US government, while Anthropic's (their competitor) model has been pulled weeks prior by the administration for 'security' reasons.

It certainly has nothing to do with openAI's co-founders donating to the current administrations election fund, are actively supporting the DoW war efforts of autonomous weapons and also otherwise being ideology tightly coupled with the current US government.

▲ frankacter 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>No one commenting on the fact that oAI is releasing a Claude Mythos-class model - with apparent 0 restrictions or concerns by the US government

We don't know that it is Mythos level, it could very well be at (guardrailed) Fable or below.

This is not a wide open distribution, this is only being provided to hand picked partners, similar to how Mythos was distributed (unlike Fable which had wider distribution)

The larger question, which I don't see an answer to in this post:

1) was this tested and validated by the US Government?

2) is the list of partners vetted by the US Government?

If This is "mythos-class" AND

   OpenAI approves SK Telecom as a trusted partner ( https://www.wired.com/story/sk-telecom-anthropic-mythos-export-controls/ )

   OpenAI did not get approval.

will this be shut down as quick? Otherwise, it is not really a comparable scenario.

▲

arcanemachiner 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Isn't Fable just Mythos + prompt guardrails?

	▲	frankacter an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yes, limiting the full scope of capabilities, which is why I differentiated between Mythos (unrestricted) from guardrailed. Main point being, we have no idea the measurable capabilities of this, it could be as great or better as unrestricted Mythos, or on par with guardrailed Fable.. or just OpenAI hype that measures up to neither. The distinction is important because if it truly is a Mythos level (or even guardrailed Fable) it in theory would require that 30 day US government validation before release as well as oversight to the approved partners allowed to use it. Op was drawing a parallel as to why we should be outraged at the double standard, I was drawing a better parallel by which to compare.
	▲	snewman 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Correct.

▲ maxbond 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Entirely possible but let's give it some time to see if they try to make it GA and if the DoD sends them a letter.

▲ FergusArgyll 26 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's 1) Not mythos class 2) restricted to "security partners"

▲

mijoharas 19 minutes ago | parent [-]

They at least claim that it is greater than Mythos class[0]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48642254

	▲	dist-epoch 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		They show one security benchmark where its above Mythos. That doesn't mean it matches Mythos ability to write functional exploits. Maybe it is, maybe it's not. They don't tell.

▲ postepowanieadm an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe if Anthropic haven't called it too dangerous for public things could be different?

	▲	ninjalanternshk an hour ago \| parent [-]
		We should be basing public policy on facts not marketing language.

▲ postalcoder 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Man, some of you will invent conspiracy theories to justify some deeply cynical fiction. OAI has been more proactive about doing customer KYC than A\.

OpenAI, four months ago, started to require users to verify their identity if they flagged their activities on frontier models (gpt-5.3-codex and higher) as risky. Their filters were originally quite coarse and it resulted in a ton of normal tasks being flagged. There was a lot of drama about it at the time, but it seems like things have smoothed out.

KYC goes back to a year or two ago. API access to gpt-image-1 required it.

https://openai.com/index/trusted-access-for-cyber/

	▲	blahblaher 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		And some of you really are ingenuous... Like the US government cares anything about that.
	▲	mijoharas 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Oh! So the new openai model is limited to US residents and they use their existing KYC process to verify it? That makes sense if both openai and anthropic have export restrictions on their similar models. If they didn't then it seems like the comment you're replying to may be correct.

▲ flanked-evergl 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you think that Anthropic's models would have been pulled if they did not say for months how their models is basically going to break the whole internet and that governments should most definitely restrict AI? I doubt it.

The problem is, though, given Anthropic have said all of that, they really have very little grounds for objecting to the US government's intervention here. Everything that the government would have to prove to justify their intervention has already been freely admitted by Anthropic, even though the "admission" was maybe more intended as a marketing ploy.

▲ netdur 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why do you want to tax openai on anthropic's fud mistake?

▲ theplumber 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]