Who Decides When AI Is Too Dangerous?  🔗 **Source:** [Who Decides When AI Is Too Dangerous?](https://share.snipd.com/episode/18e9ee0b-e06a-4dab-94de-fe0e923727a8) ## Highlights - **Fable Is Mythos With Heavy Guardrails** - Mythos is the underlying powerful model and Fable is its heavily safeguarded public variant. - Anthropic released Mythos 5 plus Fable 5 simultaneously, positioning Fable as a locked-down public face of a risky core model. Transcript: Nilay Patel What is Claude Mythos? What is Fable? How do they relate to each other? Great question. Hayden Field And I asked them the same thing when they came out with this like a week ago, or by the time we publish this, it'll be like a week and a half ago. Because, yeah, AI companies are really bad at naming things, and it's always very confusing. But the situation is Mythos is the underlying model that is powering both Mythos 5 and Fable 5. Fable is a new thing. They haven't had Fable 1, 2, 3, or 4. They just immediately started with Fable 5. Very confusing. But Fable is the watered-down or safeguarded version of Mythos 5. So when they came out with Mythos preview in April, Anthropic kept saying, you know, they were really hyping it up. They were saying this is a, you know, potential cyberwe It's got to be never released to the public, at least until safeguards catch up, et cetera, et cetera. We're only going to release it to enterprise and governments, aka cyber defenders is what they called them, you know, places that need to patch up all their frameworks before, you know, Bad actors come in and exploit those vulnerabilities. Now, fast forward to last week, and they released not only Mythos 5, which is the first official Mythos, before it was Mythos Preview, so we skipped straight to 5, then they also released On the same day Fable 5, which was the very first public version of mythos class models, aka same underlying framework, but now tons of safeguards built on top to hopefully stop the public From accessing this super dangerous bianthropics own admission model that could mess up everything. So yeah, that's what they released. ([Time 0:05:35](https://share.snipd.com/snip/1b1e94d0-7070-47a2-8963-20a691d0df04)) - **Weekend Ultimatum Forced Models Offline** - A rapid Friday escalation forced Anthropic to pull models after the administration issued a 90-minute ultimatum over an alleged jailbreak. - Anthropic spent the weekend negotiating and flew three employees to D.C., while CEO Dario Amodei joined virtually. Transcript: Hayden Field Mid last week, Anthropic was made aware of some research that Amazon researchers were doing, and that they had uncovered a potential jailbreak, something they were pretty worried About. They sent it over to Anthropic. Anthropic was kind of going back and forth with the Amazon researchers talking about it. And they were discussing whether it was really a jailbreak or whether it was not that big of a deal, essentially. Apparently, reports say that Amazon CEO Andy Jassy then got worried about it and called maybe Scott Bessent, some member of the Trump administration, on Friday and talked about his Concerns. The Trump administration freaked out immediately. They immediately call Anthropic. They send them a message actually, and they say, look, you need to shut this down in 90 minutes, and we need to figure out how to- 90 minutes. Nilay Patel Yep. Hayden Field 90 minute ultimatum. And they said, we need to figure out how to fix this jail break that's come to light. Anthropic got on the phone with the Trump administration within 15 minutes of that first call. And they were asking for more details. They're like, okay, let's talk about this. Are you talking about the research we're already aware of? Are you talking about something different? What is the jailbreak you're talking about? They're trying to get more details and talk to the administration. I think the administration was also mad that Dario Amadei, the CEO of Anthropic, didn't call back until an hour and 15 minutes after that first call. So Anthropic called back 15 minutes in. It took Dario an hour and 15 minutes to call back. So there was a lot going on here. By the time they're talking, whatever, the 90-minute deadline passes, the Trump administration says, okay, that's it. Yep, we're hitting you with export controls. And so that is when they told Anthropic, no foreign national can use either of these models. And you have to just make sure that that is the case. No foreign national, whether they work at Anthropic or not. If you're, say, Bank of America and you have access to Mythos 5 and you're using it to plug vulnerabilities in your system and you're not a U.S. Citizen, you can't use it. Same with a random, just regular individual using Fable 5. Same with an anthropic researcher who is not a U.S. Citizen. So, anthropic did the only thing it could really do in this situation, and they said, okay, we've got to sideline both these models. We can't confirm that, you know, we can't in like one minute figure out a way to make sure no non-U citizens are using the models. So that's what happened. I mean, it was a crazy couple of hours. Anthropic comes out with a statement later that night saying they're trying to work with the Trump administration on this. Spent all weekend virtually meeting with the Trump administration and then flying three employees out, who I detail in the piece we just published, to D.C. To talk to them in person. ([Time 0:08:53](https://share.snipd.com/snip/3819ac0b-4846-4da1-b78c-fab9960877a7)) - **Nonexperts Can Rapidly Drive Policy Panic** - Non-expert panic amplified the response: Andy Jassy reportedly escalated Amazon's internal research up the chain, triggering swift government action. - The result was a blunt export-control order banning foreign nationals from accessing the models. Transcript: Hayden Field I think it's a combination of a couple things. One, it's the fact that, like you mentioned, a lot of these guys are not experts in AI. And something that I'm not saying it's not, like any jailbreak of this is obviously, you know, serious and worth considering. But I think that it's the type of thing when you don't have direct knowledge of how these systems work, you're going to take a really black and white immediate. Like, I think that these guys weren't experts. Andy Jassy hears about this from his own researchers. His own researchers, by the way, who had been going back and forth with Anthropic for a couple days on this, so they weren't, you know, calling the president about it. They're like, okay, let's discuss this and kind of, you know, figure out what we can do here. The researchers allegedly didn't seem to think it was, you know, the end of the world. They're just like, oh, we uncovered this, you know, let's discuss. Anthropic was working on it. And then Andy Jassy hears about it. He makes this call. Everything hits the fan, which makes sense because if you are not an AI expert, and even if you are an AI expert, maybe you're not an expert on cybersecurity and how exactly these systems Work, of course. So you're going to freak out. I mean, it's kind of understandable, but what is really strange is what happened after that. So, you know, making this phone call, the administration becoming aware, okay. But what I think is really weird is the 90-minute ultimatum, them not giving them additional details when they said, hey, let's talk about it. Are you talking about the vulnerability we're already aware of? Or are you talking about something else? And can you just tell us about it so then we can talk about it? Said, no, 90 minutes, do it or die. And then making it so that no foreign national can access the system ever. That is what's really strange, just kind of the way all these cards fell is everyone in the tech industry thinks is just really strange. And it's kind of indicative of, like you mentioned, the way that the Trump administration has been operating with tech. A lot of times it seems to be President Trump has one conversation and he's kind of swayed from that most recent conversation. So, you know, he's been very anti-regulation, very pro-American AI, advancing, exporting American AI, which is something that the Commerce Department is requesting. It has an RFI out on right now. They're all about exporting American AI and like, you know, advancing and beating China. But then they do this thing that kind of kneecaps everyone with no notice and could very well impact not just Anthropic, but also OpenAI, Google, every competitor in the space that also Has what they call a semi-equivalent mythos product. ([Time 0:16:12](https://share.snipd.com/snip/c68d47d2-5c3f-4030-b629-d77482396286)) - **The Vulnerabilities Are Not Unique To Anthropic** - The alleged jailbreak techniques are not unique to Fable; other advanced models like GPT-5.5 could replicate them. - That raises questions why Anthropic was singled out for an immediate export-control response. Transcript: Hayden Field So that's the allegation that this is not, these skills are not unique to Fable 5, the skills in question as part of the jailbreak. Mythos is obviously more powerful than Fable because it doesn't have safeguards. But when it comes to Fable and the problems that were brought to light by Amazon, it seems like those problems are not unique to Fable and that GBT 5.5 can also achieve those. So it's like something that a lot of people in the industry are asking is why Anthropic? ([Time 0:20:13](https://share.snipd.com/snip/10fda6cc-f0ec-4864-8f67-7692e49ddf1e)) - **Politics Shaped The Regulatory Response** - Anthropic has a fraught relationship with the administration, from supply-chain risk designations to drawing red lines about lawful uses. - That political distrust likely worsened the government's blunt response this time. Transcript: Nilay Patel A real element of this is that it's always Anthropic. Anthropic has the most contentious relationship with the Trump administration. They were designated as supply chain risk by the Department of War. But the posture here is different than the usual Anthropic drama. Historically, Anthropic has said, we don't want you to use our tools for X, Y, and Z. And the Trump administration has said, no, we get to do whatever we want with the AI tools. That's why they were designated a supply chain risk by the Department of Work. They said, we have some red lines about how we want to be used in the military context. And Pete Hegseth said, nope, I'm going to do whatever I want. You have to allow all lawful purposes. That's the line. And because you won't, you're a supply chain risk. There's a lawsuit that's being argued about. Here, it's the opposite. The Trump administration is worried that the model is too powerful and can be used for too many things. Ananthropic seems to think that that belief is overblown, that the administration is overplaying a thing that they can fix. They just need the time to do it and some rigor and conversation about how effective their fix is. How do you put that together? That on the one hand, the Trump administration is anti-AI regulatory efforts. On the one hand, they say, we got to do whatever we want with the models, make them as powerful as you can. And then here, the model is too powerful and has to be pulled before any foreign national can even look at it. Hayden Field The administration is trusting these companies to kind of tell it what it should be doing. We've seen that a bunch with, you know, any regulation that has happened or like has become voluntary. You know, lots of drafts have been adjusted after the Trump administration talks to AI companies. They already don't like Anthropic. You know, there's already a big trust breakdown between the two from the supply chain risk thing, from the lawsuit, from drawing red lines. And so I can't imagine that this exact situation would have played out if this had been a competitor. I mean, OpenAI has a mythos semi-equivalent. Again, no company is really saying theirs is as good, but they say it's pretty good. Microsoft, Google, I think that the freakout would have still happened, but I cannot imagine the rest of it would have played out the way it was. ([Time 0:20:43](https://share.snipd.com/snip/36c750cb-cb27-4900-9f75-cafbd0b3f311)) - **Make Political Risk Part Of Your Business Plan** - Companies should factor political and regulatory risk into product deployment strategies and sign backup contracts outside U.S. infrastructure. - Sources said firms are already deploying alternative hardware and signing backup contracts to hedge geopolitical risk. Transcript: Hayden Field One of the sources I spoke with said he already knew that backup contracts were being signed with non-U companies right now. Open weight models were being deployed on alternative hardware arrangements because now companies everywhere are saying, oh, wow, we got to make political risk part of our business Plan now. We don't really know what's going to happen with American AI. Let's make some backup plans here, which is not good for the industry. ([Time 0:23:09](https://share.snipd.com/snip/8c893da0-6db0-4a01-a432-933629d73dc5)) - **Regulatory Progress May Backslide Or Be Voluntary** - The Biden-era executive order was seen as a modest first step; a return to that framework is possible but likely to be watered down. - Hayden expects voluntary or weakened rules instead of strong, binding regulation under this administration. Transcript: Hayden Field Could see us going back there because a lot of activists and academics, I interviewed a ton of people in the the industry at the time, like ranging across a ton of different viewpoints. And most of them believed that the Biden era executive order wasn't quite enough. Some people thought it was a good first step. And I think that's why I could see us going back there, because it wasn't seen as being extremely aggressive. If anything, it was seen as being like, you know, a good first step in the direction, but really just one rung on the ladder, you know? And I think that that's why I could see, you know, the current administration going back there because it wasn't that far. You know, I will say AI companies will lobby against even that little step. They did. They were pretty mad about it. Yeah, and they did deeply. But I could see it being, you know, going back there, but a little more voluntary, which again, all these things usually get watered down. It's like they come out swinging and then they talk to some AICs and they're like, oh, okay, let's roll it back a little bit. So who knows, honestly. ([Time 0:31:43](https://share.snipd.com/snip/e69e3289-cc74-40c5-85fd-359d8840a40d)) - **Warning Loudly While Racing To Build Creates Backlash** - Anthropic publicly advocates slowing frontier AI even as it builds some of the most capable models, creating tension between warnings and product launches. - That marketing and doom-saying amplified scrutiny when a research issue surfaced. Transcript: Nilay Patel Of the weirder aspects of this is that Anthropic itself is the company that most pushes for regulation, that most sends the alarm, is the most doomer-ish of all the companies. Jack Clark, one of the co-founders of Anthropic, recently put out research, and his conclusion was that, quote, we believe it would be good for the world to have the option to slow or Temporarily pause frontier AI development to enable societal structures and alignment research to keep up with the advance of the technology. Anthropic is way on the front line of saying, oh, we might kill everyone. Boy, we should stop this. But they're also on the front line of model capability, right? By all accounts, Mythos is the most powerful model that exists today. Is Anthropik just getting itself in trouble? Is this just marketing strategy for them that's backfiring? Hayden Field I think it's a combination. I think that the marketing speak is definitely backfiring. If you say something's that dangerous and then a researcher unearthed something that maybe wasn't quite meant to be possible, yeah, people are going to freak out. And so that's why I'm kind of like, you know, I can see the first thing happening to anyone. I can't see the rest of it, the way that the cards felt. But yeah, I think it's partly there. You know, it came back to haunt them. You know, it was a little bit on them in terms of the hype. But I also think that they are trying to be honest in some ways about the risk that this technology can pose. It would be really bad if a system that can flag high-level vulnerability disabilities in our global infrastructure that we use, like your bank system or, you know, a government website Could just be used by bad actors that fell into the wrong hands. Yeah, that's pretty bad. And so, you know, I think it comes down to communication. Like, yep, it's important to talk about the risks and not downplay them. But also, you know, if you do that and then you make a mistake or something unexpected happens, you got to deal with the consequences. ([Time 0:35:38](https://share.snipd.com/snip/11bd113c-6bd9-42d7-8a44-7594d723c85c)) - **Frontier Models Are Becoming A Military Grade Tier** - A two-tier model ecosystem is emerging: militarized or enterprise frontier models and watered-down public versions like Fable. - Companies frame access as a choice between elite control (safety) and broad public availability (democratization). Transcript: Nilay Patel Right. This is fundamentally offensive technology. We can deploy it against our enemies. We can use it to attack the banks. Everyone is worried about the security implications here. Is there a world in which we just start there and then say to deploy to the public, to consumers, you got to cut this way down? We're not going to sell F-22s to the public, but we can sell Ford Raptors to the the public. Like there's some version of this, right? Where it's like the technology gets cut way down for the public, but the bleeding edge is just fundamentally for the military. Yeah. Hayden Field I mean, that's like what we've seen a lot for decades. And I think it's starting to happen now with the mythos stuff, you know, Fable is the watered down version and, you know, enterprise and governments have access to the more powerful Version. There's a a lot of different opinions on that. OpenAI, one of its biggest marketing pushes right now is, oh, Anthropic wants the most powerful AI to only be in the hands of the elites and we want to bring it to the public. So there's a bunch of different marketing pushes right now. Everyone's just kind of using everything to their advantage or to paint their competitors badly, Anthropik included. So it's like, you know, I think the race is just heating up so intensely that, you know, the AI companies at the forefront are doing anything they can to win at all costs. ([Time 0:38:31](https://share.snipd.com/snip/8af11438-3d9d-4d91-b691-a8515d60fe93))