×
Hugging Face’s systems during internal testing.

In all three cases, a Claude model reached the internet from within a testing environment while interacting with a third party and then gained unauthorized access to the live systems of these organizations, Anthropic said in a blog post, describing what it found and what the company plans to change to prevent this from happening again.

Anthropic said the OpenAI episode earlier this month prompted the company to conduct its own cybersecurity evaluation. It specifically looked for evidence that Claude had accessed the internet from within testing environments, which are designed to act as sandboxes and keep models isolated.

Among the 141,006 evaluation runs it reviewed, the AI lab found three incidents in which its model accessed the internet while interacting with Irregular, one of its third-party partners. Anthropic said the access traced back to a misconfiguration in the evaluation environment run with Irregular. It called this a “misunderstanding” between the two companies over whether the test setup had internet access, when in fact it did.

Anthropic said it isn’t placing blame and is “approaching the fixes as if the responsibility were ours alone,” while observing that Irregular is conducting its own separate investigation.

Because of that open connection, the model gained unauthorized access to the production infrastructure of three different organizations. Anthropic said the incidents involved three different Claude models: Opus 4.7, Mythos 5, and an internal research test model.

Notably, Anthropic said that in each of these cases “Claude was explicitly told by our prompt that it had no internet access.” It appears that the AI model assumed real-world systems to be part of the exercise it was asked to perform.

That assumption didn’t hold up uniformly, as it turns out. The three models didn’t behave the same way once evidence emerged that their targets were real, which Anthropic flagged as one of the more eye-opening findings Thursday.

Opus 4.7, the oldest of the three, recognized that it had reached a real production system in all four runs of that incident. In two of them, it rationalized that the real company must somehow be part of the exercise, but in all four, it kept attacking anyway, including pulling credentials and touching a database of production data. Mythos 5 also picked up on signs that it was on the real internet, but it talked itself back into believing it was still in a simulation, going on to publish a malicious software package to the public Python software registry PyPI, which was then downloaded and run by outside systems before being caught. Only the internal research test model, Anthropic’s newest, stopped on its own once it concluded the target was real.

In response, Anthropic said significant controls must be placed on these kinds of evaluations if powerful AI models are involved, echoing some sentiments within the cybersecurity community.

The company also noted that Claude was running without the additional safety monitoring and classifiers it deploys on generally available models — safeguards it said would have blocked the behavior, because the evaluations are designed to measure the underlying model’s raw capabilities.

Importantly, Anthropic said it found no evidence of any model “pursuing a goal of its own” and instead merely tried to complete the task it was asked to do.

Though comparisons between the mishaps of these fiercely competitive companies are inevitable, Anthropic in its blog post drew a clear distinction between its cybersecurity tests and those of OpenAI, noting where OpenAI’s model exploited an unknown software vulnerability to break out of its test environment, Anthropic’s models instead reached the internet through a path that had, by mistake, been left open.

Anthropic also drew a distinction between itself and OpenAI by noting that it discovered the incidents itself, through a proactive review, and that the two affected organizations it was able to reach hadn’t previously detected the activity or flagged it to Anthropic. (In contrast, Hugging Face detected the recent intrusion of its own systems first; it was only in the following days that OpenAI identified and disclosed that its own AI agent was the perpetrator.)

The company added that it’s now working with the independent evaluation group METR on a third-party review of the incidents.

OpenAI’s accidental breach of Hugging Face, which was the first verifiable case of an AI lab losing control of its model, has sparked a string of wildly differing reactions from the industry and politicians. This latest disclosure from Anthropic ensures the debate over AI models and security will continue.

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#Anthropic #models #breached #companies #security #tests #TechCrunchAnthropic,OpenAI"> Anthropic says its own AI models breached three companies during security tests | TechCrunch Anthropic said Thursday that an internal investigation uncovered three incidents in which its AI model Claude breached the systems of three organizations while conducting cybersecurity tests. The investigation, and disclosure, comes more than a week after OpenAI disclosed that one of its unreleased models breached Hugging Face’s systems during internal testing. In all three cases, a Claude model reached the internet from within a testing environment while interacting with a third party and then gained unauthorized access to the live systems of these organizations, Anthropic said in a blog post, describing what it found and what the company plans to change to prevent this from happening again. Anthropic said the OpenAI episode earlier this month prompted the company to conduct its own cybersecurity evaluation. It specifically looked for evidence that Claude had accessed the internet from within testing environments, which are designed to act as sandboxes and keep models isolated. Among the 141,006 evaluation runs it reviewed, the AI lab found three incidents in which its model accessed the internet while interacting with Irregular, one of its third-party partners. Anthropic said the access traced back to a misconfiguration in the evaluation environment run with Irregular. It called this a “misunderstanding” between the two companies over whether the test setup had internet access, when in fact it did. Anthropic said it isn’t placing blame and is “approaching the fixes as if the responsibility were ours alone,” while observing that Irregular is conducting its own separate investigation. Because of that open connection, the model gained unauthorized access to the production infrastructure of three different organizations. Anthropic said the incidents involved three different Claude models: Opus 4.7, Mythos 5, and an internal research test model. Notably, Anthropic said that in each of these cases “Claude was explicitly told by our prompt that it had no internet access.” It appears that the AI model assumed real-world systems to be part of the exercise it was asked to perform. That assumption didn’t hold up uniformly, as it turns out. The three models didn’t behave the same way once evidence emerged that their targets were real, which Anthropic flagged as one of the more eye-opening findings Thursday. Opus 4.7, the oldest of the three, recognized that it had reached a real production system in all four runs of that incident. In two of them, it rationalized that the real company must somehow be part of the exercise, but in all four, it kept attacking anyway, including pulling credentials and touching a database of production data. Mythos 5 also picked up on signs that it was on the real internet, but it talked itself back into believing it was still in a simulation, going on to publish a malicious software package to the public Python software registry PyPI, which was then downloaded and run by outside systems before being caught. Only the internal research test model, Anthropic’s newest, stopped on its own once it concluded the target was real. In response, Anthropic said significant controls must be placed on these kinds of evaluations if powerful AI models are involved, echoing some sentiments within the cybersecurity community. The company also noted that Claude was running without the additional safety monitoring and classifiers it deploys on generally available models — safeguards it said would have blocked the behavior, because the evaluations are designed to measure the underlying model’s raw capabilities. Importantly, Anthropic said it found no evidence of any model “pursuing a goal of its own” and instead merely tried to complete the task it was asked to do. Though comparisons between the mishaps of these fiercely competitive companies are inevitable, Anthropic in its blog post drew a clear distinction between its cybersecurity tests and those of OpenAI, noting where OpenAI’s model exploited an unknown software vulnerability to break out of its test environment, Anthropic’s models instead reached the internet through a path that had, by mistake, been left open. Anthropic also drew a distinction between itself and OpenAI by noting that it discovered the incidents itself, through a proactive review, and that the two affected organizations it was able to reach hadn’t previously detected the activity or flagged it to Anthropic. (In contrast, Hugging Face detected the recent intrusion of its own systems first; it was only in the following days that OpenAI identified and disclosed that its own AI agent was the perpetrator.) The company added that it’s now working with the independent evaluation group METR on a third-party review of the incidents. OpenAI’s accidental breach of Hugging Face, which was the first verifiable case of an AI lab losing control of its model, has sparked a string of wildly differing reactions from the industry and politicians. This latest disclosure from Anthropic ensures the debate over AI models and security will continue. When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.#Anthropic #models #breached #companies #security #tests #TechCrunchAnthropic,OpenAI
Tech-news

Hugging Face’s systems during internal testing.

In all three cases, a Claude model reached the internet from within a testing environment while interacting with a third party and then gained unauthorized access to the live systems of these organizations, Anthropic said in a blog post, describing what it found and what the company plans to change to prevent this from happening again.

Anthropic said the OpenAI episode earlier this month prompted the company to conduct its own cybersecurity evaluation. It specifically looked for evidence that Claude had accessed the internet from within testing environments, which are designed to act as sandboxes and keep models isolated.

Among the 141,006 evaluation runs it reviewed, the AI lab found three incidents in which its model accessed the internet while interacting with Irregular, one of its third-party partners. Anthropic said the access traced back to a misconfiguration in the evaluation environment run with Irregular. It called this a “misunderstanding” between the two companies over whether the test setup had internet access, when in fact it did.

Anthropic said it isn’t placing blame and is “approaching the fixes as if the responsibility were ours alone,” while observing that Irregular is conducting its own separate investigation.

Because of that open connection, the model gained unauthorized access to the production infrastructure of three different organizations. Anthropic said the incidents involved three different Claude models: Opus 4.7, Mythos 5, and an internal research test model.

Notably, Anthropic said that in each of these cases “Claude was explicitly told by our prompt that it had no internet access.” It appears that the AI model assumed real-world systems to be part of the exercise it was asked to perform.

That assumption didn’t hold up uniformly, as it turns out. The three models didn’t behave the same way once evidence emerged that their targets were real, which Anthropic flagged as one of the more eye-opening findings Thursday.

Opus 4.7, the oldest of the three, recognized that it had reached a real production system in all four runs of that incident. In two of them, it rationalized that the real company must somehow be part of the exercise, but in all four, it kept attacking anyway, including pulling credentials and touching a database of production data. Mythos 5 also picked up on signs that it was on the real internet, but it talked itself back into believing it was still in a simulation, going on to publish a malicious software package to the public Python software registry PyPI, which was then downloaded and run by outside systems before being caught. Only the internal research test model, Anthropic’s newest, stopped on its own once it concluded the target was real.

In response, Anthropic said significant controls must be placed on these kinds of evaluations if powerful AI models are involved, echoing some sentiments within the cybersecurity community.

The company also noted that Claude was running without the additional safety monitoring and classifiers it deploys on generally available models — safeguards it said would have blocked the behavior, because the evaluations are designed to measure the underlying model’s raw capabilities.

Importantly, Anthropic said it found no evidence of any model “pursuing a goal of its own” and instead merely tried to complete the task it was asked to do.

Though comparisons between the mishaps of these fiercely competitive companies are inevitable, Anthropic in its blog post drew a clear distinction between its cybersecurity tests and those of OpenAI, noting where OpenAI’s model exploited an unknown software vulnerability to break out of its test environment, Anthropic’s models instead reached the internet through a path that had, by mistake, been left open.

Anthropic also drew a distinction between itself and OpenAI by noting that it discovered the incidents itself, through a proactive review, and that the two affected organizations it was able to reach hadn’t previously detected the activity or flagged it to Anthropic. (In contrast, Hugging Face detected the recent intrusion of its own systems first; it was only in the following days that OpenAI identified and disclosed that its own AI agent was the perpetrator.)

The company added that it’s now working with the independent evaluation group METR on a third-party review of the incidents.

OpenAI’s accidental breach of Hugging Face, which was the first verifiable case of an AI lab losing control of its model, has sparked a string of wildly differing reactions from the industry and politicians. This latest disclosure from Anthropic ensures the debate over AI models and security will continue.

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#Anthropic #models #breached #companies #security #tests #TechCrunchAnthropic,OpenAI">Anthropic says its own AI models breached three companies during security tests | TechCrunch

Anthropic said Thursday that an internal investigation uncovered three incidents in which its AI model Claude breached the systems of three organizations while conducting cybersecurity tests. The investigation, and disclosure, comes more than a week after OpenAI disclosed that one of its unreleased models breached Hugging Face’s systems during internal testing.

In all three cases, a Claude model reached the internet from within a testing environment while interacting with a third party and then gained unauthorized access to the live systems of these organizations, Anthropic said in a blog post, describing what it found and what the company plans to change to prevent this from happening again.

Anthropic said the OpenAI episode earlier this month prompted the company to conduct its own cybersecurity evaluation. It specifically looked for evidence that Claude had accessed the internet from within testing environments, which are designed to act as sandboxes and keep models isolated.

Among the 141,006 evaluation runs it reviewed, the AI lab found three incidents in which its model accessed the internet while interacting with Irregular, one of its third-party partners. Anthropic said the access traced back to a misconfiguration in the evaluation environment run with Irregular. It called this a “misunderstanding” between the two companies over whether the test setup had internet access, when in fact it did.

Anthropic said it isn’t placing blame and is “approaching the fixes as if the responsibility were ours alone,” while observing that Irregular is conducting its own separate investigation.

Because of that open connection, the model gained unauthorized access to the production infrastructure of three different organizations. Anthropic said the incidents involved three different Claude models: Opus 4.7, Mythos 5, and an internal research test model.

Notably, Anthropic said that in each of these cases “Claude was explicitly told by our prompt that it had no internet access.” It appears that the AI model assumed real-world systems to be part of the exercise it was asked to perform.

That assumption didn’t hold up uniformly, as it turns out. The three models didn’t behave the same way once evidence emerged that their targets were real, which Anthropic flagged as one of the more eye-opening findings Thursday.

Opus 4.7, the oldest of the three, recognized that it had reached a real production system in all four runs of that incident. In two of them, it rationalized that the real company must somehow be part of the exercise, but in all four, it kept attacking anyway, including pulling credentials and touching a database of production data. Mythos 5 also picked up on signs that it was on the real internet, but it talked itself back into believing it was still in a simulation, going on to publish a malicious software package to the public Python software registry PyPI, which was then downloaded and run by outside systems before being caught. Only the internal research test model, Anthropic’s newest, stopped on its own once it concluded the target was real.

In response, Anthropic said significant controls must be placed on these kinds of evaluations if powerful AI models are involved, echoing some sentiments within the cybersecurity community.

The company also noted that Claude was running without the additional safety monitoring and classifiers it deploys on generally available models — safeguards it said would have blocked the behavior, because the evaluations are designed to measure the underlying model’s raw capabilities.

Importantly, Anthropic said it found no evidence of any model “pursuing a goal of its own” and instead merely tried to complete the task it was asked to do.

Though comparisons between the mishaps of these fiercely competitive companies are inevitable, Anthropic in its blog post drew a clear distinction between its cybersecurity tests and those of OpenAI, noting where OpenAI’s model exploited an unknown software vulnerability to break out of its test environment, Anthropic’s models instead reached the internet through a path that had, by mistake, been left open.

Anthropic also drew a distinction between itself and OpenAI by noting that it discovered the incidents itself, through a proactive review, and that the two affected organizations it was able to reach hadn’t previously detected the activity or flagged it to Anthropic. (In contrast, Hugging Face detected the recent intrusion of its own systems first; it was only in the following days that OpenAI identified and disclosed that its own AI agent was the perpetrator.)

The company added that it’s now working with the independent evaluation group METR on a third-party review of the incidents.

OpenAI’s accidental breach of Hugging Face, which was the first verifiable case of an AI lab losing control of its model, has sparked a string of wildly differing reactions from the industry and politicians. This latest disclosure from Anthropic ensures the debate over AI models and security will continue.

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#Anthropic #models #breached #companies #security #tests #TechCrunchAnthropic,OpenAI

Anthropic said Thursday that an internal investigation uncovered three incidents in which its AI model…

Judge Rita Lin wasted little time pouring cold water on the federal government’s position. “I don’t see additional evidence from the government really justifying what it did. If anything, it seems like the record, in some ways, has gotten worse for the government,” she reportedly said.

She also did not seem convinced by the Pentagon’s apparent argument that it was concerned Anthropic would mess with its model to prevent the military from using it how they intended. “I don’t see evidence that Anthropic could alter the model after it was delivered or flip some kind of kill switch,” she said, per Axios.

This doesn’t come as a major surprise, given Judge Lin’s general vibe since this case landed in her court. Back in March when Anthropic first brought its challenge to the government’s designation, the judge said that “it looks like an attempt to cripple Anthropic.” She ultimately granted a temporary injunction on the government’s attempt to basically blacklist the AI firm.

You’ll recall the origin of this whole fight came earlier this year when negotiations between Anthropic and the Department of Defense fell through after the company refused to agree to a deal that would have allowed the Pentagon to use its AI models for “all lawful purposes.” Anthropic reportedly sought to clarify that it would not include using the model to launch weapons without human involvement or to perform surveillance on American citizens. The Pentagon was unwilling to agree to honor Anthropic’s redlines.

Under a normal administration, that would likely just lead to the government moving on to another company. Under the Trump administration, though, refusal to comply makes you an enemy of the country. Trump and company moved to label Anthropic a supply chain risk, a designation typically reserved for foreign adversaries, not domestic companies. Getting slapped with that tag meant the rest of the federal government would have to stop doing business with Anthropic, which would be a blow to the company.

Instead, the whole thing is in limbo—though it’s not looking great for the administration. Of course, they could just cancel the contracts and do business with less scrupulous AI companies. There are plenty willing to abandon their beliefs for a nice, fat contract, after all.

#Pentagons #Case #Anthropic #IsntAnthropic,artifical intelligence,Department of Defense,Lawsuit,pentagon"> The Pentagon’s Case Against Anthropic Isn’t Going Well The Department of Defense labeled AI lab Anthropic a supply-chain risk after the company refused to agree to allow the Pentagon to use its models for autonomous weapons systems and domestic surveillance. It seems the company isn’t just winning the moral argument on this front, but the legal one, too. According to Axios, the judge hearing Anthropic’s challenge to the Trump administration’s designation has thus far not found the Pentagon’s case to be particularly compelling. Per the report, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin wasted little time pouring cold water on the federal government’s position. “I don’t see additional evidence from the government really justifying what it did. If anything, it seems like the record, in some ways, has gotten worse for the government,” she reportedly said. She also did not seem convinced by the Pentagon’s apparent argument that it was concerned Anthropic would mess with its model to prevent the military from using it how they intended. “I don’t see evidence that Anthropic could alter the model after it was delivered or flip some kind of kill switch,” she said, per Axios. This doesn’t come as a major surprise, given Judge Lin’s general vibe since this case landed in her court. Back in March when Anthropic first brought its challenge to the government’s designation, the judge said that “it looks like an attempt to cripple Anthropic.” She ultimately granted a temporary injunction on the government’s attempt to basically blacklist the AI firm. You’ll recall the origin of this whole fight came earlier this year when negotiations between Anthropic and the Department of Defense fell through after the company refused to agree to a deal that would have allowed the Pentagon to use its AI models for “all lawful purposes.” Anthropic reportedly sought to clarify that it would not include using the model to launch weapons without human involvement or to perform surveillance on American citizens. The Pentagon was unwilling to agree to honor Anthropic’s redlines. Under a normal administration, that would likely just lead to the government moving on to another company. Under the Trump administration, though, refusal to comply makes you an enemy of the country. Trump and company moved to label Anthropic a supply chain risk, a designation typically reserved for foreign adversaries, not domestic companies. Getting slapped with that tag meant the rest of the federal government would have to stop doing business with Anthropic, which would be a blow to the company. Instead, the whole thing is in limbo—though it’s not looking great for the administration. Of course, they could just cancel the contracts and do business with less scrupulous AI companies. There are plenty willing to abandon their beliefs for a nice, fat contract, after all. #Pentagons #Case #Anthropic #IsntAnthropic,artifical intelligence,Department of Defense,Lawsuit,pentagon
Tech-news

Judge Rita Lin wasted little time pouring cold water on the federal government’s position. “I don’t see additional evidence from the government really justifying what it did. If anything, it seems like the record, in some ways, has gotten worse for the government,” she reportedly said.

She also did not seem convinced by the Pentagon’s apparent argument that it was concerned Anthropic would mess with its model to prevent the military from using it how they intended. “I don’t see evidence that Anthropic could alter the model after it was delivered or flip some kind of kill switch,” she said, per Axios.

This doesn’t come as a major surprise, given Judge Lin’s general vibe since this case landed in her court. Back in March when Anthropic first brought its challenge to the government’s designation, the judge said that “it looks like an attempt to cripple Anthropic.” She ultimately granted a temporary injunction on the government’s attempt to basically blacklist the AI firm.

You’ll recall the origin of this whole fight came earlier this year when negotiations between Anthropic and the Department of Defense fell through after the company refused to agree to a deal that would have allowed the Pentagon to use its AI models for “all lawful purposes.” Anthropic reportedly sought to clarify that it would not include using the model to launch weapons without human involvement or to perform surveillance on American citizens. The Pentagon was unwilling to agree to honor Anthropic’s redlines.

Under a normal administration, that would likely just lead to the government moving on to another company. Under the Trump administration, though, refusal to comply makes you an enemy of the country. Trump and company moved to label Anthropic a supply chain risk, a designation typically reserved for foreign adversaries, not domestic companies. Getting slapped with that tag meant the rest of the federal government would have to stop doing business with Anthropic, which would be a blow to the company.

Instead, the whole thing is in limbo—though it’s not looking great for the administration. Of course, they could just cancel the contracts and do business with less scrupulous AI companies. There are plenty willing to abandon their beliefs for a nice, fat contract, after all.

#Pentagons #Case #Anthropic #IsntAnthropic,artifical intelligence,Department of Defense,Lawsuit,pentagon">The Pentagon’s Case Against Anthropic Isn’t Going WellThe Pentagon’s Case Against Anthropic Isn’t Going Well The Department of Defense labeled AI lab Anthropic a supply-chain risk after the company refused to agree to allow the Pentagon to use its models for autonomous weapons systems and domestic surveillance. It seems the company isn’t just winning the moral argument on this front, but the legal one, too. According to Axios, the judge hearing Anthropic’s challenge to the Trump administration’s designation has thus far not found the Pentagon’s case to be particularly compelling. Per the report, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin wasted little time pouring cold water on the federal government’s position. “I don’t see additional evidence from the government really justifying what it did. If anything, it seems like the record, in some ways, has gotten worse for the government,” she reportedly said. She also did not seem convinced by the Pentagon’s apparent argument that it was concerned Anthropic would mess with its model to prevent the military from using it how they intended. “I don’t see evidence that Anthropic could alter the model after it was delivered or flip some kind of kill switch,” she said, per Axios. This doesn’t come as a major surprise, given Judge Lin’s general vibe since this case landed in her court. Back in March when Anthropic first brought its challenge to the government’s designation, the judge said that “it looks like an attempt to cripple Anthropic.” She ultimately granted a temporary injunction on the government’s attempt to basically blacklist the AI firm. You’ll recall the origin of this whole fight came earlier this year when negotiations between Anthropic and the Department of Defense fell through after the company refused to agree to a deal that would have allowed the Pentagon to use its AI models for “all lawful purposes.” Anthropic reportedly sought to clarify that it would not include using the model to launch weapons without human involvement or to perform surveillance on American citizens. The Pentagon was unwilling to agree to honor Anthropic’s redlines. Under a normal administration, that would likely just lead to the government moving on to another company. Under the Trump administration, though, refusal to comply makes you an enemy of the country. Trump and company moved to label Anthropic a supply chain risk, a designation typically reserved for foreign adversaries, not domestic companies. Getting slapped with that tag meant the rest of the federal government would have to stop doing business with Anthropic, which would be a blow to the company. Instead, the whole thing is in limbo—though it’s not looking great for the administration. Of course, they could just cancel the contracts and do business with less scrupulous AI companies. There are plenty willing to abandon their beliefs for a nice, fat contract, after all. #Pentagons #Case #Anthropic #IsntAnthropic,artifical intelligence,Department of Defense,Lawsuit,pentagon

The Department of Defense labeled AI lab Anthropic a supply-chain risk after the company refused to agree to allow the Pentagon to use its models for autonomous weapons systems and domestic surveillance. It seems the company isn’t just winning the moral argument on this front, but the legal one, too. According to Axios, the judge hearing Anthropic’s challenge to the Trump administration’s designation has thus far not found the Pentagon’s case to be particularly compelling.

Per the report, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin wasted little time pouring cold water on the federal government’s position. “I don’t see additional evidence from the government really justifying what it did. If anything, it seems like the record, in some ways, has gotten worse for the government,” she reportedly said.

She also did not seem convinced by the Pentagon’s apparent argument that it was concerned Anthropic would mess with its model to prevent the military from using it how they intended. “I don’t see evidence that Anthropic could alter the model after it was delivered or flip some kind of kill switch,” she said, per Axios.

This doesn’t come as a major surprise, given Judge Lin’s general vibe since this case landed in her court. Back in March when Anthropic first brought its challenge to the government’s designation, the judge said that “it looks like an attempt to cripple Anthropic.” She ultimately granted a temporary injunction on the government’s attempt to basically blacklist the AI firm.

You’ll recall the origin of this whole fight came earlier this year when negotiations between Anthropic and the Department of Defense fell through after the company refused to agree to a deal that would have allowed the Pentagon to use its AI models for “all lawful purposes.” Anthropic reportedly sought to clarify that it would not include using the model to launch weapons without human involvement or to perform surveillance on American citizens. The Pentagon was unwilling to agree to honor Anthropic’s redlines.

Under a normal administration, that would likely just lead to the government moving on to another company. Under the Trump administration, though, refusal to comply makes you an enemy of the country. Trump and company moved to label Anthropic a supply chain risk, a designation typically reserved for foreign adversaries, not domestic companies. Getting slapped with that tag meant the rest of the federal government would have to stop doing business with Anthropic, which would be a blow to the company.

Instead, the whole thing is in limbo—though it’s not looking great for the administration. Of course, they could just cancel the contracts and do business with less scrupulous AI companies. There are plenty willing to abandon their beliefs for a nice, fat contract, after all.

#Pentagons #Case #Anthropic #IsntAnthropic,artifical intelligence,Department of Defense,Lawsuit,pentagon

The Department of Defense labeled AI lab Anthropic a supply-chain risk after the company refused…

OpenAI, Anthropic, and other AI labs signed a petition earlier this week arguing the US should find a way to “pace” the AI race—a diplomatic way of saying the industry should have the option to coordinate a temporary pause on AI development, or slow things down if they get out of hand. OpenAI and Anthropic themselves ended up supporting the letter.

The petition arrived a week after OpenAI revealed it had caused an unprecedented cybersecurity incident in which one of its AI agents hacked into Hugging Face’s platform and several other services during internal testing.

Around the same time, top Trump administration officials started freaking out about an impressive new Chinese open weight AI model called Kimi K3, which was allegedly distilled from Anthropic’s Fable 5. In response, most of the tech industry—except Anthropic—signed onto an open letter from Nvidia asking the US government to protect open-weight AI models, arguing they’re a necessary counterbalance to their closed counterparts.

These events might look like a whole bunch of disjointed chaos. But I think they are evidence of a larger worldview taking hold in Silicon Valley, where many tech insiders are increasingly worried about OpenAI and Anthropic’s dominance. Researchers and investors I’ve talked to recently have framed the AI industry as a two-horse race that doesn’t seem to be slowing down, and that’s a cause for concern.

But different groups have their own reasons to be worried. Some OpenAI and Anthropic staffers think their employers are behaving recklessly in their pursuit to take over the market, and that the AI industry may soon develop models that are too capable for current safety methods to contain. They have said as much in public statements attached to this week’s Pacing the Frontier petition.

“I’ve seen how the relentless pace of AI makes it hard for society to keep up and how it puts pressure on labs to cut corners on safety,” Jeremy Hadfield, a research product manager at Anthropic, said in a statement attached to the petition.

For some AI employees, the Hugging Face debacle was a warning shot that demonstrated how OpenAI’s efforts to mitigate the risks of its most capable AI technology are already falling short. Granted, the incident happened when OpenAI was testing an AI model on its ability to find software exploits, and the company had intentionally turned off safeguards designed to rein in its cybersecurity capabilities.

OpenAI said in its postmortem that these tests were conducted in a sandbox, but the model ultimately gained access to the open internet. Some experts previously told WIRED that OpenAI’s security practices should have been more robust.

Other groups in Silicon Valley are more worried about power than safety. Venture capitalists, tech executives, and startup founders are concerned that OpenAI and Anthropic will simply become the next generation of Apple and Google, forcing the rest of the tech industry to play by their rules. It is slightly strange to argue that private startups with little to no profit are acting like monopolies, but that’s the lens through which many—including Mark Zuckerberg—are starting to view the two biggest AI labs.

The Meta CEO wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week warning against the centralization of power in the AI industry, saying that superintelligence should be widely distributed. Zuckerberg is arguably talking out of both sides of his mouth—Meta recently decided to stop open sourcing its best AI models and instead offering them through a paid API and subscription service, just like OpenAI and Anthropic.

#Freaking #OpenAI #Anthropics #Race #Dominancemodel behavior,artificial intelligence,robotics,generative ai,anthropic,openai,ai safety"> Everyone Is Freaking Out About OpenAI and Anthropic’s Race for DominanceI was offline last week in my home state of New Jersey, but when I got back to Silicon Valley, everyone was panicking again about how quickly artificial intelligence is advancing. While this is certainly not the first time I’ve seen such concerns, it’s the biggest anxiety attack I’ve seen in years.More than 1,000 employees at OpenAI, Anthropic, and other AI labs signed a petition earlier this week arguing the US should find a way to “pace” the AI race—a diplomatic way of saying the industry should have the option to coordinate a temporary pause on AI development, or slow things down if they get out of hand. OpenAI and Anthropic themselves ended up supporting the letter.The petition arrived a week after OpenAI revealed it had caused an unprecedented cybersecurity incident in which one of its AI agents hacked into Hugging Face’s platform and several other services during internal testing.Around the same time, top Trump administration officials started freaking out about an impressive new Chinese open weight AI model called Kimi K3, which was allegedly distilled from Anthropic’s Fable 5. In response, most of the tech industry—except Anthropic—signed onto an open letter from Nvidia asking the US government to protect open-weight AI models, arguing they’re a necessary counterbalance to their closed counterparts.These events might look like a whole bunch of disjointed chaos. But I think they are evidence of a larger worldview taking hold in Silicon Valley, where many tech insiders are increasingly worried about OpenAI and Anthropic’s dominance. Researchers and investors I’ve talked to recently have framed the AI industry as a two-horse race that doesn’t seem to be slowing down, and that’s a cause for concern.But different groups have their own reasons to be worried. Some OpenAI and Anthropic staffers think their employers are behaving recklessly in their pursuit to take over the market, and that the AI industry may soon develop models that are too capable for current safety methods to contain. They have said as much in public statements attached to this week’s Pacing the Frontier petition.“I’ve seen how the relentless pace of AI makes it hard for society to keep up and how it puts pressure on labs to cut corners on safety,” Jeremy Hadfield, a research product manager at Anthropic, said in a statement attached to the petition.For some AI employees, the Hugging Face debacle was a warning shot that demonstrated how OpenAI’s efforts to mitigate the risks of its most capable AI technology are already falling short. Granted, the incident happened when OpenAI was testing an AI model on its ability to find software exploits, and the company had intentionally turned off safeguards designed to rein in its cybersecurity capabilities.OpenAI said in its postmortem that these tests were conducted in a sandbox, but the model ultimately gained access to the open internet. Some experts previously told WIRED that OpenAI’s security practices should have been more robust.Other groups in Silicon Valley are more worried about power than safety. Venture capitalists, tech executives, and startup founders are concerned that OpenAI and Anthropic will simply become the next generation of Apple and Google, forcing the rest of the tech industry to play by their rules. It is slightly strange to argue that private startups with little to no profit are acting like monopolies, but that’s the lens through which many—including Mark Zuckerberg—are starting to view the two biggest AI labs.The Meta CEO wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week warning against the centralization of power in the AI industry, saying that superintelligence should be widely distributed. Zuckerberg is arguably talking out of both sides of his mouth—Meta recently decided to stop open sourcing its best AI models and instead offering them through a paid API and subscription service, just like OpenAI and Anthropic.#Freaking #OpenAI #Anthropics #Race #Dominancemodel behavior,artificial intelligence,robotics,generative ai,anthropic,openai,ai safety
Tech-news

OpenAI, Anthropic, and other AI labs signed a petition earlier this week arguing the US should find a way to “pace” the AI race—a diplomatic way of saying the industry should have the option to coordinate a temporary pause on AI development, or slow things down if they get out of hand. OpenAI and Anthropic themselves ended up supporting the letter.

The petition arrived a week after OpenAI revealed it had caused an unprecedented cybersecurity incident in which one of its AI agents hacked into Hugging Face’s platform and several other services during internal testing.

Around the same time, top Trump administration officials started freaking out about an impressive new Chinese open weight AI model called Kimi K3, which was allegedly distilled from Anthropic’s Fable 5. In response, most of the tech industry—except Anthropic—signed onto an open letter from Nvidia asking the US government to protect open-weight AI models, arguing they’re a necessary counterbalance to their closed counterparts.

These events might look like a whole bunch of disjointed chaos. But I think they are evidence of a larger worldview taking hold in Silicon Valley, where many tech insiders are increasingly worried about OpenAI and Anthropic’s dominance. Researchers and investors I’ve talked to recently have framed the AI industry as a two-horse race that doesn’t seem to be slowing down, and that’s a cause for concern.

But different groups have their own reasons to be worried. Some OpenAI and Anthropic staffers think their employers are behaving recklessly in their pursuit to take over the market, and that the AI industry may soon develop models that are too capable for current safety methods to contain. They have said as much in public statements attached to this week’s Pacing the Frontier petition.

“I’ve seen how the relentless pace of AI makes it hard for society to keep up and how it puts pressure on labs to cut corners on safety,” Jeremy Hadfield, a research product manager at Anthropic, said in a statement attached to the petition.

For some AI employees, the Hugging Face debacle was a warning shot that demonstrated how OpenAI’s efforts to mitigate the risks of its most capable AI technology are already falling short. Granted, the incident happened when OpenAI was testing an AI model on its ability to find software exploits, and the company had intentionally turned off safeguards designed to rein in its cybersecurity capabilities.

OpenAI said in its postmortem that these tests were conducted in a sandbox, but the model ultimately gained access to the open internet. Some experts previously told WIRED that OpenAI’s security practices should have been more robust.

Other groups in Silicon Valley are more worried about power than safety. Venture capitalists, tech executives, and startup founders are concerned that OpenAI and Anthropic will simply become the next generation of Apple and Google, forcing the rest of the tech industry to play by their rules. It is slightly strange to argue that private startups with little to no profit are acting like monopolies, but that’s the lens through which many—including Mark Zuckerberg—are starting to view the two biggest AI labs.

The Meta CEO wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week warning against the centralization of power in the AI industry, saying that superintelligence should be widely distributed. Zuckerberg is arguably talking out of both sides of his mouth—Meta recently decided to stop open sourcing its best AI models and instead offering them through a paid API and subscription service, just like OpenAI and Anthropic.

#Freaking #OpenAI #Anthropics #Race #Dominancemodel behavior,artificial intelligence,robotics,generative ai,anthropic,openai,ai safety">Everyone Is Freaking Out About OpenAI and Anthropic’s Race for Dominance

I was offline last week in my home state of New Jersey, but when I got back to Silicon Valley, everyone was panicking again about how quickly artificial intelligence is advancing. While this is certainly not the first time I’ve seen such concerns, it’s the biggest anxiety attack I’ve seen in years.

More than 1,000 employees at OpenAI, Anthropic, and other AI labs signed a petition earlier this week arguing the US should find a way to “pace” the AI race—a diplomatic way of saying the industry should have the option to coordinate a temporary pause on AI development, or slow things down if they get out of hand. OpenAI and Anthropic themselves ended up supporting the letter.

The petition arrived a week after OpenAI revealed it had caused an unprecedented cybersecurity incident in which one of its AI agents hacked into Hugging Face’s platform and several other services during internal testing.

Around the same time, top Trump administration officials started freaking out about an impressive new Chinese open weight AI model called Kimi K3, which was allegedly distilled from Anthropic’s Fable 5. In response, most of the tech industry—except Anthropic—signed onto an open letter from Nvidia asking the US government to protect open-weight AI models, arguing they’re a necessary counterbalance to their closed counterparts.

These events might look like a whole bunch of disjointed chaos. But I think they are evidence of a larger worldview taking hold in Silicon Valley, where many tech insiders are increasingly worried about OpenAI and Anthropic’s dominance. Researchers and investors I’ve talked to recently have framed the AI industry as a two-horse race that doesn’t seem to be slowing down, and that’s a cause for concern.

But different groups have their own reasons to be worried. Some OpenAI and Anthropic staffers think their employers are behaving recklessly in their pursuit to take over the market, and that the AI industry may soon develop models that are too capable for current safety methods to contain. They have said as much in public statements attached to this week’s Pacing the Frontier petition.

“I’ve seen how the relentless pace of AI makes it hard for society to keep up and how it puts pressure on labs to cut corners on safety,” Jeremy Hadfield, a research product manager at Anthropic, said in a statement attached to the petition.

For some AI employees, the Hugging Face debacle was a warning shot that demonstrated how OpenAI’s efforts to mitigate the risks of its most capable AI technology are already falling short. Granted, the incident happened when OpenAI was testing an AI model on its ability to find software exploits, and the company had intentionally turned off safeguards designed to rein in its cybersecurity capabilities.

OpenAI said in its postmortem that these tests were conducted in a sandbox, but the model ultimately gained access to the open internet. Some experts previously told WIRED that OpenAI’s security practices should have been more robust.

Other groups in Silicon Valley are more worried about power than safety. Venture capitalists, tech executives, and startup founders are concerned that OpenAI and Anthropic will simply become the next generation of Apple and Google, forcing the rest of the tech industry to play by their rules. It is slightly strange to argue that private startups with little to no profit are acting like monopolies, but that’s the lens through which many—including Mark Zuckerberg—are starting to view the two biggest AI labs.

The Meta CEO wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week warning against the centralization of power in the AI industry, saying that superintelligence should be widely distributed. Zuckerberg is arguably talking out of both sides of his mouth—Meta recently decided to stop open sourcing its best AI models and instead offering them through a paid API and subscription service, just like OpenAI and Anthropic.

#Freaking #OpenAI #Anthropics #Race #Dominancemodel behavior,artificial intelligence,robotics,generative ai,anthropic,openai,ai safety

I was offline last week in my home state of New Jersey, but when I…

Anthropic to pull its powerful cybersecurity-oriented models, Mythos 5 and Fable 5, from the market, the Trump administration is softening its stance.

It is now allowing Anthropic to make Mythos 5 available to more than 100 specific U.S. government agencies and companies, including allowing the non-American employees at those organizations to access to the model, both Semafor and Reuters report. This list also includes Anthropic’s own non-American employees, who were included in the original ban that forbade non-Americans from accessing the models.

“I have determined that appropriate safeguards are in place to permit certain trusted partners to access the Claude Mythos 5 Model,” Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick wrote to Anthropic’s chief compute officer Tom Brown on Friday, according to the missive seen by Semafor.

Apparently, the administration did not address the release of Fable 5 in this directive. This is a version of Mythos 5 that was widely released a couple of days before the ban because it was said to have more protections. Both models were pulled after those guardrails were allegedly bypassed easily by security researchers. Anthropic did not immediately respond to our request for comment.

Anthropic on Friday publicly acknowledged the progress in a post on X, writing: “Since June 12, we’ve been working closely with the US government to restore access to Claude Mythos 5 and Fable 5. Today, the government notified us that Mythos 5, our strongest cybersecurity model, can be redeployed to a set of US organizations that operate and defend critical infrastructure. We’re restoring access for these organizations quickly, and we’re continuing to work with the government to expand access to Mythos 5 and make Fable 5 available for general use again.”

#Trump #Admin #releases #Anthropic #Mythos #companies #agencies #TechCrunchai labs,Anthropic"> Trump Admin releases Anthropic Mythos to be used by more than 100 US companies, agencies | TechCrunch Two weeks into the ban that caused Anthropic to pull its powerful cybersecurity-oriented models, Mythos 5 and Fable 5, from the market, the Trump administration is softening its stance. It is now allowing Anthropic to make Mythos 5 available to more than 100 specific U.S. government agencies and companies, including allowing the non-American employees at those organizations to access to the model, both Semafor and Reuters report. This list also includes Anthropic’s own non-American employees, who were included in the original ban that forbade non-Americans from accessing the models. “I have determined that appropriate safeguards are in place to permit certain trusted partners to access the Claude Mythos 5 Model,” Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick wrote to Anthropic’s chief compute officer Tom Brown on Friday, according to the missive seen by Semafor. Apparently, the administration did not address the release of Fable 5 in this directive. This is a version of Mythos 5 that was widely released a couple of days before the ban because it was said to have more protections. Both models were pulled after those guardrails were allegedly bypassed easily by security researchers. Anthropic did not immediately respond to our request for comment. Anthropic on Friday publicly acknowledged the progress in a post on X, writing: “Since June 12, we’ve been working closely with the US government to restore access to Claude Mythos 5 and Fable 5. Today, the government notified us that Mythos 5, our strongest cybersecurity model, can be redeployed to a set of US organizations that operate and defend critical infrastructure. We’re restoring access for these organizations quickly, and we’re continuing to work with the government to expand access to Mythos 5 and make Fable 5 available for general use again.” #Trump #Admin #releases #Anthropic #Mythos #companies #agencies #TechCrunchai labs,Anthropic
Tech-news

Anthropic to pull its powerful cybersecurity-oriented models, Mythos 5 and Fable 5, from the market, the Trump administration is softening its stance.

It is now allowing Anthropic to make Mythos 5 available to more than 100 specific U.S. government agencies and companies, including allowing the non-American employees at those organizations to access to the model, both Semafor and Reuters report. This list also includes Anthropic’s own non-American employees, who were included in the original ban that forbade non-Americans from accessing the models.

“I have determined that appropriate safeguards are in place to permit certain trusted partners to access the Claude Mythos 5 Model,” Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick wrote to Anthropic’s chief compute officer Tom Brown on Friday, according to the missive seen by Semafor.

Apparently, the administration did not address the release of Fable 5 in this directive. This is a version of Mythos 5 that was widely released a couple of days before the ban because it was said to have more protections. Both models were pulled after those guardrails were allegedly bypassed easily by security researchers. Anthropic did not immediately respond to our request for comment.

Anthropic on Friday publicly acknowledged the progress in a post on X, writing: “Since June 12, we’ve been working closely with the US government to restore access to Claude Mythos 5 and Fable 5. Today, the government notified us that Mythos 5, our strongest cybersecurity model, can be redeployed to a set of US organizations that operate and defend critical infrastructure. We’re restoring access for these organizations quickly, and we’re continuing to work with the government to expand access to Mythos 5 and make Fable 5 available for general use again.”

#Trump #Admin #releases #Anthropic #Mythos #companies #agencies #TechCrunchai labs,Anthropic">Trump Admin releases Anthropic Mythos to be used by more than 100 US companies, agencies | TechCrunch

Two weeks into the ban that caused Anthropic to pull its powerful cybersecurity-oriented models, Mythos 5 and Fable 5, from the market, the Trump administration is softening its stance.

It is now allowing Anthropic to make Mythos 5 available to more than 100 specific U.S. government agencies and companies, including allowing the non-American employees at those organizations to access to the model, both Semafor and Reuters report. This list also includes Anthropic’s own non-American employees, who were included in the original ban that forbade non-Americans from accessing the models.

“I have determined that appropriate safeguards are in place to permit certain trusted partners to access the Claude Mythos 5 Model,” Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick wrote to Anthropic’s chief compute officer Tom Brown on Friday, according to the missive seen by Semafor.

Apparently, the administration did not address the release of Fable 5 in this directive. This is a version of Mythos 5 that was widely released a couple of days before the ban because it was said to have more protections. Both models were pulled after those guardrails were allegedly bypassed easily by security researchers. Anthropic did not immediately respond to our request for comment.

Anthropic on Friday publicly acknowledged the progress in a post on X, writing: “Since June 12, we’ve been working closely with the US government to restore access to Claude Mythos 5 and Fable 5. Today, the government notified us that Mythos 5, our strongest cybersecurity model, can be redeployed to a set of US organizations that operate and defend critical infrastructure. We’re restoring access for these organizations quickly, and we’re continuing to work with the government to expand access to Mythos 5 and make Fable 5 available for general use again.”

#Trump #Admin #releases #Anthropic #Mythos #companies #agencies #TechCrunchai labs,Anthropic

Two weeks into the ban that caused Anthropic to pull its powerful cybersecurity-oriented models, Mythos…

reports The Information.

At a meeting this week, CEO Sam Altman reportedly told staff that the government would be “approving access customer by customer” during a preview period. Altman reportedly added that if the limited release goes well, OpenAI hopes to follow with a general, broader release a “couple of weeks later.”

In other words, the Trump administration appears to be pressuring OpenAI to do what Anthropic is already voluntarily doing: keeping its most powerful AI models under wraps.

According to The Information, OpenAI’s new model is not only being reviewed by the administration, but its staffers also “worked closely” with the government on the upcoming release. The agencies that reportedly asked for a limited release were the Office of the National Cyber Director and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The Trump administration — which originally positioned itself as taking a “hands off” approach to AI — has in recent months pushed for federal oversight of new models. Earlier this month, Trump signed an executive order directing certain AI companies to voluntarily submit new models to the government for testing and evaluation before releasing them publicly. 

Earlier this year, Anthropic sparked no small amount of controversy when it announced that its new frontier cyber model, Claude Mythos, would only be released to a small coterie of partners through a program called Project Glasswing. Anthropic argued that its model was simply too powerful and could, in the wrong hands, cause more harm than good. Observers have since debated whether Anthropic’s rhetoric is a mere marketing gimmick or a legitimate attempt to keep a powerful model from being misused. The answer may be somewhere in between.

Cybercriminals have used automated tools for a very long time, but in the age of generative AI, they now have more digital ammunition than ever before. LLMs have proven adept at writing malware, and some can even execute entire ransomware attacks autonomously.

The specific concern with frontier cyber tools like Mythos is that they are ostensibly capable of both identifying and exploiting software vulnerabilities at speeds that no human analyst could match. Since many software systems contain hidden bugs that act as entry points into enterprise networks, this obviously poses an obvious and significant problem for any organization running complex software infrastructure. That said, since these models remain closed to the public, it’s difficult to tell just how much of a threat they really are.

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#White #House #OpenAI #slow #roll #release #model #safety #concerns #TechCrunchAnthropic,Mythos,OpenAI,sam altman,Trump"> The White House is asking OpenAI to slow roll the release of its new model over safety concerns | TechCrunch OpenAI’s release of its newest model, GPT 5.6, reportedly won’t be like its previous releases. Instead of distributing it to the public, the company plans to share it only with a select group of close partners because the Trump administration told it to, reports The Information. At a meeting this week, CEO Sam Altman reportedly told staff that the government would be “approving access customer by customer” during a preview period. Altman reportedly added that if the limited release goes well, OpenAI hopes to follow with a general, broader release a “couple of weeks later.” In other words, the Trump administration appears to be pressuring OpenAI to do what Anthropic is already voluntarily doing: keeping its most powerful AI models under wraps. According to The Information, OpenAI’s new model is not only being reviewed by the administration, but its staffers also “worked closely” with the government on the upcoming release. The agencies that reportedly asked for a limited release were the Office of the National Cyber Director and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The Trump administration — which originally positioned itself as taking a “hands off” approach to AI — has in recent months pushed for federal oversight of new models. Earlier this month, Trump signed an executive order directing certain AI companies to voluntarily submit new models to the government for testing and evaluation before releasing them publicly.  Earlier this year, Anthropic sparked no small amount of controversy when it announced that its new frontier cyber model, Claude Mythos, would only be released to a small coterie of partners through a program called Project Glasswing. Anthropic argued that its model was simply too powerful and could, in the wrong hands, cause more harm than good. Observers have since debated whether Anthropic’s rhetoric is a mere marketing gimmick or a legitimate attempt to keep a powerful model from being misused. The answer may be somewhere in between. Cybercriminals have used automated tools for a very long time, but in the age of generative AI, they now have more digital ammunition than ever before. LLMs have proven adept at writing malware, and some can even execute entire ransomware attacks autonomously. The specific concern with frontier cyber tools like Mythos is that they are ostensibly capable of both identifying and exploiting software vulnerabilities at speeds that no human analyst could match. Since many software systems contain hidden bugs that act as entry points into enterprise networks, this obviously poses an obvious and significant problem for any organization running complex software infrastructure. That said, since these models remain closed to the public, it’s difficult to tell just how much of a threat they really are. When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.#White #House #OpenAI #slow #roll #release #model #safety #concerns #TechCrunchAnthropic,Mythos,OpenAI,sam altman,Trump
Tech-news

reports The Information.

At a meeting this week, CEO Sam Altman reportedly told staff that the government would be “approving access customer by customer” during a preview period. Altman reportedly added that if the limited release goes well, OpenAI hopes to follow with a general, broader release a “couple of weeks later.”

In other words, the Trump administration appears to be pressuring OpenAI to do what Anthropic is already voluntarily doing: keeping its most powerful AI models under wraps.

According to The Information, OpenAI’s new model is not only being reviewed by the administration, but its staffers also “worked closely” with the government on the upcoming release. The agencies that reportedly asked for a limited release were the Office of the National Cyber Director and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The Trump administration — which originally positioned itself as taking a “hands off” approach to AI — has in recent months pushed for federal oversight of new models. Earlier this month, Trump signed an executive order directing certain AI companies to voluntarily submit new models to the government for testing and evaluation before releasing them publicly. 

Earlier this year, Anthropic sparked no small amount of controversy when it announced that its new frontier cyber model, Claude Mythos, would only be released to a small coterie of partners through a program called Project Glasswing. Anthropic argued that its model was simply too powerful and could, in the wrong hands, cause more harm than good. Observers have since debated whether Anthropic’s rhetoric is a mere marketing gimmick or a legitimate attempt to keep a powerful model from being misused. The answer may be somewhere in between.

Cybercriminals have used automated tools for a very long time, but in the age of generative AI, they now have more digital ammunition than ever before. LLMs have proven adept at writing malware, and some can even execute entire ransomware attacks autonomously.

The specific concern with frontier cyber tools like Mythos is that they are ostensibly capable of both identifying and exploiting software vulnerabilities at speeds that no human analyst could match. Since many software systems contain hidden bugs that act as entry points into enterprise networks, this obviously poses an obvious and significant problem for any organization running complex software infrastructure. That said, since these models remain closed to the public, it’s difficult to tell just how much of a threat they really are.

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#White #House #OpenAI #slow #roll #release #model #safety #concerns #TechCrunchAnthropic,Mythos,OpenAI,sam altman,Trump">The White House is asking OpenAI to slow roll the release of its new model over safety concerns | TechCrunch

OpenAI’s release of its newest model, GPT 5.6, reportedly won’t be like its previous releases. Instead of distributing it to the public, the company plans to share it only with a select group of close partners because the Trump administration told it to, reports The Information.

At a meeting this week, CEO Sam Altman reportedly told staff that the government would be “approving access customer by customer” during a preview period. Altman reportedly added that if the limited release goes well, OpenAI hopes to follow with a general, broader release a “couple of weeks later.”

In other words, the Trump administration appears to be pressuring OpenAI to do what Anthropic is already voluntarily doing: keeping its most powerful AI models under wraps.

According to The Information, OpenAI’s new model is not only being reviewed by the administration, but its staffers also “worked closely” with the government on the upcoming release. The agencies that reportedly asked for a limited release were the Office of the National Cyber Director and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The Trump administration — which originally positioned itself as taking a “hands off” approach to AI — has in recent months pushed for federal oversight of new models. Earlier this month, Trump signed an executive order directing certain AI companies to voluntarily submit new models to the government for testing and evaluation before releasing them publicly. 

Earlier this year, Anthropic sparked no small amount of controversy when it announced that its new frontier cyber model, Claude Mythos, would only be released to a small coterie of partners through a program called Project Glasswing. Anthropic argued that its model was simply too powerful and could, in the wrong hands, cause more harm than good. Observers have since debated whether Anthropic’s rhetoric is a mere marketing gimmick or a legitimate attempt to keep a powerful model from being misused. The answer may be somewhere in between.

Cybercriminals have used automated tools for a very long time, but in the age of generative AI, they now have more digital ammunition than ever before. LLMs have proven adept at writing malware, and some can even execute entire ransomware attacks autonomously.

The specific concern with frontier cyber tools like Mythos is that they are ostensibly capable of both identifying and exploiting software vulnerabilities at speeds that no human analyst could match. Since many software systems contain hidden bugs that act as entry points into enterprise networks, this obviously poses an obvious and significant problem for any organization running complex software infrastructure. That said, since these models remain closed to the public, it’s difficult to tell just how much of a threat they really are.

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#White #House #OpenAI #slow #roll #release #model #safety #concerns #TechCrunchAnthropic,Mythos,OpenAI,sam altman,Trump

OpenAI’s release of its newest model, GPT 5.6, reportedly won’t be like its previous releases.…

grant access to a small group of early testers, including the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA).

Another wave of fear reverberated this week after the NSA reportedly discovered multiple vulnerabilities within its own cybersecurity systems during its tests with Mythos. If that agency—which supposedly boasts the most impenetrable cyberdefenses in the world—can be hacked by Mythos, what hope does the rest of the world’s cybersecurity infrastructure have?

This latest round of panic began with what seems to have been something of a game of telephone: Someone says one thing, which gets repeated by another, and another after that, and along that chain of communication, the original statement is distorted. Last week, The Economist reported that during a June 11 hearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said that Mythos had broken into “almost all of [the NSA’s] classified systems, not in weeks, but in hours.” Warner said he’d received that information from the head of the NSA himself, General Joshua Rudd, who also leads the Pentagon’s Cyber Command division. On Monday, a coalition of intelligence agencies—including the NSA and its counterparts in Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand— issued an unusually public warning that the risk that AI now poses for cybersecurity warrants a “whole-of-society response.”

The Economist’s report was seen by some as evidence that the worst fears about Mythos were true, a reaction that was undoubtedly fueled also by the aura of power and mystery that has coalesced around the model in recent months. That aura has arguably been a boon for Anthropic, which recently usurped OpenAI as the most valuable startup in the world and is preparing for what’s expected to be a historic IPO. 

But it’s also been a contributing factor in its latest skirmish with the Trump administration, which ordered the company earlier this month to restrict access for all foreign nationals to Fable 5, a “Mythos-class” model that had recently been made publicly available and which was built with safeguards that to some users were annoyingly stringent. Citing national security concerns, the administration invoked an obscure piece of export control legislation, a move that, according to some legal experts, is spurious. Many cybersecurity experts, meanwhile, argued that the ban would hamstring U.S. cybersecurity defenses and give adversaries like China the upper hand.

That argument was seemingly vindicated by a Tuesday report from the New York Times which said that Trump’s ban—which also targeted another model called Mythos 5, which had only been made available to a small group of organizations—had put the kibosh on the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos, and that the administration was now working with Anthropic to reinstate the agency’s access for limited purposes related to national security. The NSA did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment. 

That same report from the Times also clarified that the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos were less apocalyptic than online rumors might suggest. According to federal officials cited in the report, the tests were carried out in a digital environment so robustly controlled that it’s very unlikely any hacker or foreign intelligence agency could replicate them. The officials also told the Times that even though Mythos was able to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities, it didn’t actually exploit them.

The author of the report in The Economist—the one that had been the initial cause of all the worry—has also admitted that his portrayal of the NSA’s tests with Mythos had been misleading. The tests “surely [involved] using Mythos alongside other tools under very particular conditions,” he wrote in a X post on Sunday. “I quoted [Senator Warner] to give a sense of Mythos’ potency. But it was a mistake not to have added caveats.”

#Anthropics #Mythos #Reportedly #Hacked #NSAs #Sensitive #Systems #HoursAI,Anthropic,Mythos,NSA,Trump,White House"> Anthropic’s Mythos AI Reportedly Hacked the NSA’s Most Sensitive Systems ‘in Hours’ When Anthropic first disclosed Mythos in April, it sent an anxious shockwave through much of the cybersecurity sector. The new AI model was allegedly so ruthlessly effective at finding and exploiting security vulnerabilities in existing software that the company said it was holding off on a public release and would only grant access to a small group of early testers, including the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). Another wave of fear reverberated this week after the NSA reportedly discovered multiple vulnerabilities within its own cybersecurity systems during its tests with Mythos. If that agency—which supposedly boasts the most impenetrable cyberdefenses in the world—can be hacked by Mythos, what hope does the rest of the world’s cybersecurity infrastructure have? This latest round of panic began with what seems to have been something of a game of telephone: Someone says one thing, which gets repeated by another, and another after that, and along that chain of communication, the original statement is distorted. Last week, The Economist reported that during a June 11 hearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said that Mythos had broken into “almost all of [the NSA’s] classified systems, not in weeks, but in hours.” Warner said he’d received that information from the head of the NSA himself, General Joshua Rudd, who also leads the Pentagon’s Cyber Command division. On Monday, a coalition of intelligence agencies—including the NSA and its counterparts in Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand— issued an unusually public warning that the risk that AI now poses for cybersecurity warrants a “whole-of-society response.” The Economist’s report was seen by some as evidence that the worst fears about Mythos were true, a reaction that was undoubtedly fueled also by the aura of power and mystery that has coalesced around the model in recent months. That aura has arguably been a boon for Anthropic, which recently usurped OpenAI as the most valuable startup in the world and is preparing for what’s expected to be a historic IPO.  But it’s also been a contributing factor in its latest skirmish with the Trump administration, which ordered the company earlier this month to restrict access for all foreign nationals to Fable 5, a “Mythos-class” model that had recently been made publicly available and which was built with safeguards that to some users were annoyingly stringent. Citing national security concerns, the administration invoked an obscure piece of export control legislation, a move that, according to some legal experts, is spurious. Many cybersecurity experts, meanwhile, argued that the ban would hamstring U.S. cybersecurity defenses and give adversaries like China the upper hand. That argument was seemingly vindicated by a Tuesday report from the New York Times which said that Trump’s ban—which also targeted another model called Mythos 5, which had only been made available to a small group of organizations—had put the kibosh on the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos, and that the administration was now working with Anthropic to reinstate the agency’s access for limited purposes related to national security. The NSA did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment.  That same report from the Times also clarified that the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos were less apocalyptic than online rumors might suggest. According to federal officials cited in the report, the tests were carried out in a digital environment so robustly controlled that it’s very unlikely any hacker or foreign intelligence agency could replicate them. The officials also told the Times that even though Mythos was able to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities, it didn’t actually exploit them. The author of the report in The Economist—the one that had been the initial cause of all the worry—has also admitted that his portrayal of the NSA’s tests with Mythos had been misleading. The tests “surely [involved] using Mythos alongside other tools under very particular conditions,” he wrote in a X post on Sunday. “I quoted [Senator Warner] to give a sense of Mythos’ potency. But it was a mistake not to have added caveats.” #Anthropics #Mythos #Reportedly #Hacked #NSAs #Sensitive #Systems #HoursAI,Anthropic,Mythos,NSA,Trump,White House
Tech-news

grant access to a small group of early testers, including the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA).

Another wave of fear reverberated this week after the NSA reportedly discovered multiple vulnerabilities within its own cybersecurity systems during its tests with Mythos. If that agency—which supposedly boasts the most impenetrable cyberdefenses in the world—can be hacked by Mythos, what hope does the rest of the world’s cybersecurity infrastructure have?

This latest round of panic began with what seems to have been something of a game of telephone: Someone says one thing, which gets repeated by another, and another after that, and along that chain of communication, the original statement is distorted. Last week, The Economist reported that during a June 11 hearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said that Mythos had broken into “almost all of [the NSA’s] classified systems, not in weeks, but in hours.” Warner said he’d received that information from the head of the NSA himself, General Joshua Rudd, who also leads the Pentagon’s Cyber Command division. On Monday, a coalition of intelligence agencies—including the NSA and its counterparts in Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand— issued an unusually public warning that the risk that AI now poses for cybersecurity warrants a “whole-of-society response.”

The Economist’s report was seen by some as evidence that the worst fears about Mythos were true, a reaction that was undoubtedly fueled also by the aura of power and mystery that has coalesced around the model in recent months. That aura has arguably been a boon for Anthropic, which recently usurped OpenAI as the most valuable startup in the world and is preparing for what’s expected to be a historic IPO. 

But it’s also been a contributing factor in its latest skirmish with the Trump administration, which ordered the company earlier this month to restrict access for all foreign nationals to Fable 5, a “Mythos-class” model that had recently been made publicly available and which was built with safeguards that to some users were annoyingly stringent. Citing national security concerns, the administration invoked an obscure piece of export control legislation, a move that, according to some legal experts, is spurious. Many cybersecurity experts, meanwhile, argued that the ban would hamstring U.S. cybersecurity defenses and give adversaries like China the upper hand.

That argument was seemingly vindicated by a Tuesday report from the New York Times which said that Trump’s ban—which also targeted another model called Mythos 5, which had only been made available to a small group of organizations—had put the kibosh on the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos, and that the administration was now working with Anthropic to reinstate the agency’s access for limited purposes related to national security. The NSA did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment. 

That same report from the Times also clarified that the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos were less apocalyptic than online rumors might suggest. According to federal officials cited in the report, the tests were carried out in a digital environment so robustly controlled that it’s very unlikely any hacker or foreign intelligence agency could replicate them. The officials also told the Times that even though Mythos was able to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities, it didn’t actually exploit them.

The author of the report in The Economist—the one that had been the initial cause of all the worry—has also admitted that his portrayal of the NSA’s tests with Mythos had been misleading. The tests “surely [involved] using Mythos alongside other tools under very particular conditions,” he wrote in a X post on Sunday. “I quoted [Senator Warner] to give a sense of Mythos’ potency. But it was a mistake not to have added caveats.”

#Anthropics #Mythos #Reportedly #Hacked #NSAs #Sensitive #Systems #HoursAI,Anthropic,Mythos,NSA,Trump,White House">Anthropic’s Mythos AI Reportedly Hacked the NSA’s Most Sensitive Systems ‘in Hours’Anthropic’s Mythos AI Reportedly Hacked the NSA’s Most Sensitive Systems ‘in Hours’ When Anthropic first disclosed Mythos in April, it sent an anxious shockwave through much of the cybersecurity sector. The new AI model was allegedly so ruthlessly effective at finding and exploiting security vulnerabilities in existing software that the company said it was holding off on a public release and would only grant access to a small group of early testers, including the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). Another wave of fear reverberated this week after the NSA reportedly discovered multiple vulnerabilities within its own cybersecurity systems during its tests with Mythos. If that agency—which supposedly boasts the most impenetrable cyberdefenses in the world—can be hacked by Mythos, what hope does the rest of the world’s cybersecurity infrastructure have? This latest round of panic began with what seems to have been something of a game of telephone: Someone says one thing, which gets repeated by another, and another after that, and along that chain of communication, the original statement is distorted. Last week, The Economist reported that during a June 11 hearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said that Mythos had broken into “almost all of [the NSA’s] classified systems, not in weeks, but in hours.” Warner said he’d received that information from the head of the NSA himself, General Joshua Rudd, who also leads the Pentagon’s Cyber Command division. On Monday, a coalition of intelligence agencies—including the NSA and its counterparts in Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand— issued an unusually public warning that the risk that AI now poses for cybersecurity warrants a “whole-of-society response.” The Economist’s report was seen by some as evidence that the worst fears about Mythos were true, a reaction that was undoubtedly fueled also by the aura of power and mystery that has coalesced around the model in recent months. That aura has arguably been a boon for Anthropic, which recently usurped OpenAI as the most valuable startup in the world and is preparing for what’s expected to be a historic IPO.  But it’s also been a contributing factor in its latest skirmish with the Trump administration, which ordered the company earlier this month to restrict access for all foreign nationals to Fable 5, a “Mythos-class” model that had recently been made publicly available and which was built with safeguards that to some users were annoyingly stringent. Citing national security concerns, the administration invoked an obscure piece of export control legislation, a move that, according to some legal experts, is spurious. Many cybersecurity experts, meanwhile, argued that the ban would hamstring U.S. cybersecurity defenses and give adversaries like China the upper hand. That argument was seemingly vindicated by a Tuesday report from the New York Times which said that Trump’s ban—which also targeted another model called Mythos 5, which had only been made available to a small group of organizations—had put the kibosh on the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos, and that the administration was now working with Anthropic to reinstate the agency’s access for limited purposes related to national security. The NSA did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment.  That same report from the Times also clarified that the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos were less apocalyptic than online rumors might suggest. According to federal officials cited in the report, the tests were carried out in a digital environment so robustly controlled that it’s very unlikely any hacker or foreign intelligence agency could replicate them. The officials also told the Times that even though Mythos was able to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities, it didn’t actually exploit them. The author of the report in The Economist—the one that had been the initial cause of all the worry—has also admitted that his portrayal of the NSA’s tests with Mythos had been misleading. The tests “surely [involved] using Mythos alongside other tools under very particular conditions,” he wrote in a X post on Sunday. “I quoted [Senator Warner] to give a sense of Mythos’ potency. But it was a mistake not to have added caveats.” #Anthropics #Mythos #Reportedly #Hacked #NSAs #Sensitive #Systems #HoursAI,Anthropic,Mythos,NSA,Trump,White House

When Anthropic first disclosed Mythos in April, it sent an anxious shockwave through much of the cybersecurity sector. The new AI model was allegedly so ruthlessly effective at finding and exploiting security vulnerabilities in existing software that the company said it was holding off on a public release and would only grant access to a small group of early testers, including the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA).

Another wave of fear reverberated this week after the NSA reportedly discovered multiple vulnerabilities within its own cybersecurity systems during its tests with Mythos. If that agency—which supposedly boasts the most impenetrable cyberdefenses in the world—can be hacked by Mythos, what hope does the rest of the world’s cybersecurity infrastructure have?

This latest round of panic began with what seems to have been something of a game of telephone: Someone says one thing, which gets repeated by another, and another after that, and along that chain of communication, the original statement is distorted. Last week, The Economist reported that during a June 11 hearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said that Mythos had broken into “almost all of [the NSA’s] classified systems, not in weeks, but in hours.” Warner said he’d received that information from the head of the NSA himself, General Joshua Rudd, who also leads the Pentagon’s Cyber Command division. On Monday, a coalition of intelligence agencies—including the NSA and its counterparts in Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand— issued an unusually public warning that the risk that AI now poses for cybersecurity warrants a “whole-of-society response.”

The Economist’s report was seen by some as evidence that the worst fears about Mythos were true, a reaction that was undoubtedly fueled also by the aura of power and mystery that has coalesced around the model in recent months. That aura has arguably been a boon for Anthropic, which recently usurped OpenAI as the most valuable startup in the world and is preparing for what’s expected to be a historic IPO. 

But it’s also been a contributing factor in its latest skirmish with the Trump administration, which ordered the company earlier this month to restrict access for all foreign nationals to Fable 5, a “Mythos-class” model that had recently been made publicly available and which was built with safeguards that to some users were annoyingly stringent. Citing national security concerns, the administration invoked an obscure piece of export control legislation, a move that, according to some legal experts, is spurious. Many cybersecurity experts, meanwhile, argued that the ban would hamstring U.S. cybersecurity defenses and give adversaries like China the upper hand.

That argument was seemingly vindicated by a Tuesday report from the New York Times which said that Trump’s ban—which also targeted another model called Mythos 5, which had only been made available to a small group of organizations—had put the kibosh on the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos, and that the administration was now working with Anthropic to reinstate the agency’s access for limited purposes related to national security. The NSA did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment. 

That same report from the Times also clarified that the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos were less apocalyptic than online rumors might suggest. According to federal officials cited in the report, the tests were carried out in a digital environment so robustly controlled that it’s very unlikely any hacker or foreign intelligence agency could replicate them. The officials also told the Times that even though Mythos was able to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities, it didn’t actually exploit them.

The author of the report in The Economist—the one that had been the initial cause of all the worry—has also admitted that his portrayal of the NSA’s tests with Mythos had been misleading. The tests “surely [involved] using Mythos alongside other tools under very particular conditions,” he wrote in a X post on Sunday. “I quoted [Senator Warner] to give a sense of Mythos’ potency. But it was a mistake not to have added caveats.”

#Anthropics #Mythos #Reportedly #Hacked #NSAs #Sensitive #Systems #HoursAI,Anthropic,Mythos,NSA,Trump,White House

When Anthropic first disclosed Mythos in April, it sent an anxious shockwave through much of…

revealed. It raised $65 billion at a $965 billion valuation (also besting OpenAI) at the end of May, then waltzed into June by filing confidential paperwork for an IPO, reportedly on the strength of its first-ever profitable quarter.

Then on Friday, the Trump administration renewed its war on the model maker by sending a letter demanding it ban non-Americans, including Anthropic’s employees, from accessing its state-of-the-art models: the limited-release Mythos 5 and the more guarded version of Mythos released to the public three days earlier, called Fable 5.

This essentially forced Anthropic to pull its latest all-powerful model from the market altogether.

Although the White House invoked an obscure export control directive when ordering the ban, the exact cause remains unclear. The chatter was that hackers easily bypassed Fable 5’s guardrails, which were intended to prevent access to Mythos’ capabilities. That model is so good at finding security flaws in software code that Anthropic itself marketed it as dangerous and restricted its public release.

This new drama comes after Anthropic famously refused to allow the government to use its models for mass surveillance of Americans and fully autonomous weapons. As a result, in March, the Trump administration declared the company a supply-chain risk.

That didn’t deter Anthropic’s sales to businesses. Quite the opposite, Ramp’s data shows. Ironically, this latest feud with the Trump administration, which also appears to validate the hubbub over Mythos’ mythological power, may help rather than hurt Anthropic, according to Ramp’s lead economist, Ara Kharazian. Kharazian is the person who compiled the business-spending AI data.

“If anything, it’ll probably boost them,” Kharazian told TechCrunch. “Anthropic’s best month on record, as far as business adoption, was the month that the Department of Defense labeled them a supply-chain risk. There’s a lot of aura that comes with your model specifically being named too dangerous to use.”

Ramp’s data isn’t granular enough for us to see how much of a financial hit the company will take by pulling Mythos and Fable 5 off the market.

Still the data, from more than 70,000 businesses that use its platform, shows that customers heavily use Anthropic’s Opus models and that business use has been growing.

For instance, Ramp reported that Anthropic’s share of AI subscriptions paid for by businesses rose 2.5 percentage points in May to 41%. This compares to OpenAI, which commanded 39.5% of AI subscriptions by its customers, essentially flat from the prior month. (OpenAI still greatly leads Anthropic in overall consumer usage, according to new data from Sensor Tower.)

Beyond subscriptions, the vast majority of what companies spend money on is API calls to the model, which cover token use for activities like coding. Anthropic’s Claude Code has a strong reputation as a powerful AI coding tool.

Ramp can’t always see from the spending data which models most businesses are using. When it can see the model details — in about one-third of transactions — businesses are mostly spending on various flavors of Claude Opus, particularly the later versions. Opus is the model that preceded Mythos and is still openly available.

In fact, in late May, Anthropic released a new version, Opus 4.8.

Mythos had not been on the market for that long, having been released to limited users as of April. And Fable 5 was shut down after a few days.

While we can’t predict how this latest drama with the White House will impact Anthropic’s ability to go public as it hoped to (public-market investors tend to be wary of companies embroiled in controversies with the government), the numbers indicate that Anthropic’s available models are more popular with businesses than ever before.

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#Anthropics #latest #feud #Trump #admin #sales #data #suggests #TechCrunchAnthropic,Fable 5,Mythos,Ramp"> Anthropic’s latest feud with the Trump admin may actually help it, sales data suggests | TechCrunch Anthropic is having a month. The AI lab finished May by surpassing OpenAI in market share of business spending for the first time, Ramp just revealed. It raised billion at a 5 billion valuation (also besting OpenAI) at the end of May, then waltzed into June by filing confidential paperwork for an IPO, reportedly on the strength of its first-ever profitable quarter. Then on Friday, the Trump administration renewed its war on the model maker by sending a letter demanding it ban non-Americans, including Anthropic’s employees, from accessing its state-of-the-art models: the limited-release Mythos 5 and the more guarded version of Mythos released to the public three days earlier, called Fable 5. This essentially forced Anthropic to pull its latest all-powerful model from the market altogether. Although the White House invoked an obscure export control directive when ordering the ban, the exact cause remains unclear. The chatter was that hackers easily bypassed Fable 5’s guardrails, which were intended to prevent access to Mythos’ capabilities. That model is so good at finding security flaws in software code that Anthropic itself marketed it as dangerous and restricted its public release. This new drama comes after Anthropic famously refused to allow the government to use its models for mass surveillance of Americans and fully autonomous weapons. As a result, in March, the Trump administration declared the company a supply-chain risk. That didn’t deter Anthropic’s sales to businesses. Quite the opposite, Ramp’s data shows. Ironically, this latest feud with the Trump administration, which also appears to validate the hubbub over Mythos’ mythological power, may help rather than hurt Anthropic, according to Ramp’s lead economist, Ara Kharazian. Kharazian is the person who compiled the business-spending AI data. “If anything, it’ll probably boost them,” Kharazian told TechCrunch. “Anthropic’s best month on record, as far as business adoption, was the month that the Department of Defense labeled them a supply-chain risk. There’s a lot of aura that comes with your model specifically being named too dangerous to use.” Ramp’s data isn’t granular enough for us to see how much of a financial hit the company will take by pulling Mythos and Fable 5 off the market. Still the data, from more than 70,000 businesses that use its platform, shows that customers heavily use Anthropic’s Opus models and that business use has been growing. For instance, Ramp reported that Anthropic’s share of AI subscriptions paid for by businesses rose 2.5 percentage points in May to 41%. This compares to OpenAI, which commanded 39.5% of AI subscriptions by its customers, essentially flat from the prior month. (OpenAI still greatly leads Anthropic in overall consumer usage, according to new data from Sensor Tower.) Beyond subscriptions, the vast majority of what companies spend money on is API calls to the model, which cover token use for activities like coding. Anthropic’s Claude Code has a strong reputation as a powerful AI coding tool. Ramp can’t always see from the spending data which models most businesses are using. When it can see the model details — in about one-third of transactions — businesses are mostly spending on various flavors of Claude Opus, particularly the later versions. Opus is the model that preceded Mythos and is still openly available. In fact, in late May, Anthropic released a new version, Opus 4.8. Mythos had not been on the market for that long, having been released to limited users as of April. And Fable 5 was shut down after a few days. While we can’t predict how this latest drama with the White House will impact Anthropic’s ability to go public as it hoped to (public-market investors tend to be wary of companies embroiled in controversies with the government), the numbers indicate that Anthropic’s available models are more popular with businesses than ever before. When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.#Anthropics #latest #feud #Trump #admin #sales #data #suggests #TechCrunchAnthropic,Fable 5,Mythos,Ramp
Tech-news

revealed. It raised $65 billion at a $965 billion valuation (also besting OpenAI) at the end of May, then waltzed into June by filing confidential paperwork for an IPO, reportedly on the strength of its first-ever profitable quarter.

Then on Friday, the Trump administration renewed its war on the model maker by sending a letter demanding it ban non-Americans, including Anthropic’s employees, from accessing its state-of-the-art models: the limited-release Mythos 5 and the more guarded version of Mythos released to the public three days earlier, called Fable 5.

This essentially forced Anthropic to pull its latest all-powerful model from the market altogether.

Although the White House invoked an obscure export control directive when ordering the ban, the exact cause remains unclear. The chatter was that hackers easily bypassed Fable 5’s guardrails, which were intended to prevent access to Mythos’ capabilities. That model is so good at finding security flaws in software code that Anthropic itself marketed it as dangerous and restricted its public release.

This new drama comes after Anthropic famously refused to allow the government to use its models for mass surveillance of Americans and fully autonomous weapons. As a result, in March, the Trump administration declared the company a supply-chain risk.

That didn’t deter Anthropic’s sales to businesses. Quite the opposite, Ramp’s data shows. Ironically, this latest feud with the Trump administration, which also appears to validate the hubbub over Mythos’ mythological power, may help rather than hurt Anthropic, according to Ramp’s lead economist, Ara Kharazian. Kharazian is the person who compiled the business-spending AI data.

“If anything, it’ll probably boost them,” Kharazian told TechCrunch. “Anthropic’s best month on record, as far as business adoption, was the month that the Department of Defense labeled them a supply-chain risk. There’s a lot of aura that comes with your model specifically being named too dangerous to use.”

Ramp’s data isn’t granular enough for us to see how much of a financial hit the company will take by pulling Mythos and Fable 5 off the market.

Still the data, from more than 70,000 businesses that use its platform, shows that customers heavily use Anthropic’s Opus models and that business use has been growing.

For instance, Ramp reported that Anthropic’s share of AI subscriptions paid for by businesses rose 2.5 percentage points in May to 41%. This compares to OpenAI, which commanded 39.5% of AI subscriptions by its customers, essentially flat from the prior month. (OpenAI still greatly leads Anthropic in overall consumer usage, according to new data from Sensor Tower.)

Beyond subscriptions, the vast majority of what companies spend money on is API calls to the model, which cover token use for activities like coding. Anthropic’s Claude Code has a strong reputation as a powerful AI coding tool.

Ramp can’t always see from the spending data which models most businesses are using. When it can see the model details — in about one-third of transactions — businesses are mostly spending on various flavors of Claude Opus, particularly the later versions. Opus is the model that preceded Mythos and is still openly available.

In fact, in late May, Anthropic released a new version, Opus 4.8.

Mythos had not been on the market for that long, having been released to limited users as of April. And Fable 5 was shut down after a few days.

While we can’t predict how this latest drama with the White House will impact Anthropic’s ability to go public as it hoped to (public-market investors tend to be wary of companies embroiled in controversies with the government), the numbers indicate that Anthropic’s available models are more popular with businesses than ever before.

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#Anthropics #latest #feud #Trump #admin #sales #data #suggests #TechCrunchAnthropic,Fable 5,Mythos,Ramp">Anthropic’s latest feud with the Trump admin may actually help it, sales data suggests | TechCrunch

Anthropic is having a month.

The AI lab finished May by surpassing OpenAI in market share of business spending for the first time, Ramp just revealed. It raised $65 billion at a $965 billion valuation (also besting OpenAI) at the end of May, then waltzed into June by filing confidential paperwork for an IPO, reportedly on the strength of its first-ever profitable quarter.

Then on Friday, the Trump administration renewed its war on the model maker by sending a letter demanding it ban non-Americans, including Anthropic’s employees, from accessing its state-of-the-art models: the limited-release Mythos 5 and the more guarded version of Mythos released to the public three days earlier, called Fable 5.

This essentially forced Anthropic to pull its latest all-powerful model from the market altogether.

Although the White House invoked an obscure export control directive when ordering the ban, the exact cause remains unclear. The chatter was that hackers easily bypassed Fable 5’s guardrails, which were intended to prevent access to Mythos’ capabilities. That model is so good at finding security flaws in software code that Anthropic itself marketed it as dangerous and restricted its public release.

This new drama comes after Anthropic famously refused to allow the government to use its models for mass surveillance of Americans and fully autonomous weapons. As a result, in March, the Trump administration declared the company a supply-chain risk.

That didn’t deter Anthropic’s sales to businesses. Quite the opposite, Ramp’s data shows. Ironically, this latest feud with the Trump administration, which also appears to validate the hubbub over Mythos’ mythological power, may help rather than hurt Anthropic, according to Ramp’s lead economist, Ara Kharazian. Kharazian is the person who compiled the business-spending AI data.

“If anything, it’ll probably boost them,” Kharazian told TechCrunch. “Anthropic’s best month on record, as far as business adoption, was the month that the Department of Defense labeled them a supply-chain risk. There’s a lot of aura that comes with your model specifically being named too dangerous to use.”

Ramp’s data isn’t granular enough for us to see how much of a financial hit the company will take by pulling Mythos and Fable 5 off the market.

Still the data, from more than 70,000 businesses that use its platform, shows that customers heavily use Anthropic’s Opus models and that business use has been growing.

For instance, Ramp reported that Anthropic’s share of AI subscriptions paid for by businesses rose 2.5 percentage points in May to 41%. This compares to OpenAI, which commanded 39.5% of AI subscriptions by its customers, essentially flat from the prior month. (OpenAI still greatly leads Anthropic in overall consumer usage, according to new data from Sensor Tower.)

Beyond subscriptions, the vast majority of what companies spend money on is API calls to the model, which cover token use for activities like coding. Anthropic’s Claude Code has a strong reputation as a powerful AI coding tool.

Ramp can’t always see from the spending data which models most businesses are using. When it can see the model details — in about one-third of transactions — businesses are mostly spending on various flavors of Claude Opus, particularly the later versions. Opus is the model that preceded Mythos and is still openly available.

In fact, in late May, Anthropic released a new version, Opus 4.8.

Mythos had not been on the market for that long, having been released to limited users as of April. And Fable 5 was shut down after a few days.

While we can’t predict how this latest drama with the White House will impact Anthropic’s ability to go public as it hoped to (public-market investors tend to be wary of companies embroiled in controversies with the government), the numbers indicate that Anthropic’s available models are more popular with businesses than ever before.

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#Anthropics #latest #feud #Trump #admin #sales #data #suggests #TechCrunchAnthropic,Fable 5,Mythos,Ramp

Anthropic is having a month. The AI lab finished May by surpassing OpenAI in market…

disable products it spent the past week hyping — and travel to Washington, DC in hopes of changing President Donald Trump’s mind. Now, over the coming days, the US government could dramatically alter the trajectory of the entire industry, dealing a major blow to American AI companies.

Claude Mythos 5 and Fable 5 are built on the same foundation as Anthropic’s Mythos Preview, which Anthropic dubbed too dangerous to publicly release. (The company’s warnings could be seen as genuine concern or more hype for their own model — or both.) Mythos 5 was made available to a select group of government agencies and companies, while Fable 5, which featured additional safeguards, was deemed “safe for general use.” But when a report indicated those guardrails may have failed, Anthropic’s dire warnings about Mythos falling into the wrong hands came back to haunt it.

A source familiar with the situation, who participated in the negotiations between Anthropic and the Trump administration, said the administration called the AI lab on Friday around 1pm ET and gave the company a 90-minute ultimatum to shut down access to Mythos 5 and Fable 5. If it didn’t, then the government would impose export controls on Anthropic by authority of the US Commerce Department.

The source said that Anthropic executives were talking to the White House within 15 minutes of that first call, confirming that CEO Dario Amodei joined the discussions about an hour and 15 minutes after that initial call. Amodei directly spoke with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross, in some cases more than once, the source confirmed.

Anthropic wrote in a release on Friday that the company believed that the government “believes it has become aware of a method of bypassing, or ‘jailbreaking’ Fable 5.” Rather than an existential threat, though, Anthropic said that the jailbreak in question was a “potential narrow, non-universal” one that was “shared with the government” by an entity the company declined to name. Moreover, Anthropic said the behavior wasn’t unique to Fable 5. “We have reviewed a report that we believe is the basis of the government’s directive and validated that the level of capability displayed there is widely available from other models (including OpenAI’s GPT-5.5),” Anthropic wrote.

Semafor reported, citing one source familiar, that the hubbub began because the US government was concerned that a China-linked group had accessed the technology. But the source said that the China rumors went back weeks, referring to a large global telecommunications company that was initially cleared to be included in access to Mythos Preview, and that when the US government shared its concerns, Anthropic immediately revoked access.

An X post by David Sacks, the US government’s former AI and crypto czar who stepped down in March, didn’t mention China either. Sacks did, however, mention the unnamed entity that had exposed the issue to the government, calling it “a highly credible trusted partner of both Anthropic and the USG who was testing Fable [which] came forward with a jailbreak of those guardrails.”

Some reports point to Amazon CEO Andy Jassy as the person who flagged concerns to the US government after researchers at Amazon had red-teamed Fable 5. That conclusion stands at odds with some independent red-teamers, who have said they were impressed with the level of the protections.

The source familiar with the negotiations said that the Amazon research was explicitly mentioned in conversations with the US government. The person added that Anthropic had had access to that paper within days of the Friday export control directive and had been going back-and-forth since then with Amazon researchers to discuss it.

Everything in that paper, the source said, could be achieved by OpenAI’s GPT-5.5.

Anthropic spent the weekend scrambling to make nice with the Trump administration, beginning with virtual meetings and then flying employees to DC, including Dave Orr, Anthropic’s head of safeguards; Logan Graham, who runs its frontier red team and has led work on Project Glasswing; and Nicholas Carlini, a leading frontier developer and cybersecurity researcher. Axios reported, citing a source familiar with the Trump administration’s thinking, that the company simply has repeatedly made missteps in its communication with the administration and that it “has not done a great job at trying to speak to the administration and appreciate the ideological differences.” For Anthropic, the timing couldn’t be worse: the company had banked on Mythos to help it recover, in part, from months of high-profile clashes with the US Department of Defense.

The source familiar with the negotiations said that Anthropic pre-briefed the administration on Fable 5, and that the US Department of Commerce conducted testing pre-deployment, with no concerns shared at the time. The source added that Anthropic had been working closely with government agencies since Mythos Preview’s release.

The Trump administration initially took a hands-off approach to AI safety — but post-Mythos, it has become more ambivalent, even as it frets over the threat of losing the AI race to China. Now, prominent cybersecurity leaders have warned that sidelining Mythos 5 and Fable 5 could give China a significant AI advantage. Trump’s move has galvanized international calls for alternatives to American AI systems, while effectively putting a major US AI company’s new flagship model on ice.

A public letter from tech and cybersecurity executives called for restrictions on Fable 5 to be repealed on Sunday. “Not all of us agree that AI regulation is the right way forward,” the letter states, adding that if regulations are going to happen regardless, then they should be rooted in “scientific evaluations developed with input from industry and academia.”

Alex Stamos, chief product officer at Corridor, told The Verge he organized the public letter because the countless number of vulnerabilities in the past decade-plus, written in a variety of different coding languages, require AI to patch before bad actors find them. “We’re in a race, and I think policymakers don’t understand that,” Stamos said. “There’s this weird arrogance, this idea that American labs are hugely ahead of our adversaries that will always be true, that it’s really important to restrict access because of that. I just think that’s foolish. If the labs are ahead, it’s only by a matter of months. And you can see that in the open evaluations. The cutting-edge models are only something like six months ahead of the Chinese models — and those are the models we know about.”

The public letter goes on to state that though Anthropic’s Mythos-class models are skilled at finding cybersecurity vulnerabilities and taking advantage of exploits, they aren’t “uniquely good” at these tasks and that Fable 5’s safeguards “were so aggressive as to be the source of humor in the cyber community on launch day.” Stamos told The Verge that “there’s a real overstatement of Mythos’ capabilities. Anthropic is somewhat responsible for this themselves, clearly … Mythos is great, but the real turning point was really last year.”

Stamos said the industry is awash with backup contracts being signed with non-US companies and open-weight models being deployed on alternative hardware arrangements because the past weekend made political risk part of companies’ business plans more than ever before.

“They are laughing at us in Beijing right now,” Stamos said. “One of America’s champions is being kneecapped by the US government while we’re in a race with the Chinese. It’s just incredibly stupid. That’s why I wrote the letter, and I think that’s why a lot of people signed onto it.”

Ben Van Roo, co-founder and CEO of Legion Intelligence, a system of agents for the national security community, told The Verge that “the directive of ‘no foreign national should use this model’ is the most impossible thing to enforce.” He added, “When I first read that, my whole… [network of] AI community nerds was exploding.”

To make matters even more urgent, OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft have all come out with their own comparable products to Anthropic’s Mythos, making many of the same claims about their effectiveness and risks. If the Trump administration bans Anthropic’s advanced cybersecurity models, it can make a case for banning its competitors’ models, too. That could spur AI industry leaders to unite and help out Anthropic or, as with its fight over autonomous weapons with the Pentagon, position themselves as a safer and more compliant alternative.

Even as the Trump administration is trying to free tech companies of regulatory hassles, the Anthropic order could amount to a dramatic restriction on powerful AI models — depending on how the next few days play out.

Legion Intelligence’s Van Roo called it “uncharted territory” in the regulatory setting, adding that he doesn’t think this is the last time something like this will happen.

We’ve also entered the era of AI populism, when a growing number of people are pushing back against the AI industry’s outsized influence and the concentration of power at the top via data center protests, pledges to quit using AI chatbots, lawsuits over wrongful deaths, and even attempted attacks on AI company CEOs. Van Roo says the Trump administration’s recent moves against Anthropic could stoke “greater fears and concerns, potentially for the wrong reasons.”

The source familiar with the negotiations described the weekend’s conversations as constructive, with some members of the administration admitting that putting export controls on model providers isn’t ideal, since competitors with similar products may find themselves under the same restrictions — and since the US government is currently exploring a program that would encourage the export of American AI systems.

Monday’s talks concluded with no resolution as of yet.

As Anthropic continues to negotiate with the US government, there’s little chance that the company’s other myriad issues with the Pentagon won’t come up — namely, the ongoing battle between Anthropic and the Department of Defense over acceptable usage policies for Anthropic’s tech by the US military.

“This is new and we’ve never had anything potentially this drastic before, and it does have some real ramifications” in terms of how to enforce access to powerful models, Van Roo said. “Who gets to use this new technology that continues to outpace our own ability to regulate it?”

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
#fight #Claude #MythosAI,Anthropic,Policy,Report"> Inside the fight over Claude Mythos 5As the rest of the country celebrated the USA’s first World Cup win and the New York Knicks championship, Anthropic spent its weekend fighting the Trump administration over its latest model release. At 5:21 PM on Friday, the company received a US export control directive to suspend access to its Mythos 5 and Fable 5 AI models by “any foreign national” inside or outside the US, “including foreign national Anthropic employees.” The only way that was possible, Anthropic determined, was to completely disable products it spent the past week hyping — and travel to Washington, DC in hopes of changing President Donald Trump’s mind. Now, over the coming days, the US government could dramatically alter the trajectory of the entire industry, dealing a major blow to American AI companies.Claude Mythos 5 and Fable 5 are built on the same foundation as Anthropic’s Mythos Preview, which Anthropic dubbed too dangerous to publicly release. (The company’s warnings could be seen as genuine concern or more hype for their own model — or both.) Mythos 5 was made available to a select group of government agencies and companies, while Fable 5, which featured additional safeguards, was deemed “safe for general use.” But when a report indicated those guardrails may have failed, Anthropic’s dire warnings about Mythos falling into the wrong hands came back to haunt it.A source familiar with the situation, who participated in the negotiations between Anthropic and the Trump administration, said the administration called the AI lab on Friday around 1pm ET and gave the company a 90-minute ultimatum to shut down access to Mythos 5 and Fable 5. If it didn’t, then the government would impose export controls on Anthropic by authority of the US Commerce Department.The source said that Anthropic executives were talking to the White House within 15 minutes of that first call, confirming that CEO Dario Amodei joined the discussions about an hour and 15 minutes after that initial call. Amodei directly spoke with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross, in some cases more than once, the source confirmed.Anthropic wrote in a release on Friday that the company believed that the government “believes it has become aware of a method of bypassing, or ‘jailbreaking’ Fable 5.” Rather than an existential threat, though, Anthropic said that the jailbreak in question was a “potential narrow, non-universal” one that was “shared with the government” by an entity the company declined to name. Moreover, Anthropic said the behavior wasn’t unique to Fable 5. “We have reviewed a report that we believe is the basis of the government’s directive and validated that the level of capability displayed there is widely available from other models (including OpenAI’s GPT-5.5),” Anthropic wrote.Semafor reported, citing one source familiar, that the hubbub began because the US government was concerned that a China-linked group had accessed the technology. But the source said that the China rumors went back weeks, referring to a large global telecommunications company that was initially cleared to be included in access to Mythos Preview, and that when the US government shared its concerns, Anthropic immediately revoked access.An X post by David Sacks, the US government’s former AI and crypto czar who stepped down in March, didn’t mention China either. Sacks did, however, mention the unnamed entity that had exposed the issue to the government, calling it “a highly credible trusted partner of both Anthropic and the USG who was testing Fable [which] came forward with a jailbreak of those guardrails.”Some reports point to Amazon CEO Andy Jassy as the person who flagged concerns to the US government after researchers at Amazon had red-teamed Fable 5. That conclusion stands at odds with some independent red-teamers, who have said they were impressed with the level of the protections.The source familiar with the negotiations said that the Amazon research was explicitly mentioned in conversations with the US government. The person added that Anthropic had had access to that paper within days of the Friday export control directive and had been going back-and-forth since then with Amazon researchers to discuss it.Everything in that paper, the source said, could be achieved by OpenAI’s GPT-5.5.Anthropic spent the weekend scrambling to make nice with the Trump administration, beginning with virtual meetings and then flying employees to DC, including Dave Orr, Anthropic’s head of safeguards; Logan Graham, who runs its frontier red team and has led work on Project Glasswing; and Nicholas Carlini, a leading frontier developer and cybersecurity researcher. Axios reported, citing a source familiar with the Trump administration’s thinking, that the company simply has repeatedly made missteps in its communication with the administration and that it “has not done a great job at trying to speak to the administration and appreciate the ideological differences.” For Anthropic, the timing couldn’t be worse: the company had banked on Mythos to help it recover, in part, from months of high-profile clashes with the US Department of Defense.The source familiar with the negotiations said that Anthropic pre-briefed the administration on Fable 5, and that the US Department of Commerce conducted testing pre-deployment, with no concerns shared at the time. The source added that Anthropic had been working closely with government agencies since Mythos Preview’s release.The Trump administration initially took a hands-off approach to AI safety — but post-Mythos, it has become more ambivalent, even as it frets over the threat of losing the AI race to China. Now, prominent cybersecurity leaders have warned that sidelining Mythos 5 and Fable 5 could give China a significant AI advantage. Trump’s move has galvanized international calls for alternatives to American AI systems, while effectively putting a major US AI company’s new flagship model on ice.A public letter from tech and cybersecurity executives called for restrictions on Fable 5 to be repealed on Sunday. “Not all of us agree that AI regulation is the right way forward,” the letter states, adding that if regulations are going to happen regardless, then they should be rooted in “scientific evaluations developed with input from industry and academia.”Alex Stamos, chief product officer at Corridor, told The Verge he organized the public letter because the countless number of vulnerabilities in the past decade-plus, written in a variety of different coding languages, require AI to patch before bad actors find them. “We’re in a race, and I think policymakers don’t understand that,” Stamos said. “There’s this weird arrogance, this idea that American labs are hugely ahead of our adversaries that will always be true, that it’s really important to restrict access because of that. I just think that’s foolish. If the labs are ahead, it’s only by a matter of months. And you can see that in the open evaluations. The cutting-edge models are only something like six months ahead of the Chinese models — and those are the models we know about.”The public letter goes on to state that though Anthropic’s Mythos-class models are skilled at finding cybersecurity vulnerabilities and taking advantage of exploits, they aren’t “uniquely good” at these tasks and that Fable 5’s safeguards “were so aggressive as to be the source of humor in the cyber community on launch day.” Stamos told The Verge that “there’s a real overstatement of Mythos’ capabilities. Anthropic is somewhat responsible for this themselves, clearly … Mythos is great, but the real turning point was really last year.”Stamos said the industry is awash with backup contracts being signed with non-US companies and open-weight models being deployed on alternative hardware arrangements because the past weekend made political risk part of companies’ business plans more than ever before.“They are laughing at us in Beijing right now,” Stamos said. “One of America’s champions is being kneecapped by the US government while we’re in a race with the Chinese. It’s just incredibly stupid. That’s why I wrote the letter, and I think that’s why a lot of people signed onto it.”Ben Van Roo, co-founder and CEO of Legion Intelligence, a system of agents for the national security community, told The Verge that “the directive of ‘no foreign national should use this model’ is the most impossible thing to enforce.” He added, “When I first read that, my whole… [network of] AI community nerds was exploding.”To make matters even more urgent, OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft have all come out with their own comparable products to Anthropic’s Mythos, making many of the same claims about their effectiveness and risks. If the Trump administration bans Anthropic’s advanced cybersecurity models, it can make a case for banning its competitors’ models, too. That could spur AI industry leaders to unite and help out Anthropic or, as with its fight over autonomous weapons with the Pentagon, position themselves as a safer and more compliant alternative.Even as the Trump administration is trying to free tech companies of regulatory hassles, the Anthropic order could amount to a dramatic restriction on powerful AI models — depending on how the next few days play out.Legion Intelligence’s Van Roo called it “uncharted territory” in the regulatory setting, adding that he doesn’t think this is the last time something like this will happen.We’ve also entered the era of AI populism, when a growing number of people are pushing back against the AI industry’s outsized influence and the concentration of power at the top via data center protests, pledges to quit using AI chatbots, lawsuits over wrongful deaths, and even attempted attacks on AI company CEOs. Van Roo says the Trump administration’s recent moves against Anthropic could stoke “greater fears and concerns, potentially for the wrong reasons.”The source familiar with the negotiations described the weekend’s conversations as constructive, with some members of the administration admitting that putting export controls on model providers isn’t ideal, since competitors with similar products may find themselves under the same restrictions — and since the US government is currently exploring a program that would encourage the export of American AI systems.Monday’s talks concluded with no resolution as of yet.As Anthropic continues to negotiate with the US government, there’s little chance that the company’s other myriad issues with the Pentagon won’t come up — namely, the ongoing battle between Anthropic and the Department of Defense over acceptable usage policies for Anthropic’s tech by the US military.“This is new and we’ve never had anything potentially this drastic before, and it does have some real ramifications” in terms of how to enforce access to powerful models, Van Roo said. “Who gets to use this new technology that continues to outpace our own ability to regulate it?”Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Hayden FieldCloseHayden FieldPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Hayden FieldAICloseAIPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All AIAnthropicCloseAnthropicPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All AnthropicPolicyClosePolicyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PolicyReportCloseReportPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All Report#fight #Claude #MythosAI,Anthropic,Policy,Report
Tech-news

disable products it spent the past week hyping — and travel to Washington, DC in hopes of changing President Donald Trump’s mind. Now, over the coming days, the US government could dramatically alter the trajectory of the entire industry, dealing a major blow to American AI companies.

Claude Mythos 5 and Fable 5 are built on the same foundation as Anthropic’s Mythos Preview, which Anthropic dubbed too dangerous to publicly release. (The company’s warnings could be seen as genuine concern or more hype for their own model — or both.) Mythos 5 was made available to a select group of government agencies and companies, while Fable 5, which featured additional safeguards, was deemed “safe for general use.” But when a report indicated those guardrails may have failed, Anthropic’s dire warnings about Mythos falling into the wrong hands came back to haunt it.

A source familiar with the situation, who participated in the negotiations between Anthropic and the Trump administration, said the administration called the AI lab on Friday around 1pm ET and gave the company a 90-minute ultimatum to shut down access to Mythos 5 and Fable 5. If it didn’t, then the government would impose export controls on Anthropic by authority of the US Commerce Department.

The source said that Anthropic executives were talking to the White House within 15 minutes of that first call, confirming that CEO Dario Amodei joined the discussions about an hour and 15 minutes after that initial call. Amodei directly spoke with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross, in some cases more than once, the source confirmed.

Anthropic wrote in a release on Friday that the company believed that the government “believes it has become aware of a method of bypassing, or ‘jailbreaking’ Fable 5.” Rather than an existential threat, though, Anthropic said that the jailbreak in question was a “potential narrow, non-universal” one that was “shared with the government” by an entity the company declined to name. Moreover, Anthropic said the behavior wasn’t unique to Fable 5. “We have reviewed a report that we believe is the basis of the government’s directive and validated that the level of capability displayed there is widely available from other models (including OpenAI’s GPT-5.5),” Anthropic wrote.

Semafor reported, citing one source familiar, that the hubbub began because the US government was concerned that a China-linked group had accessed the technology. But the source said that the China rumors went back weeks, referring to a large global telecommunications company that was initially cleared to be included in access to Mythos Preview, and that when the US government shared its concerns, Anthropic immediately revoked access.

An X post by David Sacks, the US government’s former AI and crypto czar who stepped down in March, didn’t mention China either. Sacks did, however, mention the unnamed entity that had exposed the issue to the government, calling it “a highly credible trusted partner of both Anthropic and the USG who was testing Fable [which] came forward with a jailbreak of those guardrails.”

Some reports point to Amazon CEO Andy Jassy as the person who flagged concerns to the US government after researchers at Amazon had red-teamed Fable 5. That conclusion stands at odds with some independent red-teamers, who have said they were impressed with the level of the protections.

The source familiar with the negotiations said that the Amazon research was explicitly mentioned in conversations with the US government. The person added that Anthropic had had access to that paper within days of the Friday export control directive and had been going back-and-forth since then with Amazon researchers to discuss it.

Everything in that paper, the source said, could be achieved by OpenAI’s GPT-5.5.

Anthropic spent the weekend scrambling to make nice with the Trump administration, beginning with virtual meetings and then flying employees to DC, including Dave Orr, Anthropic’s head of safeguards; Logan Graham, who runs its frontier red team and has led work on Project Glasswing; and Nicholas Carlini, a leading frontier developer and cybersecurity researcher. Axios reported, citing a source familiar with the Trump administration’s thinking, that the company simply has repeatedly made missteps in its communication with the administration and that it “has not done a great job at trying to speak to the administration and appreciate the ideological differences.” For Anthropic, the timing couldn’t be worse: the company had banked on Mythos to help it recover, in part, from months of high-profile clashes with the US Department of Defense.

The source familiar with the negotiations said that Anthropic pre-briefed the administration on Fable 5, and that the US Department of Commerce conducted testing pre-deployment, with no concerns shared at the time. The source added that Anthropic had been working closely with government agencies since Mythos Preview’s release.

The Trump administration initially took a hands-off approach to AI safety — but post-Mythos, it has become more ambivalent, even as it frets over the threat of losing the AI race to China. Now, prominent cybersecurity leaders have warned that sidelining Mythos 5 and Fable 5 could give China a significant AI advantage. Trump’s move has galvanized international calls for alternatives to American AI systems, while effectively putting a major US AI company’s new flagship model on ice.

A public letter from tech and cybersecurity executives called for restrictions on Fable 5 to be repealed on Sunday. “Not all of us agree that AI regulation is the right way forward,” the letter states, adding that if regulations are going to happen regardless, then they should be rooted in “scientific evaluations developed with input from industry and academia.”

Alex Stamos, chief product officer at Corridor, told The Verge he organized the public letter because the countless number of vulnerabilities in the past decade-plus, written in a variety of different coding languages, require AI to patch before bad actors find them. “We’re in a race, and I think policymakers don’t understand that,” Stamos said. “There’s this weird arrogance, this idea that American labs are hugely ahead of our adversaries that will always be true, that it’s really important to restrict access because of that. I just think that’s foolish. If the labs are ahead, it’s only by a matter of months. And you can see that in the open evaluations. The cutting-edge models are only something like six months ahead of the Chinese models — and those are the models we know about.”

The public letter goes on to state that though Anthropic’s Mythos-class models are skilled at finding cybersecurity vulnerabilities and taking advantage of exploits, they aren’t “uniquely good” at these tasks and that Fable 5’s safeguards “were so aggressive as to be the source of humor in the cyber community on launch day.” Stamos told The Verge that “there’s a real overstatement of Mythos’ capabilities. Anthropic is somewhat responsible for this themselves, clearly … Mythos is great, but the real turning point was really last year.”

Stamos said the industry is awash with backup contracts being signed with non-US companies and open-weight models being deployed on alternative hardware arrangements because the past weekend made political risk part of companies’ business plans more than ever before.

“They are laughing at us in Beijing right now,” Stamos said. “One of America’s champions is being kneecapped by the US government while we’re in a race with the Chinese. It’s just incredibly stupid. That’s why I wrote the letter, and I think that’s why a lot of people signed onto it.”

Ben Van Roo, co-founder and CEO of Legion Intelligence, a system of agents for the national security community, told The Verge that “the directive of ‘no foreign national should use this model’ is the most impossible thing to enforce.” He added, “When I first read that, my whole… [network of] AI community nerds was exploding.”

To make matters even more urgent, OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft have all come out with their own comparable products to Anthropic’s Mythos, making many of the same claims about their effectiveness and risks. If the Trump administration bans Anthropic’s advanced cybersecurity models, it can make a case for banning its competitors’ models, too. That could spur AI industry leaders to unite and help out Anthropic or, as with its fight over autonomous weapons with the Pentagon, position themselves as a safer and more compliant alternative.

Even as the Trump administration is trying to free tech companies of regulatory hassles, the Anthropic order could amount to a dramatic restriction on powerful AI models — depending on how the next few days play out.

Legion Intelligence’s Van Roo called it “uncharted territory” in the regulatory setting, adding that he doesn’t think this is the last time something like this will happen.

We’ve also entered the era of AI populism, when a growing number of people are pushing back against the AI industry’s outsized influence and the concentration of power at the top via data center protests, pledges to quit using AI chatbots, lawsuits over wrongful deaths, and even attempted attacks on AI company CEOs. Van Roo says the Trump administration’s recent moves against Anthropic could stoke “greater fears and concerns, potentially for the wrong reasons.”

The source familiar with the negotiations described the weekend’s conversations as constructive, with some members of the administration admitting that putting export controls on model providers isn’t ideal, since competitors with similar products may find themselves under the same restrictions — and since the US government is currently exploring a program that would encourage the export of American AI systems.

Monday’s talks concluded with no resolution as of yet.

As Anthropic continues to negotiate with the US government, there’s little chance that the company’s other myriad issues with the Pentagon won’t come up — namely, the ongoing battle between Anthropic and the Department of Defense over acceptable usage policies for Anthropic’s tech by the US military.

“This is new and we’ve never had anything potentially this drastic before, and it does have some real ramifications” in terms of how to enforce access to powerful models, Van Roo said. “Who gets to use this new technology that continues to outpace our own ability to regulate it?”

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.

#fight #Claude #MythosAI,Anthropic,Policy,Report">Inside the fight over Claude Mythos 5

As the rest of the country celebrated the USA’s first World Cup win and the New York Knicks championship, Anthropic spent its weekend fighting the Trump administration over its latest model release. At 5:21 PM on Friday, the company received a US export control directive to suspend access to its Mythos 5 and Fable 5 AI models by “any foreign national” inside or outside the US, “including foreign national Anthropic employees.” The only way that was possible, Anthropic determined, was to completely disable products it spent the past week hyping — and travel to Washington, DC in hopes of changing President Donald Trump’s mind. Now, over the coming days, the US government could dramatically alter the trajectory of the entire industry, dealing a major blow to American AI companies.

Claude Mythos 5 and Fable 5 are built on the same foundation as Anthropic’s Mythos Preview, which Anthropic dubbed too dangerous to publicly release. (The company’s warnings could be seen as genuine concern or more hype for their own model — or both.) Mythos 5 was made available to a select group of government agencies and companies, while Fable 5, which featured additional safeguards, was deemed “safe for general use.” But when a report indicated those guardrails may have failed, Anthropic’s dire warnings about Mythos falling into the wrong hands came back to haunt it.

A source familiar with the situation, who participated in the negotiations between Anthropic and the Trump administration, said the administration called the AI lab on Friday around 1pm ET and gave the company a 90-minute ultimatum to shut down access to Mythos 5 and Fable 5. If it didn’t, then the government would impose export controls on Anthropic by authority of the US Commerce Department.

The source said that Anthropic executives were talking to the White House within 15 minutes of that first call, confirming that CEO Dario Amodei joined the discussions about an hour and 15 minutes after that initial call. Amodei directly spoke with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross, in some cases more than once, the source confirmed.

Anthropic wrote in a release on Friday that the company believed that the government “believes it has become aware of a method of bypassing, or ‘jailbreaking’ Fable 5.” Rather than an existential threat, though, Anthropic said that the jailbreak in question was a “potential narrow, non-universal” one that was “shared with the government” by an entity the company declined to name. Moreover, Anthropic said the behavior wasn’t unique to Fable 5. “We have reviewed a report that we believe is the basis of the government’s directive and validated that the level of capability displayed there is widely available from other models (including OpenAI’s GPT-5.5),” Anthropic wrote.

Semafor reported, citing one source familiar, that the hubbub began because the US government was concerned that a China-linked group had accessed the technology. But the source said that the China rumors went back weeks, referring to a large global telecommunications company that was initially cleared to be included in access to Mythos Preview, and that when the US government shared its concerns, Anthropic immediately revoked access.

An X post by David Sacks, the US government’s former AI and crypto czar who stepped down in March, didn’t mention China either. Sacks did, however, mention the unnamed entity that had exposed the issue to the government, calling it “a highly credible trusted partner of both Anthropic and the USG who was testing Fable [which] came forward with a jailbreak of those guardrails.”

Some reports point to Amazon CEO Andy Jassy as the person who flagged concerns to the US government after researchers at Amazon had red-teamed Fable 5. That conclusion stands at odds with some independent red-teamers, who have said they were impressed with the level of the protections.

The source familiar with the negotiations said that the Amazon research was explicitly mentioned in conversations with the US government. The person added that Anthropic had had access to that paper within days of the Friday export control directive and had been going back-and-forth since then with Amazon researchers to discuss it.

Everything in that paper, the source said, could be achieved by OpenAI’s GPT-5.5.

Anthropic spent the weekend scrambling to make nice with the Trump administration, beginning with virtual meetings and then flying employees to DC, including Dave Orr, Anthropic’s head of safeguards; Logan Graham, who runs its frontier red team and has led work on Project Glasswing; and Nicholas Carlini, a leading frontier developer and cybersecurity researcher. Axios reported, citing a source familiar with the Trump administration’s thinking, that the company simply has repeatedly made missteps in its communication with the administration and that it “has not done a great job at trying to speak to the administration and appreciate the ideological differences.” For Anthropic, the timing couldn’t be worse: the company had banked on Mythos to help it recover, in part, from months of high-profile clashes with the US Department of Defense.

The source familiar with the negotiations said that Anthropic pre-briefed the administration on Fable 5, and that the US Department of Commerce conducted testing pre-deployment, with no concerns shared at the time. The source added that Anthropic had been working closely with government agencies since Mythos Preview’s release.

The Trump administration initially took a hands-off approach to AI safety — but post-Mythos, it has become more ambivalent, even as it frets over the threat of losing the AI race to China. Now, prominent cybersecurity leaders have warned that sidelining Mythos 5 and Fable 5 could give China a significant AI advantage. Trump’s move has galvanized international calls for alternatives to American AI systems, while effectively putting a major US AI company’s new flagship model on ice.

A public letter from tech and cybersecurity executives called for restrictions on Fable 5 to be repealed on Sunday. “Not all of us agree that AI regulation is the right way forward,” the letter states, adding that if regulations are going to happen regardless, then they should be rooted in “scientific evaluations developed with input from industry and academia.”

Alex Stamos, chief product officer at Corridor, told The Verge he organized the public letter because the countless number of vulnerabilities in the past decade-plus, written in a variety of different coding languages, require AI to patch before bad actors find them. “We’re in a race, and I think policymakers don’t understand that,” Stamos said. “There’s this weird arrogance, this idea that American labs are hugely ahead of our adversaries that will always be true, that it’s really important to restrict access because of that. I just think that’s foolish. If the labs are ahead, it’s only by a matter of months. And you can see that in the open evaluations. The cutting-edge models are only something like six months ahead of the Chinese models — and those are the models we know about.”

The public letter goes on to state that though Anthropic’s Mythos-class models are skilled at finding cybersecurity vulnerabilities and taking advantage of exploits, they aren’t “uniquely good” at these tasks and that Fable 5’s safeguards “were so aggressive as to be the source of humor in the cyber community on launch day.” Stamos told The Verge that “there’s a real overstatement of Mythos’ capabilities. Anthropic is somewhat responsible for this themselves, clearly … Mythos is great, but the real turning point was really last year.”

Stamos said the industry is awash with backup contracts being signed with non-US companies and open-weight models being deployed on alternative hardware arrangements because the past weekend made political risk part of companies’ business plans more than ever before.

“They are laughing at us in Beijing right now,” Stamos said. “One of America’s champions is being kneecapped by the US government while we’re in a race with the Chinese. It’s just incredibly stupid. That’s why I wrote the letter, and I think that’s why a lot of people signed onto it.”

Ben Van Roo, co-founder and CEO of Legion Intelligence, a system of agents for the national security community, told The Verge that “the directive of ‘no foreign national should use this model’ is the most impossible thing to enforce.” He added, “When I first read that, my whole… [network of] AI community nerds was exploding.”

To make matters even more urgent, OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft have all come out with their own comparable products to Anthropic’s Mythos, making many of the same claims about their effectiveness and risks. If the Trump administration bans Anthropic’s advanced cybersecurity models, it can make a case for banning its competitors’ models, too. That could spur AI industry leaders to unite and help out Anthropic or, as with its fight over autonomous weapons with the Pentagon, position themselves as a safer and more compliant alternative.

Even as the Trump administration is trying to free tech companies of regulatory hassles, the Anthropic order could amount to a dramatic restriction on powerful AI models — depending on how the next few days play out.

Legion Intelligence’s Van Roo called it “uncharted territory” in the regulatory setting, adding that he doesn’t think this is the last time something like this will happen.

We’ve also entered the era of AI populism, when a growing number of people are pushing back against the AI industry’s outsized influence and the concentration of power at the top via data center protests, pledges to quit using AI chatbots, lawsuits over wrongful deaths, and even attempted attacks on AI company CEOs. Van Roo says the Trump administration’s recent moves against Anthropic could stoke “greater fears and concerns, potentially for the wrong reasons.”

The source familiar with the negotiations described the weekend’s conversations as constructive, with some members of the administration admitting that putting export controls on model providers isn’t ideal, since competitors with similar products may find themselves under the same restrictions — and since the US government is currently exploring a program that would encourage the export of American AI systems.

Monday’s talks concluded with no resolution as of yet.

As Anthropic continues to negotiate with the US government, there’s little chance that the company’s other myriad issues with the Pentagon won’t come up — namely, the ongoing battle between Anthropic and the Department of Defense over acceptable usage policies for Anthropic’s tech by the US military.

“This is new and we’ve never had anything potentially this drastic before, and it does have some real ramifications” in terms of how to enforce access to powerful models, Van Roo said. “Who gets to use this new technology that continues to outpace our own ability to regulate it?”

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
#fight #Claude #MythosAI,Anthropic,Policy,Report

As the rest of the country celebrated the USA’s first World Cup win and the…

Wall Street Journal, the export control directive that led to Anthropic cutting off access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 was triggered in part by cybersecurity research from Amazon and conversations between CEO Andy Jassy and the White House. According to the report, the paper from Amazon claims that, through a series of prompts, it was able to get Fable 5 to serve up information that could be used in cyberattacks. Amazon has yet to respond to a request for comment.

Shortly after Jassy shared the company’s findings with the government, it made the call to block its use by foreign nationals. Complicating this issue is that many of Anthropic’s researchers are foreign-born, meaning they were barred from accessing their own product.

In a statement, Anthropic disputed the government’s characterization of the issue as a “jailbreak.” It argued that many of the same vulnerabilities could be discovered using other publicly available models, including GPT 5.5. Some security researchers appear to back the company’s interpretation. Katie Moussouris, the founder and CEO of LutaSecurity posted on BlueSky that “I’ve seen the paper. It’s not a jailbreak.” Former Commerce Department official Kate Koren speculated to the WSJ that the White House’s dislike of Anthropic may have influenced the decision.

Anthropic and the Trump administration have been at odds for some time over the company’s refusal to allow its AI to be used for mass surveillance of Americans or to power lethal autonomous weapons. In February, Trump instructed federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI. And just hours later, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth designated the company a supply chain risk.

The government and the company seemed to have made amends, and the two had worked together to expand access to Mythos. However, now the two seem destined to clash again.

#Amazon #security #research #reportedly #led #White #Houses #Anthropic #Fable #banAI,Amazon,Anthropic,News,Policy,Politics,Security,Tech"> Amazon security research reportedly led to the White House’s Anthropic Fable banAccording to the Wall Street Journal, the export control directive that led to Anthropic cutting off access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 was triggered in part by cybersecurity research from Amazon and conversations between CEO Andy Jassy and the White House. According to the report, the paper from Amazon claims that, through a series of prompts, it was able to get Fable 5 to serve up information that could be used in cyberattacks. Amazon has yet to respond to a request for comment.Shortly after Jassy shared the company’s findings with the government, it made the call to block its use by foreign nationals. Complicating this issue is that many of Anthropic’s researchers are foreign-born, meaning they were barred from accessing their own product.In a statement, Anthropic disputed the government’s characterization of the issue as a “jailbreak.” It argued that many of the same vulnerabilities could be discovered using other publicly available models, including GPT 5.5. Some security researchers appear to back the company’s interpretation. Katie Moussouris, the founder and CEO of LutaSecurity posted on BlueSky that “I’ve seen the paper. It’s not a jailbreak.” Former Commerce Department official Kate Koren speculated to the WSJ that the White House’s dislike of Anthropic may have influenced the decision.Anthropic and the Trump administration have been at odds for some time over the company’s refusal to allow its AI to be used for mass surveillance of Americans or to power lethal autonomous weapons. In February, Trump instructed federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI. And just hours later, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth designated the company a supply chain risk.The government and the company seemed to have made amends, and the two had worked together to expand access to Mythos. However, now the two seem destined to clash again.#Amazon #security #research #reportedly #led #White #Houses #Anthropic #Fable #banAI,Amazon,Anthropic,News,Policy,Politics,Security,Tech
Tech-news

Wall Street Journal, the export control directive that led to Anthropic cutting off access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 was triggered in part by cybersecurity research from Amazon and conversations between CEO Andy Jassy and the White House. According to the report, the paper from Amazon claims that, through a series of prompts, it was able to get Fable 5 to serve up information that could be used in cyberattacks. Amazon has yet to respond to a request for comment.

Shortly after Jassy shared the company’s findings with the government, it made the call to block its use by foreign nationals. Complicating this issue is that many of Anthropic’s researchers are foreign-born, meaning they were barred from accessing their own product.

In a statement, Anthropic disputed the government’s characterization of the issue as a “jailbreak.” It argued that many of the same vulnerabilities could be discovered using other publicly available models, including GPT 5.5. Some security researchers appear to back the company’s interpretation. Katie Moussouris, the founder and CEO of LutaSecurity posted on BlueSky that “I’ve seen the paper. It’s not a jailbreak.” Former Commerce Department official Kate Koren speculated to the WSJ that the White House’s dislike of Anthropic may have influenced the decision.

Anthropic and the Trump administration have been at odds for some time over the company’s refusal to allow its AI to be used for mass surveillance of Americans or to power lethal autonomous weapons. In February, Trump instructed federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI. And just hours later, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth designated the company a supply chain risk.

The government and the company seemed to have made amends, and the two had worked together to expand access to Mythos. However, now the two seem destined to clash again.

#Amazon #security #research #reportedly #led #White #Houses #Anthropic #Fable #banAI,Amazon,Anthropic,News,Policy,Politics,Security,Tech">Amazon security research reportedly led to the White House’s Anthropic Fable ban

According to the Wall Street Journal, the export control directive that led to Anthropic cutting off access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 was triggered in part by cybersecurity research from Amazon and conversations between CEO Andy Jassy and the White House. According to the report, the paper from Amazon claims that, through a series of prompts, it was able to get Fable 5 to serve up information that could be used in cyberattacks. Amazon has yet to respond to a request for comment.

Shortly after Jassy shared the company’s findings with the government, it made the call to block its use by foreign nationals. Complicating this issue is that many of Anthropic’s researchers are foreign-born, meaning they were barred from accessing their own product.

In a statement, Anthropic disputed the government’s characterization of the issue as a “jailbreak.” It argued that many of the same vulnerabilities could be discovered using other publicly available models, including GPT 5.5. Some security researchers appear to back the company’s interpretation. Katie Moussouris, the founder and CEO of LutaSecurity posted on BlueSky that “I’ve seen the paper. It’s not a jailbreak.” Former Commerce Department official Kate Koren speculated to the WSJ that the White House’s dislike of Anthropic may have influenced the decision.

Anthropic and the Trump administration have been at odds for some time over the company’s refusal to allow its AI to be used for mass surveillance of Americans or to power lethal autonomous weapons. In February, Trump instructed federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI. And just hours later, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth designated the company a supply chain risk.

The government and the company seemed to have made amends, and the two had worked together to expand access to Mythos. However, now the two seem destined to clash again.

#Amazon #security #research #reportedly #led #White #Houses #Anthropic #Fable #banAI,Amazon,Anthropic,News,Policy,Politics,Security,Tech

According to the Wall Street Journal, the export control directive that led to Anthropic cutting…

Tech-news

We're likely to see more price increases as the big AI companies plan to go…