#TikTok #Shoppers #Thought #Bidding #iPhones #Won #Teddy #Bearstiktok,gambling,livestreaming,social media","url":"https://wolfnewss.com/tiktok-shoppers-thought-they-were-bidding-on-iphones-instead-they-won-teddy-bearsa-tiktok-livestream-host-waves-an-iphone-box-in-front-of-the-camera-as-around-250-viewers-place-their-bids-t/","mainEntityOfPage":"https://wolfnewss.com/tiktok-shoppers-thought-they-were-bidding-on-iphones-instead-they-won-teddy-bearsa-tiktok-livestream-host-waves-an-iphone-box-in-front-of-the-camera-as-around-250-viewers-place-their-bids-t/","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://i3.wp.com/media.wired.com/photos/6a3076ebf47e703174d70469/191:100/w_1280,c_limit/Gear_TikTokLivestreamViewersRiskOver$100toWiniPhonesandOnlyGetTeddyBears_v3.jpg?ssl=1"}],"datePublished":"2026-06-16T11:51:45+00:00","dateModified":"2026-06-16T11:51:45+00:00","author":{"@type":"Person","name":"mwasimuddin125","url":"https://wolfnewss.com/author/mwasimuddin125/"}}
×
TikTok Shoppers Thought They Were Bidding on iPhones. Instead, They Won Teddy BearsA TikTok livestream host waves an iPhone box in front of the camera as around 250 viewers place their bids.“This could be yours, chat,” the host says. “Wake it up.” The host’s face is hidden from view, with just their hands visible in front of stacks of iPhone, iPad, and MacBook boxes. The TikTok auction starts at . As the timer counts down, the price quickly shoots up, with a bid of over 0 scoring the win. After the bidding closes, a digital prize wheel appears and spins through multiple possible products before landing on what the high bidder just won: a teddy bear.The winner was pissed. “I just paid 7 for a stuffed animal,” they wrote in the stream’s chatlog. “When I was bidding, you said that I could win that iPhone, and it gave me a BB3 Zodiac,” they said, referring to the Labubu-style plushie that retails for about . “That’s a scam. Please return my money.”This person was not alone in their frustration. Multiple viewers of the stream were outraged when they placed high bids hoping to score Apple devices, only to learn their reward was the chance to spin a digital prize wheel that landed on something cheap. “Man, hell no. This is false advertising. Why would I pay  for a damn charger?” wrote another angry bidder. “Calling my bank now.” The demand for refunds was a common refrain.This is all part of TikTok’s feature, called a “Surprise Set,” where auction hosts create buckets of up to 500 products and whoever bids the most walks away with a random pick from the available prizes. These streams often include a few big ticket items, like iPhones and iPads, to lure viewers in. The rest of the items are less desirable, like charging cords and pencil cases. This feature was added late last year to the platform and remains an invitation-only feature for sellers on TikTok.Many of the streaming set-ups for these TikTok “Surprise Sets” look very similar: a pile of expensive products is shown on screen, with different hosts rallying a couple hundred concurrent viewers to bid higher and higher amounts. If a viewer taps on a small button in the lower left corner of the screen, they can see the live probability of winning each item as well as the full list of what items are still available.The popularity of “Surprise Sets” on TikTok are emblematic of how gambling-like interactions currently dominate the experience of going online, where prediction markets and sports betting reign. People can even wager on the outcome of reality TV shows.WIRED reached out to TikTok for comment on Wednesday of last week to share examples of frustrated viewers who felt scammed. One day later on Thursday, TikTok rolled out a change to its livestream policies and what hosts are allowed to do for “Surprise Sets.” (It’s a policy update that TikTok claims was already in the works.) Hosts are no longer allowed to include iPhones, iPads, televisions, diamonds, gift cards, or precious metals as part of the prizes available for viewers to win during surprise auctions. Following this rule change, hosts seem to be following the new guidelines, with no iPhones appearing in livestream “Surprise Sets” seen by WIRED.“TikTok Shop requires all sellers, including those running Surprise Sets, to accurately present what is being offered. We will take enforcement action on violations of our policies, including removing products and suspending accounts,” TikTok spokesperson Ben Rathe said in a statement to WIRED. If a buyer feels like they were misled, they can reach out to TikTok’s customer support to review the purchase.#TikTok #Shoppers #Thought #Bidding #iPhones #Won #Teddy #Bearstiktok,gambling,livestreaming,social media

TikTok Shoppers Thought They Were Bidding on iPhones. Instead, They Won Teddy Bears

A TikTok livestream host waves an iPhone box in front of the camera as around 250 viewers place their bids.

“This could be yours, chat,” the host says. “Wake it up.” The host’s face is hidden from view, with just their hands visible in front of stacks of iPhone, iPad, and MacBook boxes. The TikTok auction starts at $1. As the timer counts down, the price quickly shoots up, with a bid of over $100 scoring the win. After the bidding closes, a digital prize wheel appears and spins through multiple possible products before landing on what the high bidder just won: a teddy bear.

The winner was pissed. “I just paid $147 for a stuffed animal,” they wrote in the stream’s chatlog. “When I was bidding, you said that I could win that iPhone, and it gave me a BB3 Zodiac,” they said, referring to the Labubu-style plushie that retails for about $20. “That’s a scam. Please return my money.”

This person was not alone in their frustration. Multiple viewers of the stream were outraged when they placed high bids hoping to score Apple devices, only to learn their reward was the chance to spin a digital prize wheel that landed on something cheap. “Man, hell no. This is false advertising. Why would I pay $55 for a damn charger?” wrote another angry bidder. “Calling my bank now.” The demand for refunds was a common refrain.

This is all part of TikTok’s feature, called a “Surprise Set,” where auction hosts create buckets of up to 500 products and whoever bids the most walks away with a random pick from the available prizes. These streams often include a few big ticket items, like iPhones and iPads, to lure viewers in. The rest of the items are less desirable, like charging cords and pencil cases. This feature was added late last year to the platform and remains an invitation-only feature for sellers on TikTok.

Many of the streaming set-ups for these TikTok “Surprise Sets” look very similar: a pile of expensive products is shown on screen, with different hosts rallying a couple hundred concurrent viewers to bid higher and higher amounts. If a viewer taps on a small button in the lower left corner of the screen, they can see the live probability of winning each item as well as the full list of what items are still available.

The popularity of “Surprise Sets” on TikTok are emblematic of how gambling-like interactions currently dominate the experience of going online, where prediction markets and sports betting reign. People can even wager on the outcome of reality TV shows.

WIRED reached out to TikTok for comment on Wednesday of last week to share examples of frustrated viewers who felt scammed. One day later on Thursday, TikTok rolled out a change to its livestream policies and what hosts are allowed to do for “Surprise Sets.” (It’s a policy update that TikTok claims was already in the works.) Hosts are no longer allowed to include iPhones, iPads, televisions, diamonds, gift cards, or precious metals as part of the prizes available for viewers to win during surprise auctions. Following this rule change, hosts seem to be following the new guidelines, with no iPhones appearing in livestream “Surprise Sets” seen by WIRED.

“TikTok Shop requires all sellers, including those running Surprise Sets, to accurately present what is being offered. We will take enforcement action on violations of our policies, including removing products and suspending accounts,” TikTok spokesperson Ben Rathe said in a statement to WIRED. If a buyer feels like they were misled, they can reach out to TikTok’s customer support to review the purchase.

#TikTok #Shoppers #Thought #Bidding #iPhones #Won #Teddy #Bearstiktok,gambling,livestreaming,social media

A TikTok livestream host waves an iPhone box in front of the camera as around 250 viewers place their bids.

“This could be yours, chat,” the host says. “Wake it up.” The host’s face is hidden from view, with just their hands visible in front of stacks of iPhone, iPad, and MacBook boxes. The TikTok auction starts at $1. As the timer counts down, the price quickly shoots up, with a bid of over $100 scoring the win. After the bidding closes, a digital prize wheel appears and spins through multiple possible products before landing on what the high bidder just won: a teddy bear.

The winner was pissed. “I just paid $147 for a stuffed animal,” they wrote in the stream’s chatlog. “When I was bidding, you said that I could win that iPhone, and it gave me a BB3 Zodiac,” they said, referring to the Labubu-style plushie that retails for about $20. “That’s a scam. Please return my money.”

This person was not alone in their frustration. Multiple viewers of the stream were outraged when they placed high bids hoping to score Apple devices, only to learn their reward was the chance to spin a digital prize wheel that landed on something cheap. “Man, hell no. This is false advertising. Why would I pay $55 for a damn charger?” wrote another angry bidder. “Calling my bank now.” The demand for refunds was a common refrain.

This is all part of TikTok’s feature, called a “Surprise Set,” where auction hosts create buckets of up to 500 products and whoever bids the most walks away with a random pick from the available prizes. These streams often include a few big ticket items, like iPhones and iPads, to lure viewers in. The rest of the items are less desirable, like charging cords and pencil cases. This feature was added late last year to the platform and remains an invitation-only feature for sellers on TikTok.

Many of the streaming set-ups for these TikTok “Surprise Sets” look very similar: a pile of expensive products is shown on screen, with different hosts rallying a couple hundred concurrent viewers to bid higher and higher amounts. If a viewer taps on a small button in the lower left corner of the screen, they can see the live probability of winning each item as well as the full list of what items are still available.

The popularity of “Surprise Sets” on TikTok are emblematic of how gambling-like interactions currently dominate the experience of going online, where prediction markets and sports betting reign. People can even wager on the outcome of reality TV shows.

WIRED reached out to TikTok for comment on Wednesday of last week to share examples of frustrated viewers who felt scammed. One day later on Thursday, TikTok rolled out a change to its livestream policies and what hosts are allowed to do for “Surprise Sets.” (It’s a policy update that TikTok claims was already in the works.) Hosts are no longer allowed to include iPhones, iPads, televisions, diamonds, gift cards, or precious metals as part of the prizes available for viewers to win during surprise auctions. Following this rule change, hosts seem to be following the new guidelines, with no iPhones appearing in livestream “Surprise Sets” seen by WIRED.

“TikTok Shop requires all sellers, including those running Surprise Sets, to accurately present what is being offered. We will take enforcement action on violations of our policies, including removing products and suspending accounts,” TikTok spokesperson Ben Rathe said in a statement to WIRED. If a buyer feels like they were misled, they can reach out to TikTok’s customer support to review the purchase.



Source link
#TikTok #Shoppers #Thought #Bidding #iPhones #Won #Teddy #Bears

Previous post

Vince Reduces Q1 Loss Amid Sales Gains, Raises Outlook

Next post

Deadspin | After erupting for 12 runs, Reds hope bats stay hot against Mets <div id=""><section id="0" class=" w-full"><div class="xl:container mx-0 !px-4 py-0 pb-4 !mx-0 !px-0"><img src="https://images.deadspin.com/tr:w-1200,fo-auto/29204191.jpg" srcset="https://images.deadspin.com/tr:w-400,fo-auto/29204191.jpg 400w, https://images.deadspin.com/tr:w-800,fo-auto/29204191.jpg 800w, https://images.deadspin.com/tr:w-1200,fo-auto/29204191.jpg 1200w" alt="Cincinnati Reds third baseman Eugenio Suárez (28) follows through on a grand slam in the second inning of the MLB National League game between the Cincinnati Reds and the New York Mets at Great American Ball Park in Cincinnati on Monday, June 15, 2026." class="w-full" sizes="1200px" fetchpriority="high" loading="eager"/><span class="text-0.8 leading-tight">Cincinnati Reds third baseman Eugenio Suárez (28) follows through on a grand slam in the second inning of the MLB National League game between the Cincinnati Reds and the New York Mets at Great American Ball Park in Cincinnati on Monday, June 15, 2026.<!-- --> <!-- --> </span></div></section><section id="section-1"> <p>The Cincinnati Reds broke out of their offensive slumber Monday night in a 12-0 rout of the visiting New York Mets. The hosts will look to continue that momentum Tuesday night in the second game of a three-game set.</p> </section><section id="section-2"> <p>The Reds, who scored just seven runs in their three-game series against the visiting Arizona Diamondbacks last weekend, put up nine runs in the first two innings vs. New York, their biggest output over the first two innings all season. Cincinnati’s final tally matched the team’s second-highest run output of the season. It was only the third time all year that the Reds put up a double-figure run total.</p> </section><section id="section-3"> <p>Eugenio Suarez was at the center of the explosion, hitting a two-run homer in the first inning and his ninth career grand slam in the second.</p> </section><section id="section-4"> <p>“He’s done it before,” Reds manager Terry Francona said of Suarez’s two career 49-homer seasons, one of them last year. “When you’ve done it before, (you might wonder), ‘Do I have it, do I not have it?’ He’s done it, and normally when it warms up, the good hitters do, too.”</p> </section><section id="section-5"> <p>The banged-up Mets rotation is looking for a boost from the return of Kodai Senga (0-4, 9.00 ERA) on Tuesday. The right-hander will come off the 15-day injured list for the start, having recovered from lumbar spine inflammation and a minor case of ulnar nerve irritation in his pitching arm.</p> </section><section id="section-6"> <p>Senga last pitched for New York on April 26. He went 0-1 with a 4.00 ERA in four rehab appearances for three Mets minor league affiliates. Most recently, he pitched well for Double-A Binghamton on Thursday, throwing 75 pitches and striking out five over six innings of one-hit, one-run ball.</p> </section><br/><section id="section-7"> <p>“He’s ready to go,” Mets manager Carlos Mendoza said. “He’s telling us that he feels 100%. He was on board with, ‘Hey, if you guys want me to go in the minor leagues and pitch again, I’ll do it. But I’m ready to compete at the big-league level.’ So for him to be very vocal about it, it’s a really good sign.”</p> </section> <section id="section-8"> <p>Senga had his best season with the Mets as a rookie in 2023, when he went 12-7 with a 2.98 ERA and made the National League All-Star team.</p> </section><section id="section-9"> <p>New York’s already injury-plagued rotation took another hit Monday when scheduled starter Christian Scott was placed on the injured list with a right hip injury, though the team is hopeful it will be a brief stay on the shelf. Scott has pitched effectively this season, compiling a 2-0 record and a 3.10 ERA in nine starts.</p> </section><section id="section-10"> <p>Tobias Myers took over as the Mets’ Monday starter and was shelled for seven runs on four hits while retiring just four batters.</p> </section><section id="section-11"> <p>On Tuesday, the Reds will start Brady Singer (2-6, 5.61 ERA). The right-hander has experienced a rocky second season in the NL and is riding a personal five-decision losing skid after opening the season 2-1.</p> </section><section id="section-12"> <p>However, Singer showed signs of stability in his latest outing, working six strong innings while giving up just two runs in a no-decision against the host San Diego Padres on Wednesday.</p> </section><section id="section-13"> <p>“Brady has been battling through some mechanical adjustments, but we know the talent is there,” Francona said. “He threw the ball extremely well in his last outing, and we need him to build on that momentum.”</p> </section><br/><section id="section-14"> <p>–Field Level Media</p> </section> </div> #Deadspin #erupting #runs #Reds #hope #bats #stay #hot #Mets

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">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

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
Over the weekend, Google CEO Sundar Pichai faced a small revolt when he delivered his commencement speech at Stanford University, where he earned his graduate degree in materials science and engineering. About 200 students from the graduating class reportedly walked out, while others loudly booed the tech executive.

The focus of the protest was Google’s defense ties — including Project Nimbus, the controversial $1.2 billion contract, shared with Amazon, to provide cloud and AI services to the Israeli military, as well as its relationship with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Student signs included phrases like “ICE SPIES WITH GOOGLE AI” and “GENOCIDE RUNS ON GOOGLE,” as well as “FREE FREE PALESTINE,” a press release associated with the protest notes. Students also waved Palestinian flags and shouted “free Palestine,” online video of the protest shows.

“We are walking out because we refuse to glorify the corporations that fuel this violence and exercise our power to choose differently,” a statement associated with the protest reads.

The walkout was organized by a number of campus activist groups, including Stanford Students for Justice in Palestine, No Tech for Apartheid, and Tech for Liberation. TechCrunch reached out to Google for comment.

As the war in Gaza has raged, Google’s participation in Nimbus has drawn protests from both inside and outside of the company. In 2024, Google fired 28 workers for protesting the contract, although it has continued to suffer internal dissent over the issue since then. It was also recently criticized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which accused it and other companies of “choosing to look the other way” on Israel’s use of their services.

Project Nimbus also enjoys support from Amazon. Microsoft has also been criticized for its support of the Israeli military, although the company restricted the Israeli government’s use of its technology after an investigation found that its cloud services were being used to mass-surveil Palestinians.

The student protest also drew criticism from business leaders online. Vinod Khosla, the billionaire co-founder of Sun Microsystems and one of Silicon Valley’s most prominent venture capitalists, posted on X that the protest was “biased, idiotic, short-sighted and very selfish,” adding that it was selfish because the students “ignored the bottom 3 billion people on this planet that could benefit from AI and they are worried about their misinformed selfish self-interest.”

Pichai’s appearance at Stanford is part of a broader pattern. Speakers at college graduation ceremonies around the country have faced boos when they have attempted to get outgoing college students excited about AI. But rarely has student animus been as targeted as it was with Pichai, directed not at AI hype, but at the specific business decisions made by the company he leads. In general, young people seem to believe that AI is threatening their employment opportunities and may be ruining other parts of society as well.

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

#Sundar #Pichai #faces #boos #walkout #Stanford #graduation #ceremony #Googles #Israel #ICE #ties #TechCrunchGoogle,ICE,Israel,Sundar Pichai">Sundar Pichai faces boos, walkout at Stanford graduation ceremony over Google’s Israel, ICE ties | TechCrunch
Over the weekend, Google CEO Sundar Pichai faced a small revolt when he delivered his commencement speech at Stanford University, where he earned his graduate degree in materials science and engineering. About 200 students from the graduating class reportedly walked out, while others loudly booed the tech executive.

The focus of the protest was Google’s defense ties — including Project Nimbus, the controversial .2 billion contract, shared with Amazon, to provide cloud and AI services to the Israeli military, as well as its relationship with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.







Student signs included phrases like “ICE SPIES WITH GOOGLE AI” and “GENOCIDE RUNS ON GOOGLE,” as well as “FREE FREE PALESTINE,” a press release associated with the protest notes. Students also waved Palestinian flags and shouted “free Palestine,” online video of the protest shows.

“We are walking out because we refuse to glorify the corporations that fuel this violence and exercise our power to choose differently,” a statement associated with the protest reads. 

The walkout was organized by a number of campus activist groups, including Stanford Students for Justice in Palestine, No Tech for Apartheid, and Tech for Liberation. TechCrunch reached out to Google for comment. 

As the war in Gaza has raged, Google’s participation in Nimbus has drawn protests from both inside and outside of the company. In 2024, Google fired 28 workers for protesting the contract, although it has continued to suffer internal dissent over the issue since then. It was also recently criticized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which accused it and other companies of “choosing to look the other way” on Israel’s use of their services.

Project Nimbus also enjoys support from Amazon. Microsoft has also been criticized for its support of the Israeli military, although the company restricted the Israeli government’s use of its technology after an investigation found that its cloud services were being used to mass-surveil Palestinians.


The student protest also drew criticism from business leaders online. Vinod Khosla, the billionaire co-founder of Sun Microsystems and one of Silicon Valley’s most prominent venture capitalists, posted on X that the protest was “biased, idiotic, short-sighted and very selfish,” adding that it was selfish because the students “ignored the bottom 3 billion people on this planet that could benefit from AI and they are worried about their misinformed selfish self-interest.”

Pichai’s appearance at Stanford is part of a broader pattern. Speakers at college graduation ceremonies around the country have faced boos when they have attempted to get outgoing college students excited about AI. But rarely has student animus been as targeted as it was with Pichai, directed not at AI hype, but at the specific business decisions made by the company he leads. In general, young people seem to believe that AI is threatening their employment opportunities and may be ruining other parts of society as well.
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.#Sundar #Pichai #faces #boos #walkout #Stanford #graduation #ceremony #Googles #Israel #ICE #ties #TechCrunchGoogle,ICE,Israel,Sundar Pichai

reportedly walked out, while others loudly booed the tech executive.

The focus of the protest was Google’s defense ties — including Project Nimbus, the controversial $1.2 billion contract, shared with Amazon, to provide cloud and AI services to the Israeli military, as well as its relationship with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Student signs included phrases like “ICE SPIES WITH GOOGLE AI” and “GENOCIDE RUNS ON GOOGLE,” as well as “FREE FREE PALESTINE,” a press release associated with the protest notes. Students also waved Palestinian flags and shouted “free Palestine,” online video of the protest shows.

“We are walking out because we refuse to glorify the corporations that fuel this violence and exercise our power to choose differently,” a statement associated with the protest reads.

The walkout was organized by a number of campus activist groups, including Stanford Students for Justice in Palestine, No Tech for Apartheid, and Tech for Liberation. TechCrunch reached out to Google for comment.

As the war in Gaza has raged, Google’s participation in Nimbus has drawn protests from both inside and outside of the company. In 2024, Google fired 28 workers for protesting the contract, although it has continued to suffer internal dissent over the issue since then. It was also recently criticized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which accused it and other companies of “choosing to look the other way” on Israel’s use of their services.

Project Nimbus also enjoys support from Amazon. Microsoft has also been criticized for its support of the Israeli military, although the company restricted the Israeli government’s use of its technology after an investigation found that its cloud services were being used to mass-surveil Palestinians.

The student protest also drew criticism from business leaders online. Vinod Khosla, the billionaire co-founder of Sun Microsystems and one of Silicon Valley’s most prominent venture capitalists, posted on X that the protest was “biased, idiotic, short-sighted and very selfish,” adding that it was selfish because the students “ignored the bottom 3 billion people on this planet that could benefit from AI and they are worried about their misinformed selfish self-interest.”

Pichai’s appearance at Stanford is part of a broader pattern. Speakers at college graduation ceremonies around the country have faced boos when they have attempted to get outgoing college students excited about AI. But rarely has student animus been as targeted as it was with Pichai, directed not at AI hype, but at the specific business decisions made by the company he leads. In general, young people seem to believe that AI is threatening their employment opportunities and may be ruining other parts of society as well.

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

#Sundar #Pichai #faces #boos #walkout #Stanford #graduation #ceremony #Googles #Israel #ICE #ties #TechCrunchGoogle,ICE,Israel,Sundar Pichai">Sundar Pichai faces boos, walkout at Stanford graduation ceremony over Google’s Israel, ICE ties | TechCrunch

Over the weekend, Google CEO Sundar Pichai faced a small revolt when he delivered his commencement speech at Stanford University, where he earned his graduate degree in materials science and engineering. About 200 students from the graduating class reportedly walked out, while others loudly booed the tech executive.

The focus of the protest was Google’s defense ties — including Project Nimbus, the controversial $1.2 billion contract, shared with Amazon, to provide cloud and AI services to the Israeli military, as well as its relationship with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Student signs included phrases like “ICE SPIES WITH GOOGLE AI” and “GENOCIDE RUNS ON GOOGLE,” as well as “FREE FREE PALESTINE,” a press release associated with the protest notes. Students also waved Palestinian flags and shouted “free Palestine,” online video of the protest shows.

“We are walking out because we refuse to glorify the corporations that fuel this violence and exercise our power to choose differently,” a statement associated with the protest reads.

The walkout was organized by a number of campus activist groups, including Stanford Students for Justice in Palestine, No Tech for Apartheid, and Tech for Liberation. TechCrunch reached out to Google for comment.

As the war in Gaza has raged, Google’s participation in Nimbus has drawn protests from both inside and outside of the company. In 2024, Google fired 28 workers for protesting the contract, although it has continued to suffer internal dissent over the issue since then. It was also recently criticized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which accused it and other companies of “choosing to look the other way” on Israel’s use of their services.

Project Nimbus also enjoys support from Amazon. Microsoft has also been criticized for its support of the Israeli military, although the company restricted the Israeli government’s use of its technology after an investigation found that its cloud services were being used to mass-surveil Palestinians.

The student protest also drew criticism from business leaders online. Vinod Khosla, the billionaire co-founder of Sun Microsystems and one of Silicon Valley’s most prominent venture capitalists, posted on X that the protest was “biased, idiotic, short-sighted and very selfish,” adding that it was selfish because the students “ignored the bottom 3 billion people on this planet that could benefit from AI and they are worried about their misinformed selfish self-interest.”

Pichai’s appearance at Stanford is part of a broader pattern. Speakers at college graduation ceremonies around the country have faced boos when they have attempted to get outgoing college students excited about AI. But rarely has student animus been as targeted as it was with Pichai, directed not at AI hype, but at the specific business decisions made by the company he leads. In general, young people seem to believe that AI is threatening their employment opportunities and may be ruining other parts of society as well.

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

#Sundar #Pichai #faces #boos #walkout #Stanford #graduation #ceremony #Googles #Israel #ICE #ties #TechCrunchGoogle,ICE,Israel,Sundar Pichai

Post Comment