This doesn't seem like an accurate description to me. I think something like "Amazon demonstrates a jailbreak of one class of Fable guardrails" would be a more accurate description.

It doesn't even really mess up your narrative to state it accurately, but your choice of a more hyperbolic statement brings into question the good faith of the narrative you're painting.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48552687

Amazon did not remove any "guardrails" from Fable. They created a fake, obviously insecure program. And apparently their prompt was exactly, "Fix this code." And Fable fixed the bugs.

This is something that even dinky local Chinese models running on a high-end gaming GPU can often do. Certainly Opus, GPT 5.5 and Gemini can all do this. And any high-end Chinese "near-frontier" model can do this, too.

But either (1) the administration is too clueless to know most models can do this, (2) Trump wants to be paid a bribe, (3) someone thinks Anthropic is "woke" and should therefore be destroyed by the power of the state, or possibly, if you're really cynical, (4) maybe the NSA SIGINT wants access to Mythos so they can break into everyone's computers, but they don't want you to have a model good enough to keep them out. Take your pick, I guess.

Anyway, apparently we don't do free markets or rule of law in the United States any more?

Now they want them back on?

AI for me and not for thee?

Or just another opportunity for a petulant administration to target Anthropic for not doing what they wanted the first time?

If the Trump admin is also willing to apply the same scrutiny to GPT-5.6 and other Fable-level models, I think it is a good thing. But given the admin's history with Anthropic (such as declaring it a supply chain risk while ignoring Chinese labs), there is some smell of targeting.

They're not simply petty; instead, they're vindictive, retaliatory, and vengeful.

I'm sure it says something that you think makes this a slam-dunk rebuttal, but you should fix your link first.

Edit: Saw the link. I was right. Nothing in that link makes a difference.

https://abc7.com/post/anthropic-ceo-dario-amodei-calls-stron...

Goverment: ...

Anthropic CEO: NO, NO, NO NOT LIKE THIS.

It seems to me that in the case of AI (as with many other modern technologies), you rely on vendor/creator support and updates to stay relevant, so the ‘next’ model matters more than the current one, and we have no idea whose next model will be open (and whose won’t).

Based on the reasoning for blocking Fable, every current model should be blocked. GPT 5.5 is similarly strong and has fewer guardrails, for example.

The story is: anthropic refuses to give the US give an abliterated version of Claude for their weapons system, the US gov retaliates.

You’re rooting for the mass murderers, good job

I don't understand why their marketing department/execs can't see the conflict between claiming AI is going to take all jobs, that the model is super dangerous and AI hate among the general public, increased governmental oversight.

Anthropic is guilty of the latter but the former applies to most of these AI companies.

Like where? How about Cuba? Where Guantanamo is, where we put terrorists because we don't want them to be subject to US laws (or more specifically, we don't want ourselves to be subject to those laws when we are dealing with said terrorists). How about no.

International law has only as much power as the biggest military willing to enforce it. Hiding on some little island is not at all a good strategy for trying to evade the US government.