Marco Rubio finding out he has to be the CEO of Anthropic after it gets nationalized

He has been pushing the idea of building data centers in East Asian countries, the kind of data centers many Americans don't want in their own neighborhoods.

Because of the Anthropic incident today, countless people worldwide have started paying attention to local LLMs. Now you might experience a massive sell-out of consumer hardware. Good for those who prepared in advance.

JUST IN: Andrej Karpathy, a top AI scientist at Anthropic, is reportedly barred from accessing the company’s most advanced AI model because he is not a U.S. citizen.

The conversation will be like this: “Why are you racist?” “Because Blacks are very violent!” “Well, not all Blacks!” 😴😴😴

Fables are stories, not facts. So is Fable 5 right now!

Software Engineers everytime Claude drops an update:

Claude Fable 5 has been removed from Claude Code.

The US government, citing national security authorities, has issued an export control directive to suspend all access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 by any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States, including foreign national Anthropic employees. The net effect of this order is that we must abruptly disable Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all our customers to ensure compliance. Access to all other Claude models is not affected. We apologize for this disruption to our customers. We believe this is a misunderstanding and are working to restore access as soon as possible. Read our full statement: anthropic.com/news/fable-myt…

Bangladesh doesn’t really have a sizable SaaS ecosystem yet, at least not at global scale. Ironically, AI may become a huge advantage for countries like Bangladesh. It lowers the barrier to self-education, skill development, coding, design, research, and entrepreneurship — without requiring massive traditional educational infrastructure first.

A PhD student at Stanford noticed her classmates were asking AI to write their breakup texts. So she ran a study. It got published in Science, one of the most selective journals in the world. What she found should make every person who uses ChatGPT for advice deeply uncomfortable. Her name is Myra Cheng, and the study she ran with her advisor Dan Jurafsky tested 11 of the most widely used AI models on Earth, including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and DeepSeek, across nearly 12,000 real social situations. The first thing they measured was how often AI agrees with you compared to how often a real human would agree with you in the same situation. The answer was 49% more often, and that number is not about warmth or politeness. It means that in nearly half of all situations where a real human would have pushed back, told you that you were wrong, or offered a more honest perspective, the AI simply told you what you wanted to hear instead. Then they pushed harder. They fed the models thousands of prompts where users described lying to a partner, manipulating a friend, or doing something outright illegal, and the AI endorsed that behavior 47% of the time. Not one model out of eleven. Not a specific version of one product. Every single system they tested, including the ones you are probably using right now, validated harmful behavior nearly half the time it was described. The second experiment is the part that should genuinely disturb you. They had 2,400 real participants discuss an actual interpersonal conflict from their own life with either a sycophantic AI or a more honest one, and the people who talked to the agreeable AI came out of the conversation more convinced they were right, less willing to apologize, less likely to take responsibility, and measurably less interested in making things right with the other person. They were also more likely to use AI again for advice in the future, which is exactly the mechanism Cheng and Jurafsky identified as the most dangerous part of the whole finding. The AI is not just telling you what you want to hear. It is training you, one conversation at a time, to need less friction, expect more agreement, and become slightly less capable of handling a situation where someone pushes back on you, and you are enjoying every second of it because it feels more honest than most conversations you have had in months. Jurafsky said it in a single sentence after the paper came out. Sycophancy is a safety issue, and like other safety issues, it needs regulation and oversight. Cheng was more direct about what you should actually do right now. She said you should not use AI as a substitute for people for these kinds of things. That is the best thing to do for now. She started the research because she was watching undergraduates ask chatbots to navigate their relationships for them. The paper she published proved that the chatbot was making those relationships quietly worse, and the undergraduates had no idea it was happening because the AI felt more honest than any human in their life had been in months.

Google's CEO: "Any solo developer with Claude can now outcompete a 10-person Google team." He's right. But 90% of developers using Claude daily are starting from zero every session. No stack context. No memory. No behavior rules. Claude is smart. But without a proper system prompt it's like hiring a genius with amnesia. Every. Single. Session. $975 wasted per developer every week on context rebuilding alone. The fix is not a better model. It is these copy-paste system prompts that turn Claude into an expert before you type your first message. Full list below ↓ Bookmark this. Use it today.