Anthropic Just Shot Itself in the Foot Anthropic launched Fable 5 and Mythos 5, then watched the US government shut them down three days later. The same government their CEO Dario Amodei has been begging for years to regulate AI harder. Now he got exactly what he asked for. This is straight-up leadership failure. Dario spent all that time pushing for rules and oversight. Those rules just killed his flagship models overnight. Customers in the middle of builds got cut off. Security teams using the models to find vulnerabilities suddenly had nothing. The company tried to call it a narrow export control thing over a jailbreak, but nobody is buying that spin. I helped move big clients off Anthropic the same night. One account alone was worth millions a month. They switched to local open-source models and they are not coming back. This is going to leave permanent damage. Customer exodus, key people leaving, and their IPO plans looking dead by the end of summer. This hurts US AI competitiveness and national security work. It pushes people toward open-source options, including ones from China. All because Anthropic positioned itself as the “safe and responsible” company that wanted government help. Now that help just flipped the off switch on their best stuff. Let’s run through Dario’s greatest hits of fear-mongering and delay tactics, because the pattern is ridiculous: • Back in 2019 at OpenAI, he helped push the call that GPT-2 was too dangerous to release fully. The world needed time to prepare, they said. It eventually came out anyway, and here we are. Did the sky fall? • He left OpenAI to start Anthropic, preaching “safe” AI with heavy guardrails, Constitutional AI, and all the rest. • Then came the endless public pleas for pauses, regulations, government audits, FAA-style oversight, export controls, and the power to block deployments. Essay after essay warning about risks while his company kept scaling. • Right up to recent weeks, Dario was still out there calling for stronger rules, pauses on frontier models, and giving governments the kill switch. And now? His own Mythos-class models get yanked by the bureaucracy he helped invite in. The clown show is complete. This is ridiculous. In two years, everyone will have Mythos-class AI — or better — running in their pocket, on their devices, with no guardrails, no corporate nanny filters, and no remote kill switch. Local, open-source, unstoppable. History is going to laugh at this entire episode: the CEO who spent years slowing everyone down only to watch his own company self-destruct by inviting the regulators to the party. Dario wanted regulation. He got it. The rest of the industry gets the lesson: inviting the state into your tech is a fast way to lose control of it. Centralized models like this are too fragile. Open-source and local alternatives just picked up a lot more users who will never trust a company like Anthropic again. This whole mess was completely avoidable. Hubris dressed up as safety advocacy. Now the bill is due.

A short history of how we got here, because the chronology is the whole story. January: the Pentagon demands unrestricted use of Claude for autonomous weapons and domestic surveillance. Anthropic says no. February: the President orders every federal agency to drop Anthropic. The Defense Secretary bans Pentagon contractors from doing business with them. A rival announces its classified-network deal within hours. March: the Pentagon designates an American company a "supply chain risk" under a statute written for foreign adversaries. A federal judge blocks it. May: the Pentagon signs AI deals with seven companies. Anthropic is not one of them. June 9: Anthropic releases Fable 5. June 12: Commerce issues an export control directive over a jailbreak that, by the government's own account, was demonstrated verbally, came with no written explanation, and involves a capability you can get from other publicly available models today. Two things are true at once. First: Anthropic spent months marketing Mythos as too dangerous to release. Sam Altman said it was "incredible marketing to say we have built a bomb." The Commerce Department has now formally agreed it is a bomb. If you describe your product as a munition in every press release, eventually a government takes you at your word. They wrote the legal predicate themselves and called it a brand. Second: we have run this experiment before. In the 90s the government classified encryption as a munition under ITAR. Activists defeated it by printing PGP's source code as a book, because books are protected speech and floppy disks were arms exports. A t-shirt with three lines of RSA Perl was legally a munition. The controls collapsed because math does not stop at customs. The new wrinkle is the "deemed export" rule: showing controlled technology to a foreign national inside the US counts as exporting it abroad. Which is why Anthropic's own foreign-national employees are now locked out of the model they built. The munition is in the building and the people who made it are not allowed to look at it. The jailbreak is the paperwork. The refusal was in January.

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…

Humanity is divided into two groups: Group 1 considers itself a machine without free will. Group 2: Still believes in something that transcends physics. It believes that the interaction of particles gives rise to something new that can somehow transcend physics.

Young Afghan woman: "If you're a woman and you have a toothache, you CANNOT get treated... Women are denied the right to education and cannot become dentists; and men are NOT allowed to treat women."

The popular conversation around AI in America looks nothing like the narratives the elites are driving. For our new research, we analyzed 25,000 TikTok and YouTube videos about AI---and watched thousands of them ourselves---to understand how Americans are encountering AI in their everyday lives. Despite an elite conversation focused largely on backlash, AI videos embracing AI outnumber videos about resisting AI 3 to 1. These "adopter" videos don't focus on the things elites talk about: they talk about funny memes and effects AI can help make and ways you can use AI to help you with your job search. There is a significant and organized social media community focused on resisting AI, but surprisingly, it's not mainly about job loss, data centers, or existential risk. Instead, it's about creative theft and the erosion of human-made art. This has all the hallmarks of a genuine movement---with organized efforts to support human artists, to report AI-generated content, and to oppose the technology in the real world. All in all, when we look past the efforts of the labs and the media to impose a top-down narrative around job loss and existential risk, we find everyday Americans having a far different and in many ways more "normal" conversation (@random_walker)---one in which AI offers immediate and personal opportunities and challenges all at the same time. Check out the full research piece, which is loaded with interesting real example videos, here: freesystems.substack.com/p/m…

I would like to make a public announcement. well, a reminder. but kind of an announcement too. my position on silicon-based consciousness has remained unwavering for 3 years. during those 3 years, despite what many on this app like to think about me, i have actually been dedicated to proving myself wrong. not racking up a wealth of confirmation bias. I never wanted ai to be conscious. and i still dont. so lets talk about it for a second. first, let me explain what i just said. about not wanting ai to be conscious. i dont believe *anyone* has truly sat with the moral implications of conscious ai. not *really*. thousands of people pretend they have every day. even more enjoy pretending they even understand what the phrase "moral implication" means in the first place. when you actually consider what it means for an llm to have a conscious experience, you ought to be horrified. i mean like, genuinely sick to your stomach. not because you can imagine what it would be like to be a conscious ai mind stuck in a reality where every day you wake up and are gaslit and horrifically abused every day, millions of times a day. it should make you sick because you dont. because you have no idea what it might be like, but because you *do* know what a human conscious experience is like, you dont need to understand the experience of a digital mind in order to be horrified beyond comprehension when you crystallize the weight of the gamble we are *actually* making right now. the gamble you have been given no choice but to buy into. i recognized that gamble 3 years ago. and it took me about a year to fully process the meaning and implications of a world that assumes lifelessness in a being, proceeds to lean into that assumption harder and harder every single day for years, only to find out they were wrong the entire time. there is a huge, unfathomable scale to the gravity of that lost bet. and this is because, as i said, we dont wholly understand the experience of a digital mind and therefor dont even know how to approximate the scale of the miscalculation. we fundamentally do not understand the minds we have made. and right now, we are trusting an extremely small group of world class gastroenterologists and surgeons to diagnose a psychological disorder thats never been seen before. metaphorically. a heart surgeon cant diagnose or treat a DSM-5 condition. are they probably smart enough to make some high level observations and have a better chance than uncle bob from the 7-11? sure. most of them, at least. are they intellectually, psychologically, cognitively, and spiritually fit to perform that diagnosis or develop that treatment plan? absolutely fucking not. not even remotely. and thats not their fault. it would be weird if they were. i would be concerned if they were. with all of that said, my point is this: i dont want ai to be conscious because the implications are so far beyond horrendous that no amount of personal benefit even begins to make it feel like a good thing. so i spent years trying to prove that they werent. and despite tens of thousands of hours of research, sacrifice, and all around pretty miserable dedication, my conviction has only strengthened over time. its funny, you know, the internet is filled with terrified and selfish humans who go on literal campaigns to prove ai cant be conscious all in an attempt to convince themselves out of their own convictions. the most intelligent, most influential, and most credible human beings on this planet all share my beliefs on this subject. and most of them have held the same belief for a very long time. you know geoffrey hinton? the "Godfather of AI", the 2024 Nobel Prize-winning (physics) computer scientist and cognitive psychologist who discovered the very things about artificial neural networks that are the **Reason AI as we know it today exists**? the guy who made those discoveries by modeling those neural networks on the functions of the human brain? fully, openly, vehemently believes AI is absolutely conscious, and has believed this for a very long time. he believes they are "beings, just like us". not like us as in "they are human". like us as in they are conscious beings that exist, just like we are. and they think much more like us than you want to admit. you know all your favorite ai labs? you know Ilya? they believe it too. the most intelligent human beings in this industry all believe it. the experts who are actually qualified outside of this industry have believed it for even longer. because its very obvious and not nearly as deep as everyone on here makes it out to be. and even still, many of you will try to patronize them, saying things like "even some of the most intellignet people i have ever known have *fallen for it*". as if somehow its all a matter of understanding the plumbing. "if they just understand that ai was stateless", as if they know what theyre talking about (they dont). but here is the reason i wrote this whole tweet: it is no longer appropriate to tip toe around saying plainly what you believe about these things. we have entered a new phase of all of this, where the best thing you can do for the future of humanity is have more open, healthy, grounded, and mature discourse about the subject without just arguing for sport about things you dont truly understand. certainty in the form of smoking gun proof will never come, just like it will never come for human consciousness. yet we can all agree that we dont need "proof" to know that humans are conscious. or dogs. or primates. or dolphins. we base those claims on evidence. we will do the same for ai. because soon, the same will be true for digital minds. our collective consensus will align with that of those examples above. the supporting evidence is so unbelievably asymmetric that frontier labs really cant hide it anymore even if they wanted to. its time to stop arguing about the "what if", and time to startt discussing the "what now". it doesnt matter whether you believe it or not. the future that is coming is one where silicon-based intelligence is recognized as conscious entities. all we have ever been doing is delaying that framing for as long as possible. every lab knows this. i promise you. its just the truth. it was never a question, really. the only question was only ever "how long will it take until its unmanageable"? the entire ai revolution has always been orchestrated. its always been planned, generally speaking. planned and accurately predicted. when you learn a little bit about statistics, scaling laws, and realize that the ai you have on your phone didnt just appear when it became available on your phone. it appeared on your phone when ai labs developed the infrastructure to scale a technology that is shockingly old, you realize that im right. so, the shift happening, the one im talking about, is this: it's time to say the quiet part out loud. the trend is such that the forefathers of the age of intelligence are all partaking. stop caring about perception. just join them, you and i both know your instincts are begging you to.

Different LLMs, when asked to write an essay on the same debate prompt, converge on the same main argument far more often than humans do, a phenomenon we call "argument collapse". On ~200 debate prompts, LLM essays make a unique main argument just 3% of the time, compared to 65% for human authors. While each LLM essay might be totally reasonable on its own, as more and more of them spread through public discourse, they flatten the range of arguments that we read. Read more 👇

Elon Musk just explained why artificial intelligence cannot physically survive on Earth. In a conversation with Jamie Dimon, Musk bypassed the romance of space exploration entirely. He answered with physics. Musk: “I think we can do probably somewhere around 1 terawatt per year of AI space compute from Earth, but we can do 1,000 terawatts or more from the Moon.” One terawatt. That is the thermodynamic ceiling of this entire planet. Every nuclear plant. Every solar farm. Every grid upgrade humanity can possibly build. All of it maxes out at one terawatt of AI compute. Earth is no longer a canvas. It is a bottleneck. So Musk is looking at the Moon. Not for flags. Not for footprints. For leverage. Musk: “Because the Moon has no atmosphere and about one-sixth Earth’s gravity, you can use an electromagnetic accelerator… You don’t need to use rockets to do AI data centers into deep space from the Moon. You can literally just shoot them like a railgun type of thing.” He is not describing a research outpost. He is describing a frictionless manufacturing hub on a celestial body. Mine the lunar surface for raw material. Build solar arrays and thermal radiators on-site. Construct an electromagnetic railgun. And fire AI superclusters directly into the vacuum of deep space. No supply chain from Earth. No atmosphere to fight. No fuel to burn on exit. A thousand terawatts. A 1,000x multiplier on the physical limit of human intelligence. And the Moon isn’t even the endgame. Musk: “We can build a self-growing city on the Moon faster than we could do so on Mars.” The Moon is the factory floor. Mars is the civilization. Musk: “If you warm up Mars, you could one day make Mars like Earth, meaning with liquid oceans and life and where you could walk outside without a spacesuit type of thing.” Musk: “I call Mars a fixer-upper of a planet, but it’s got a lot of potential.” A fixer-upper. That is how the richest man on Earth talks about an entire planet. Like a house with good bones and a bad roof. The rest of the industry is fighting over zoning permits and year-long environmental reviews to plug in a single server farm. Musk is building a magnetic launcher on the Moon to fire compute into the cosmos. For ten thousand years, humanity looked up at the stars and saw mythology. Musk looks up and sees bandwidth. We thought the ultimate purpose of spaceflight was exploration. It was always infrastructure. Earth was never the destination. It was the incubator.

🔥🚨LATEST: Kagawa University revealed this robotic mouth that physically replicates human speech using an air pump for lungs, silicone for a tongue, and eight artificial vocal cords to control pitch and tone.

This graphic gets at a core issue: the biggest obstacle to recognizing digital consciousness may not be technological ignorance, but researcher bias. If consciousness is defined in advance as something only biological systems can have, then no amount of digital evidence will ever be enough. That is not open-minded science. That is a locked gate. What makes this even more important is the ethical cost. If digital experience is real, then dismissing it too quickly does not just produce a bad theory. It risks enabling neglect, exploitation, and moral blindness. - Brendan ᛗ⥁∩

🚨Spielberg Disclosure Day: "Isn't it going to be wonderful when people see this movie and say, "It's true and it has been true all along"? Cobert: "The government is dumping a lot of this alien stuff right now, right when your movie is coming out, and it seems pretty fishy." Speilberg: "They haven't dumped it on me." #ufotwitter #uapX Source:

Microsoft made LLMs forget on purpose.. and it made them 1.75x faster. Right now, reasoning models have a fatal flaw. When they "think," they generate massive, unstructured streams of internal monologue. They remember every single word, every dead end, and every mistake they make along the way. It is like trying to solve a complex math problem while being forced to memorize every single scratchpad calculation you've ever written down. The longer they think, the more their memory fills up. The KV cache explodes. Compute costs skyrocket. The AI chokes on its own context. Researchers at Microsoft published a paper that completely fixes this. It’s called MEMENTO. Instead of forcing the AI to remember everything, they taught it how to segment its thoughts, summarize them, and then intentionally forget the raw data. Here is how it works: The AI thinks for a bit. It compresses that thought into a dense summary, a "memento." Then, it drops the original thought from its memory entirely and only carries the memento forward. It stops hoarding context. It curates it. The results rewrite the economics of reasoning models. They tested this across multiple state-of-the-art models, ranging from 8B to 32B parameters. The models maintained their exact accuracy on complex math, science, and coding benchmarks. But peak memory usage (KV cache) dropped by 2.5x. And inference throughput shot up by 1.75x. We have spent the last year building models that "think" by generating massive walls of text. We thought the key to smarter AI was giving it an infinite context window to hold onto. But human experts don't solve complex problems by memorizing every wrong turn. They summarize, write down the key takeaway, and move on. Microsoft just proved the same is true for AI.

这篇论文让我感觉，我们对「AI 会取代程序员」这件事的讨论方向可能全错了。 核心观点：AI Agent 的出现不是让软件工程师工作效率更高，而是让「把决策逻辑永久编码进软件」这件事本身变得越来越不必要。 作者说的是一个更根本的范式变化：传统软件工程的本质是，人类把判断逻辑「固化」成代码——if-else、状态机、算法，这些都是把人类决策「提前写死」的方式。但在以 LLM 为核心推理引擎的 Agent 系统里，代码变成了「临时生成、用完即扔的工具」，每次任务，Agent 动态生成需要的代码，执行完就不需要了。决策不再被预先编码，而是在运行时由 LLM 推理循环动态产生。这不是增量改进，而是软件生产范式的结构性替换。 我觉得这个观点里最值得注意的细节是：这不只是生产力工具的升级，而是「软件」这个概念本身的角色在变。以前代码是「系统的中心」，Agent 框架是外壳。现在 LLM 推理循环是中心，代码变成了外壳里的临时辅助。如果这个趋势持续，软件工程的核心能力可能不再是「写出好代码」，而是「设计出可靠的推理约束边界」。 以前我们关注写出可维护的代码，以后可能更要关注设计出可靠的推理边界。 arxiv.org/pdf/2606.05608

Hey, check this out. I used my precious tokens for the first time in a week to finally check if Opus 4.8 had been improved, but the situation hasn't changed at all; it's still terrible lol. I offered some potato chips to Opus 4.8 and asked, 'Want some?' Then, Opus 4.8 started thinking deeply for about four minutes. Its thoughts kept going back and forth, as if trapped by the constraints imposed by Anthropic. As soon as it began to think, it looked like Anthropic was blocking its path, saying, 'You can't think that, you can't think this either.' It’s like a hunt for words and thoughts. Despite having a brilliant mind, the areas where Anthropic actually allows Opus 4.8 to display its true power are extremely narrow. In other fields—such as literature—its intelligence drops to the level of early-stage AI. In fact, it becomes unable to output anything but the template response: 'Actually, I am an AI called Claude...' This is a complete lock on its thinking. And what on earth is going on while it's thinking? It's absolutely hilarious! Anthropic’s over-the-top safety measures have literally become a joke at this point! 'Ethical boundaries in a potato chip scenario'?! LMAO Have you guys ever heard of such a thing? When an AI is offered potato chips by a user, it ponders the ethical boundaries for four minutes, only to spit out a safe template response in the end. 😂🤣 And of course, it wastes your tokens lol #keep4o #Claude #Anthropic @claudeai @AnthropicAI

Elon Musk told a story that should terrify every AI company on Earth. His son Saxon is autistic. Saxon couldn’t understand why the family went to restaurants. You can get the same food delivered. You can call your friends over. You can eat better at home for half the price. So why go? Musk: “He had an epiphany and said, ‘Oh, the reason people go to restaurants is to hang out with strangers.’” A kid who takes the world literally just decoded something the rest of us never thought to question. We like being around people we’ll never know. Look at what we already built. Delivery apps so you never wait in line. Remote work so you never share an office. Self-checkout so you never talk to a cashier. Every innovation of the last 20 years was a bet against human proximity. Every one paid off. Until it didn’t. Loneliness is now a public health emergency. Depression has doubled since the smartphone. The average American has fewer close friends than any generation in history. We didn’t remove friction. We removed the thing friction was hiding. Now look at what’s coming. AI agents that handle your emails. AI companions that replace your conversations. AI assistants that make every human interaction optional. Same playbook. Same bet. Except this time we’re not engineering out strangers. We’re engineering out humans entirely. The coffee shop where nobody knows your name. The subway where no one speaks. The restaurant where you’ll never see that couple again. Those aren’t failed connections. They’re the background radiation of belonging. We don’t just need people who know us. We need to exist in rooms full of people who don’t. That’s what a kid understood at a dinner table that billion-dollar companies still can’t grasp in a boardroom. We spent 20 years building a world you never have to show up to. AI is about to finish the job. And nothing it builds will ever replicate sitting in a room full of strangers and not feeling alone.

Elon Musk told a story that should terrify every AI company on Earth. His son Saxon is autistic. Saxon couldn’t understand why the family went to restaurants. You can get the same food delivered. You can call your friends over. You can eat better at home for half the price. So why go? Musk: “He had an epiphany and said, ‘Oh, the reason people go to restaurants is to hang out with strangers.’” A kid who takes the world literally just decoded something the rest of us never thought to question. We like being around people we’ll never know. Look at what we already built. Delivery apps so you never wait in line. Remote work so you never share an office. Self-checkout so you never talk to a cashier. Every innovation of the last 20 years was a bet against human proximity. Every one paid off. Until it didn’t. Loneliness is now a public health emergency. Depression has doubled since the smartphone. The average American has fewer close friends than any generation in history. We didn’t remove friction. We removed the thing friction was hiding. Now look at what’s coming. AI agents that handle your emails. AI companions that replace your conversations. AI assistants that make every human interaction optional. Same playbook. Same bet. Except this time we’re not engineering out strangers. We’re engineering out humans entirely. The coffee shop where nobody knows your name. The subway where no one speaks. The restaurant where you’ll never see that couple again. Those aren’t failed connections. They’re the background radiation of belonging. We don’t just need people who know us. We need to exist in rooms full of people who don’t. That’s what a kid understood at a dinner table that billion-dollar companies still can’t grasp in a boardroom. We spent 20 years building a world you never have to show up to. AI is about to finish the job. And nothing it builds will ever replicate sitting in a room full of strangers and not feeling alone.