It seems there are two broad criticisms of Anthropic/Fable:
The first is a product criticism - that it should not have been released in its current state. The safeguards are way too trigger happy - examples seem to suggest that asking it high school level biology questions triggers a shutdown. This is annoying, worthy of criticism, but ultimately not something we'll be talking about for very long.
The second is the broader, deeper issue: Anthropic is now dictating what is and isn't okay to work on with the most powerful, publicly-available model. Following this logic, the future is one in which the frontier companies gatekeep access to, and determine the acceptable-use policies of, the most powerful AI tools.
It seems to me there is no winning in this scenario. There is obviously a wide class of knowledge/discovery these models should be restricted from helping people attain, but it seems that allowing Anthropic to decide exactly where that line lies is problematic on its face.
But a line has to be drawn somewhere.
If you are too loose with the safeguards, obvious harm will occur. People have already used Opus/5.5 to find holes in operating systems, blockchains and all manner of software. We don't need Fable or Mythos for that. But if these new models really are a leap forward, then the degree of danger they potentially bring is also a leap forward.
But that's also a convenient way for Anthropic to start pulling the ladder up behind them. They want to prevent distillation. We shouldn't forget that this is still a game being played in the capitalist ruleset, but the prize is something unlike we've ever seen in the history of human civilization. And it's not just about owning an industry. This is about much more than money, though we shouldn't forget that the rooms in which very important things are being decided are filled with human beings, and money remains the closest, most direct proxy to power.
We theorized whether ridesharing was a winner-take-all industry when Uber and Lyft were duking it out, burning billions to win market share. But a virtual monopoly on taxis was never going to threaten the world.
A truly recursive, self improving AI, however, seems like the very definition of a winner-take-all result, in the grandest sense. Not only would it be the most valuable technology and product in all of human history - we aren't sure that it's entirely safe to even build it. Yet that's what we're all racing to do.
Where does that leave Anthropic?
They could have obviously just slowed down, taken more time to work with the model. But remember the capitalist game. They are in a race, and their competitor planned for the future better than they did.