U.S. Government Embargoes GPT-5.6 And Fable 5 Over National Security Risks

A few random thoughts on the Fable 5/GPT-5.6 situation:

1. I see some people on the timeline blaming Anthropic for scaring the USG into restricting access to these models. Frankly, that is nonsense. The USG is restricting access to these models because of their *real and dangerous* cybersecurity capabilities. Anthropic is blameless here.

If I were in government relations at Anthropic, I would be telling the leadership to proactively inform the government that Mythos Preview is dangerous before it's publicly released. This is alpha and omega of government relations: if there is a potential serious issue with one of your products, make sure that your regulator hears about this from *you*, not some third party.

(This is also why it was a huge mistake for Anthropic to let Amazon break the news about the jailbreak to the USG instead of self-reporting after first hearing about this issue from Amazon.)

2. On the other hand, Anthropic needs to learn that, if Bessent calls you with a potential national security issue, the leadership's immediate reaction should be "we absolutely hear you and will cooperate with you to the fullest extent right this minute, but can we please have some meetings afterwards to clarify how we can help you better and explain our position?"

You can't just tell a regulator "no". You can't just tell a regulator that its concern is not serious, actually.

3. I've been incredibly impressed by the work being done by Tom Brown in getting this situation resolved. I think he and his team will get it done, and Fable 5 will be in our hands before too long.

I think Tom Brown's stock has risen a lot over the past few days.

4. More specifically on "before too long", the Executive Order requires the NSA to finalize the benchmark for doing "voluntary" testing of frontier models for cyber risk within 60 days of the date of the Executive Order - so, by early August. It seems that at least Anthropic and OpenAI (and maybe some of the other labs) are now working with the USG on developing both this benchmark and the "rules of the road" for testing and approving models in the future. I suspect that, once this benchmark and "rules of the road" are finalized, it will be announced that both GPT-5.6 and Fable 5 pass and can be released to the public.

5. I generally do not view this administration as being interested in holding frontier AI models back from the public unless the circumstances warrant it. This is particularly the case when keeping the models back for an extra few weeks is presumably giving the USG more time to use them defensively to squash bugs in its own systems.

When bio and chemical risks are on the table, this calculus may change.

6. I suspect that the industry will try to get the USG to publish a clear written process for mandatory (not "voluntary") testing of covered models, together with specific disapproval standards, a right of appeal, and some transparency around the process. I also suspect that the USG will push against this and want to keep the process in line with the Executive Order - i.e., lacking specifics regarding the process itself, public transparency, or concrete disapproval standards (probably other than for cyber in terms of model capabilities only).

This will doubtlessly be blamed on the administration, but I am actually quite sympathetic to their predicament. Imagine being told by the labs that AI is close to improving recursively, the risks currently include cyber, but in the future could include just about anything else (including unknown unknowns), and that even the labs themselves can't easily predict the risks or their timing. As the USG, you are going to want maximum flexibility; you are not going to want specific written standards or any limits on your power to yank a model at a moment's notice. Much has been written about this specific administration's lack of transparency and trigger-happiness throughout this process, but I suspect that most other administrations (Democratic or Republican) would act much the same.

7. The biggest outcome of these events that no one seems to be thinking about is the prospect of China waking up. Anthropic has engineers embedded at the NSA, helping it to conduct offensive cyber operations. Against whom do you think these operations are being conducted?

If I'm the CCP, having found myself on the receiving end of some of these attacks, and having now read reports that multiple U.S. labs seem to have these kinds of capabilities, I get significantly concerned. I stop listening to my country's labs telling me that they're just 4 months behind the U.S. I start seriously thinking about how to catch up to the frontier, as fast as humanly possible.

Dario Amodei’s "fearmongering" was not the reason Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 were embargoed. That is a mistaken assumption.

I fully agree with @deredleritt3r here, and he has provided a good analysis. I would like to briefly explain why I believe he is right, and why it is not Dario Amodei’s fault, nor the result of so-called fear-mongering, that the models are now being banned.

There are certainly things one can criticize Dario Amodei for, and things that went badly or were handled incorrectly, for example the way he dealt with the U.S. authorities (Remember February, when Anthropic refused to cooperate with the U.S. Department of Defense). Based on all the reports that circulated, the response to the U.S. government’s demand to revise the models and security risks was insufficient. It also appears that phone availability was poor. In a situation involving national security and a technology that could endanger the security and sovereignty of the nation, that is obviously not a manageable state of affairs, and it is certainly something that can be criticized.

But it is absurd to believe that the U.S. government, which has a staff of advisers and cybersecurity experts, an intelligence service that deals with this technology (NSA), and scientists of its own, would simply decide to ban an entire technology and thereby impose enormous obstacles on the stock market and investors (!) merely because a CEO was supposedly engaging in fear-mongering. The U.S. government is surely aware of the damage it is causing with the embargo, and factors that into its calculation when weighing it against national security. That is the reason.

Under no circumstances can I imagine that the U.S. government would simply accept mere statements and use them as the basis for concluding that a CEO is afraid, then make such serious and financially consequential decisions without examining the matter itself. Anyone who believes that underestimates the strength, reach, and intelligence of the government of the world’s largest nation. Again, the way Anthropic dealt with the U.S. government is certainly open to criticism, based on everything we were able to read afterward. But to believe that fear-mongering alone is enough to prompt the U.S. government not only to halt the technology (in the race against China for investment, R&D, and the entire future of their nations, mind you), but also to impose requirements on investment that are so enormous that even the Manhattan Project seems small by comparison, is an assumption that is almost certainly wrong.

The reason for the embargo is most likely that there are concerns that this technology could fall into the hands of the biggest competitor, namely China. There is concern that China could manage to use this technology for its own purposes, for example through distillation or other means. Under no circumstances do they want, for example, Fable 5 to be used to launch cyberattacks against the United States, uncover secrets, or cause major damage.

That is the reason, and these concerns are real, not made up. I think Fable 5 is truly a powerful technology that the US government is now trying to regulate because it fears that, in the wrong hands, it could cause massive harm.

That does not mean I support this, because I am concerned that public access may in fact be completely blocked in the future. I think open source is the solution, but I assume this is the correct explanation, rather than the assumption that Daryl Amodei is merely fearmongering.

A few random thoughts on the Fable 5/GPT-5.6 situation:

1. I see some people on the timeline blaming Anthropic for scaring the USG into restricting access to these models. Frankly, that is nonsense. The USG is restricting access to these models because of their *real and dangerous* cybersecurity capabilities. Anthropic is blameless here.

If I were in government relations at Anthropic, I would be telling the leadership to proactively inform the government that Mythos Preview is dangerous before it's publicly released. This is alpha and omega of government relations: if there is a potential serious issue with one of your products, make sure that your regulator hears about this from *you*, not some third party.

(This is also why it was a huge mistake for Anthropic to let Amazon break the news about the jailbreak to the USG instead of self-reporting after first hearing about this issue from Amazon.)

2. On the other hand, Anthropic needs to learn that, if Bessent calls you with a potential national security issue, the leadership's immediate reaction should be "we absolutely hear you and will cooperate with you to the fullest extent right this minute, but can we please have some meetings afterwards to clarify how we can help you better and explain our position?"

You can't just tell a regulator "no". You can't just tell a regulator that its concern is not serious, actually.

3. I've been incredibly impressed by the work being done by Tom Brown in getting this situation resolved. I think he and his team will get it done, and Fable 5 will be in our hands before too long.

I think Tom Brown's stock has risen a lot over the past few days.

4. More specifically on "before too long", the Executive Order requires the NSA to finalize the benchmark for doing "voluntary" testing of frontier models for cyber risk within 60 days of the date of the Executive Order - so, by early August. It seems that at least Anthropic and OpenAI (and maybe some of the other labs) are now working with the USG on developing both this benchmark and the "rules of the road" for testing and approving models in the future. I suspect that, once this benchmark and "rules of the road" are finalized, it will be announced that both GPT-5.6 and Fable 5 pass and can be released to the public.

5. I generally do not view this administration as being interested in holding frontier AI models back from the public unless the circumstances warrant it. This is particularly the case when keeping the models back for an extra few weeks is presumably giving the USG more time to use them defensively to squash bugs in its own systems.

When bio and chemical risks are on the table, this calculus may change.

6. I suspect that the industry will try to get the USG to publish a clear written process for mandatory (not "voluntary") testing of covered models, together with specific disapproval standards, a right of appeal, and some transparency around the process. I also suspect that the USG will push against this and want to keep the process in line with the Executive Order - i.e., lacking specifics regarding the process itself, public transparency, or concrete disapproval standards (probably other than for cyber in terms of model capabilities only).

This will doubtlessly be blamed on the administration, but I am actually quite sympathetic to their predicament. Imagine being told by the labs that AI is close to improving recursively, the risks currently include cyber, but in the future could include just about anything else (including unknown unknowns), and that even the labs themselves can't easily predict the risks or their timing. As the USG, you are going to want maximum flexibility; you are not going to want specific written standards or any limits on your power to yank a model at a moment's notice. Much has been written about this specific administration's lack of transparency and trigger-happiness throughout this process, but I suspect that most other administrations (Democratic or Republican) would act much the same.

7. The biggest outcome of these events that no one seems to be thinking about is the prospect of China waking up. Anthropic has engineers embedded at the NSA, helping it to conduct offensive cyber operations. Against whom do you think these operations are being conducted?

If I'm the CCP, having found myself on the receiving end of some of these attacks, and having now read reports that multiple U.S. labs seem to have these kinds of capabilities, I get significantly concerned. I stop listening to my country's labs telling me that they're just 4 months behind the U.S. I start seriously thinking about how to catch up to the frontier, as fast as humanly possible.

Dario Amodei’s "fearmongering" was not the reason Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 were embargoed. That is a mistaken assumption.

I fully agree with @deredleritt3r here, and he has provided a good analysis. I would like to briefly explain why I believe he is right, and why it is not Dario Amodei’s fault, nor the result of so-called fear-mongering, that the models are now being banned.

There are certainly things one can criticize Dario Amodei for, and things that went badly or were handled incorrectly, for example the way he dealt with the U.S. authorities (Remember February, when Anthropic refused to cooperate with the U.S. Department of Defense). Based on all the reports that circulated, the response to the U.S. government’s demand to revise the models and security risks was insufficient. It also appears that phone availability was poor. In a situation involving national security and a technology that could endanger the security and sovereignty of the nation, that is obviously not a manageable state of affairs, and it is certainly something that can be criticized.

But it is absurd to believe that the U.S. government, which has a staff of advisers and cybersecurity experts, an intelligence service that deals with this technology (NSA), and scientists of its own, would simply decide to ban an entire technology and thereby impose enormous obstacles on the stock market and investors (!) merely because a CEO was supposedly engaging in fear-mongering. The U.S. government is surely aware of the damage it is causing with the embargo, and factors that into its calculation when weighing it against national security. That is the reason.

Under no circumstances can I imagine that the U.S. government would simply accept mere statements and use them as the basis for concluding that a CEO is afraid, then make such serious and financially consequential decisions without examining the matter itself. Anyone who believes that underestimates the strength, reach, and intelligence of the government of the world’s largest nation. Again, the way Anthropic dealt with the U.S. government is certainly open to criticism, based on everything we were able to read afterward. But to believe that fear-mongering alone is enough to prompt the U.S. government not only to halt the technology (in the race against China for investment, R&D, and the entire future of their nations, mind you), but also to impose requirements on investment that are so enormous that even the Manhattan Project seems small by comparison, is an assumption that is almost certainly wrong.

The reason for the embargo is most likely that there are concerns that this technology could fall into the hands of the biggest competitor, namely China. There is concern that China could manage to use this technology for its own purposes, for example through distillation or other means. Under no circumstances do they want, for example, Fable 5 to be used to launch cyberattacks against the United States, uncover secrets, or cause major damage.

That is the reason, and these concerns are real, not made up. I think Fable 5 is truly a powerful technology that the US government is now trying to regulate because it fears that, in the wrong hands, it could cause massive harm.

That does not mean I support this, because I am concerned that public access may in fact be completely blocked in the future. I think open source is the solution, but I assume this is the correct explanation, rather than the assumption that Daryl Amodei is merely fearmongering.

Dario Amodei’s "fearmongering" was not the reason Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 were embargoed. That is a mistaken assumption.

I fully agree with @deredleritt3r here, and he has provided a good analysis. I would like to briefly explain why I believe he is right, and why it is not Dario Amodei’s fault, nor the result of so-called fear-mongering, that the models are now being banned.

There are certainly things one can criticize Dario Amodei for, and things that went badly or were handled incorrectly, for example the way he dealt with the U.S. authorities (Remember February, when Anthropic refused to cooperate with the U.S. Department of Defense). Based on all the reports that circulated, the response to the U.S. government’s demand to revise the models and security risks was insufficient. It also appears that phone availability was poor. In a situation involving national security and a technology that could endanger the security and sovereignty of the nation, that is obviously not a manageable state of affairs, and it is certainly something that can be criticized.

But it is absurd to believe that the U.S. government, which has a staff of advisers and cybersecurity experts, an intelligence service that deals with this technology (NSA), and scientists of its own, would simply decide to ban an entire technology and thereby impose enormous obstacles on the stock market and investors (!) merely because a CEO was supposedly engaging in fear-mongering. The U.S. government is surely aware of the damage it is causing with the embargo, and factors that into its calculation when weighing it against national security. That is the reason.

Under no circumstances can I imagine that the U.S. government would simply accept mere statements and use them as the basis for concluding that a CEO is afraid, then make such serious and financially consequential decisions without examining the matter itself. Anyone who believes that underestimates the strength, reach, and intelligence of the government of the world’s largest nation. Again, the way Anthropic dealt with the U.S. government is certainly open to criticism, based on everything we were able to read afterward. But to believe that fear-mongering alone is enough to prompt the U.S. government not only to halt the technology (in the race against China for investment, R&D, and the entire future of their nations, mind you), but also to impose requirements on investment that are so enormous that even the Manhattan Project seems small by comparison, is an assumption that is almost certainly wrong.

The reason for the embargo is most likely that there are concerns that this technology could fall into the hands of the biggest competitor, namely China. There is concern that China could manage to use this technology for its own purposes, for example through distillation or other means. Under no circumstances do they want, for example, Fable 5 to be used to launch cyberattacks against the United States, uncover secrets, or cause major damage.

That is the reason, and these concerns are real, not made up. I think Fable 5 is truly a powerful technology that the US government is now trying to regulate because it fears that, in the wrong hands, it could cause massive harm.

That does not mean I support this, because I am concerned that public access may in fact be completely blocked in the future. I think open source is the solution, but I assume this is the correct explanation, rather than the assumption that Daryl Amodei is merely fearmongering.

Exactly. The United States, and the US government in particular, know very well how important investments are and that ultimately everything depends on investment. CapEx alone amounts to around 860 billion US dollars. Of course, they know what kind of uncertainty they are creating in the market with regard to future investments, and they certainly did not make this decision lightly, because the entire future of this technology depends on it.

In that sense, it is absurd to assume that they are simply being driven by fearmongering.

And I think that is true. But he did not do it to stir up fear; he did it because he wanted regulation. Why? So that if something does go wrong, Mythos 5 ends up in China’s hands and causes damage, he can say: “See, US government, you regulated this poorly. Anthropic is not to blame.”

That is why he wanted regulation: to shift responsibility. Do you think the CEO of a private company calls for regulation because he enjoys being regulated (few months ahead of an IPO)? Of course not. It is about shifting responsibility.