U.S. allows Anthropic to release Mythos AI to ‘trusted’ US organizations

> Does anyone think a startup with a good product is going to be materially disadvantaged by not having access to an incrementally better security focused LLM release?

- It's not "incrementally better". It's a complete game changer. Opus 4.8 on max thinking does X amount of mistakes in my commercial work. Fable 5 did 5% of X. Counted. I barely had anything to contribute in the work sessions, for a full week I could count on my two hands the total amount of times I actually caught Fable 5 -- and one part of those were not true mistakes, more like divergence from policy in our `CLAUDE.md` files.

- It's not "security focused". It's simply better in every way _plus_ it's also security-conscious.

- It legitimately accelerated my work. I don't have too much unknowns in my work, I simply have way too much to do. Fable 5 was an objective and measurable improvement over Opus 4.8. Returning to it after Fable 5 was removed was extremely discouraging and frustrating, and still is to some extent.

> It’s lots of fun to pretend it’s some step-change that’s too dangerous for general release

Maybe, but not as much fun as tearing down a straw man apparently. :)

> (Just to be clear, I think the gatekeeping is ridiculous, especially given the above)

It's ridiculous for multiple other reasons but ridiculous nonetheless.

The authority under which this was done has been operative and actively used for several decades. It isn't a partisan issue, it is a policy of American governance. Anyone that has worked on frontier "dual use" technologies will be familiar with the legal regime.

The only thing that changed is people are writing articles about it in the news media.

If you don't want the current administration to be blindly hated, perhaps you should ask the president to stop publishing daily statements about how much he hates various people. You reap what you sow.

Is there any evidence at all that would convince you that they're trying to mitigate real risks that actually exist?

Math please? Specifically citing the research that the FDA cited from the NEJoM. Please include the published injury rate, and the published efficacy.

If you can't make a point with the math, then don't bother replying. My invitation is to discuss with scientists, to be clear. CNN is not qualified as a scientific body, despite claiming to be. I'm aware that most of the US believes that CNN is the arbiter of science. I'm referring specifically to a scientific paper published by the manufacturer of the drug you are pedaling.

And that's my point. You can't. You're consuming media and calling it science. You're lying to yourself.

Please prove me wrong.

Look at the injury rate in the NEJoM study submitted by Pfizer, and look at the rate of disease symptoms (later decreased but we'll ignore that for the sake of driving my point home), and tell me what the rest of us scientists missed. Or at least admit that you didn't really notice that it killed and injured more people in Pfizer's own study than you had realized (for the sake of honest scientists if you care to call yourself one).

I'll even overlook the fact that all the "peer reviewers" were Pfizer employees who couldn't bring themselves to the level of shame so as to falsify the results. Instead they themselves published blatantly that the drug is more destructive than the disease it purports to treat. Thankfully we have some moral fiber in the field.