Did Anthropic ask for this?

I think you are correct about the legislative push, because it’s clear that US AI companies can no longer live without it. However, it is not the case that this is Amodei’s fault. His push for regulation was clearly at least partly mitigated by a desire for this precise situation to be avoided! With an appropriate regulatory framework and a transparent, apolitical certification or review process, this kind of situation would not happen. Banning Fable is not “regulation”, it’s capricious retribution, and I believe it is the single most damaging thing that has happened to the US AI industry to date.

No, Anthropic clearly did not ask for this.

1. "Dario is known for writing about regulation and the direction of AI as an industry and Anthropic in particular, and what he says is taken very seriously and is considered a definitive statement of the company’s position." This is patently ridiculous. A CEO's blog post is not an official company statement or any sort of binding agreement.

2. "Are there protective measures against political favoritism or arbitrary decisions? I believe there are: they are called “courts”." This is so stupid. Of course Anthropic will take this to court (if it's not rescinded before then), and the government's ham-fisted "regulation" will almost certainly be overturned. And it doesn't matter! An unjust action that is overturned by the legal system does not magically become just.

3. "Is This Politically Motivated or Arbitrary? Probably at least somewhat." If the best you can muster here is "probably at least somewhat", then your head is in the sand. It clearly politically motivated, and clearly arbitrary. Perhaps a different government would receive the benefit of the doubt here, but not this one.

4. "“The government” or “society” is meant to deal with all of those things. Well, now the government is — the actual government that really exists, and not an imagined one that only does good things and never does bad things." So that's it? We just throw up our hands and say that this is natural, that it couldn't go any other way? That Anthropic was "asking for it", and it's their fault when the government lashes out?

If the government wants to regulate AI, either Congress needs to pass a law, or the Executive needs to furnish a reasonable explanation for their actions. We do not live in a fascist country. There is separation between the government and private industry. The government does not have the power to arbitrarily regulate private enterprise. I am truly baffled by the inability for people to see this as it is -- a blatant, and foolish, attempt at posturing and political intimidation. It's part of a clear pattern of behavior by this administration, and should be interpreted as such.

> A CEO's blog post is not an official company statement or any sort of binding agreement.

Uh, then what is it? We should not take the words of the leader of the company published on the company's website to be the official stance of the company??

Attempting regulatory capture is not “working with safety or morals”, I’d argue it’s the opposite.

> and there must be protective measures against political favoritism or arbitrary decisions.

Didn't Anthropic say that the same jailbreak is possible with GPT 5.5?

> I believe there are: they are called “courts”. Dario is as free as the rest of us are to file a lawsuit and go in front of a judge and tell the judge that he is the victim of political favoritism or an arbitrary decision. That is, in fact, one of the primary purposes of the legal system.

This isn't realistic here. Yes, there's a system in place, but at the speed of these iterations/deployments, filing a lawsuit that will take months/years to resolve isn't a practical path forward.