mkotlikov

US will ban Chinese models and try to get their allies to do the same. Just like they did with Huawei. Alternatively, they'll put up legal roadblocks that open models are unlikely to jump over due to costs or other reasons.

Otherwise they're putting US frontier labs at a huge disadvantage by preventing them from recouping costs on their biggest models.

How much more will OpenAI and Anthropic models cost when they're the only AI you can legally use?

Anthropic's new Fable 5 system card describes a safeguard for "frontier LLM development" requests. Unlike the cyber/bio/distillation safeguards, this one doesn't refuse or fall back to another model. It silently reduces the model's effectiveness via prompt modification, steering vectors, or PEFT, with no notification.

This bugs me for 4 reasons...

1) The named examples (pretraining pipelines, distributed training infra, ML accelerator design) are just normal ML.

2) A false positive on a silent intervention is undetectable by design: you can't distinguish a degraded answer from a hard problem or your own bug.

3) The 0.03% figure is self-reported against a private benchmark with no way for anyone outside to audit it.

4) A degraded answer is still charged at full price.

So...Anthropic is now purposely releasing a dishonest model? What am I missing? Tell me how I'm stupid and/or wrong!

I use ortho k, I exclusively sleep in my contact lenses, take them out when I wake up and enjoy 20/20 vision for 24+ hours. I don't have to sleep in them every night to maintain 20/20, but I do anyways.

They are basically retainer contact lenses that reshape your cornea as you sleep. It's what's described here minus the pH change and electric potential.

Models tend to prefer output that sounds like their own. If I were to run these benchmarks I would have:

1) Gemini 2.5 Pro rank only non-google models 2) Claude 4.1 Opus rank only non-Anthropic models 3) GPT5-thinking rank only non-OpenAI 4) Then sum up the rankings and sort by the sum.