Anthropic safety superpower was published on Monday, June 15th, 2026. I'm sympathetic to the cynics who consistently characterize Anthropic's public statements, particularly those surrounding their model releases, as scaremongering for the sake of marketing. It was only 2 months ago that Anthropic announced Mythos preview, a model that they said was too dangerous to make publicly available, thanks in particular to its advanced cybersecurity capabilities.
Then, 2 months later, the company publicly released Fable, a version of Mythos with various safety guardrails. Fable is, in my limited experience, a very impressive model. It's increasingly difficult to objectively evaluate models for anything other than coding performance, but there is subjective feel, and I found my interactions with Fable to be extremely impressive. It made other models, including GPT-5.5 and Opus-4.8, feel small and dumb.
The two times I felt that way previously were with GPT-4 and Grok-4, both of which represented new generations in terms of base model size and complexity. My sense is that Fable is downstream of a new pre-train and the first of a new generation. To that end, I can certainly buy the case that Fable/Mythos is in fact more capable when it comes to identifying and exploiting security issues, and that Anthropic's cautious rollout was justified.
The problem with publicly releasing models, however, is that guardrails can be jailbroken, and apparently that is exactly what happened shortly after the release. Anthropic versus the US government, again. What happened next is somewhat unclear. Anthropic wrote in a blog post,
"The US government, citing national security authorities, has issued an export control directive to suspend all access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 by any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States, including foreign national Anthropic employees. The net effect of this order is that we must abruptly disable Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all customers to ensure compliance. Access to all other Anthropic models will not be affected. We received the directive from the government today at 5:21 p.m. Eastern. The letter did not provide specific details of its national security concern. Our understanding is that the government believes it has become aware of a method of bypassing or jailbreaking Fable 5. We reviewed a demonstration of this specific technique being used to identify a small number of previously known minor vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities all appear relatively simple, and we have found that other publicly available models are able to discover them as well without requiring a bypass."
Anthropic went on to make the case that non-universal jailbreaks were inevitable and also narrow, and that there was no evidence of a universal jailbreak. The jailbreak that was found, meanwhile, appears to have been reported by Amazon, which is notable given Amazon is both an investor in Anthropic and a major provider of inference to the company. As I write this, senior Anthropic staff are in Washington, D.C., seeking to resolve what they insist is a misunderstanding, and which White House officials are suggesting is insouciance by the company's leadership to legitimate national security concerns. I don't actually have much to add to the current conflict given how many facts are in dispute. What I'm not surprised about is the fact that the conflict is happening.
I already explained in Anthropic and Alignment why conflict between the U.S. government and Anthropic was inevitable. To that end, people who are arguing that Mythos isn't powerful enough to warrant the government's drastic action are missing the point. If it's not powerful enough now, the next one will be, or the one after that, particularly now that models are increasingly useful in creating their successors.
That, however, raises another question, one that seems to validate the cynic's viewpoint. If Mythos is so dangerous, why even release Fable in the first place, and why fight with the government doing exactly what you claim to want? In fact, I think that Anthropic's actions are quite understandable. What makes the company unique is how it justifies them, and it is those justifications that both give the cynics their fuel and Anthropic its magic.
The economic imperative. For the first few years of AI, the most economic value has flowed to compute for obvious reasons. We don't have enough supply to meet demand, which has meant skyrocketing prices. The biggest beneficiaries have been Nvidia, TSMC, and the memory makers, SK Hynix, Samsung, and Micron. Anthropic and OpenAI, meanwhile, have collectively lost tens of billions of dollars building leading-edge models that, once released, are distilled and commoditized by open-source models, primarily from China.
This represents the bear case for the labs. They never cover their costs because their differentiation is fleeting. Will free alternatives become good enough? And I think it's a legitimate one. A world where models are interchangeable is one where models are commodities, where most of the value falls elsewhere. Right now, that's compute. But in the fullness of time, whenever we have enough compute, the most valuable place to be in the value chain will be the place that has always been the most valuable, owning the user touchpoint.
To that end, it has long been clear to me that the frontier labs have the economic imperative to move closer to the user. If you own the user touchpoint, then you have meaningful lock-in. And the best way to own the user touchpoint is to be the canvas for everything they need to do. This, by extension, means that the frontier labs are on a collision course with software companies.
It's software that owns the user touchpoint, and it's in the frontier labs' long-term interest to not simply be a commodity input into software, but to simply replace software outright. Software companies, meanwhile, are working to do the opposite. Satya Nadella laid out his vision for how companies should build on models in an essay on X.
Every company is going to have to build what I think of as human capital and token capital. Human capital comprises the knowledge, judgment, relationships, ingenuity, and pattern recognition of its people, while token capital is the firm's AI capability it builds and owns. Importantly, human capital does not become less valuable as token capital grows. It only becomes more valuable.
I believe human agency will be the driver of token capital growth. Humans will set ambitious goals, connect dots across domains, build relationships, and recognize patterns that matter most. Without human direction, you have compute running in circles.
This means the real opportunity is not in picking the best model, but instead in building a learning loop on top of models where human capital and token capital compound. You can offload a task or even a job, but you can never offload your learning. The future of the firm is the ability to compound that learning across people and AI.
This requires a new architectural approach where every business is able to build agentic systems that improve over time while still retaining control over their IP. A company should be able to switch out a generalist model without losing the company veteran expertise built into their learning system. This is the key test of your control and sovereignty in the era ahead.
Nadella set this vision off with a warning.
