From the system card [1]:

  The Fable cyber classifier we have previously discussed also applies to Claude Opus 5 , with one notable exception: for Claude Opus 5 , we’ve unblocked vulnerability finding in source code to help our coding customers develop more secure code.
  If you are a cyber defender and are experiencing blocks on Claude Opus 5 , we are also offering exemptions through our Cyber Verification Program, which will remove blocks to enable activities such as bug bounty hunting and vulnerability research and verification. Enterprise customers can also apply to join the Cyber Verification Program to have mitigations removed to enable penetration testing.

But what makes Cloudflare so confident that automation always equates to "fraud and abuse?" If I send my agent to go retrieve some information, do they consider that fraud?

If I block various ad trackers does that trigger their "bot detection" incorrectly? Do I have any recourse? Or is Cloudflare appointing themselves judge, jury and executioner?

And let's not forget this little chestnut: > 4. Privacy by design. Precursor was designed to collect signals that help to distinguish human patterns from automated and abusive patterns.

Ahh, so to "protect" against bots they're standing up a whole new regime of user surveillance and session-level monitoring. And they definitely won't be selling that, they promise. Got it.

This crap should be illegal. In the real world, I can authorize others to act on my behalf. The same should be true with software agents.

https://www.anthropic.com/news/redeploying-fable-5

I bet it'll continue to be messy at the frontier for the foreseeable future as society gradually wakes up to the consequences of strong AI.

Anthropic published a study showing that Claude does more work for the expert user, and experts have a higher rate of "successful sessions" than novices.

https://www.anthropic.com/research/claude-code-expertise

Two problems with this theory.

1. Amazon complaining to the White House wouldn't have been the opening salvo. Amazon and Anthropic would find it much easier to talk to each other than go through the White House. We'd need evidence that Amazon (and probably others) already asked Anthropic to not release a Mythos-class model but Anthropic released it anyway. Are they on record saying this?

2. The jailbreak Amazon found needs to be real. Maybe the White House staffers are not AI experts and they don't really understand what a jailbreak is... but it's much harder to make that claim about Andy Jassy. For the jailbreak to be the real reason for the export control order, the jailbreak would need to be significant and cause material harm to Amazon. Then Jassy might pass it along to the White House assuming he already was refused by Dario.

But there is no evidence the jailbreak was real. There is one story that it amounted to a request, "fix this code." In any case, Anthropic is on record saying the so-called jailbreak didn't enable any vulnerability work that couldn't already be done by other models.

The Trump administration lists Anthropic as a security risk and kneecaps its best model, despite the fact that compared to the other frontier US labs Anthropic is more transparent, more safety-oriented, frequently honest to a fault, and is clearly acting with patriotic intent.

Meanwhile, the same administration is hesitating to counter certain Chinese companies' efforts of industrial-scale theft and sabotage due to a fear of angering the CCP!

This administration has it exactly backwards. 4.5 months until election day, 7 months until the next Congress is sworn in.

No, it's not what they wanted. As it says in your quote, they wanted "a statutory process that is transparent, fair, clear, and grounded in technical facts. This action does not adhere to those principles."

What accounts for the difference between your attitude that distillation is no big deal, "common practice," yet Anthropic sees as it as a huge threat?

"Distillation involves training less capable models on more advanced ones’ output, and can be used illicitly to acquire powerful capabilities cheaply. The AI startup accused China’s DeepSeek, MiniMax, and Moonshot of generating 'over 16 million exchanges with Claude through approximately 24,000 fraudulent accounts,'"

https://www.semafor.com/article/02/24/2026/anthropic-accuses...

After reading their posts and watching interviews with Dario it's abundantly clear that they view Chinese-lab distillation of US frontier models as a threat to US national security. You can argue with them about whether that is true, but not whether distillation is real.

They are clear about the reasons for guardrails: prevent their models from doing harm in dual-use contexts including CBRN or by accelerating research in authoritarian-backed AI labs.

What is the critique against that? It seems pretty reasonable to me. You want AI-accelerated biological or radiological experiments running in your neighbors backyard? You want PRC-backed labs to continue to steal Anthropic's models via distillation?

Mitigating the harms of dual-use tech is notoriously difficult and fraught with trade offs. What I would want to see is cautious rollout and quick response, which is EXACTLY what they're doing.

Instead, this thread is full of bad-faith arguments about Anthropic being dishonest, making a "useless" model, or "the power is going to their heads." You can't read Anthropic's System Cards and come away with any of these impressions. Quite the opposite, in fact. They are honest to a fault, acknowledging problems they discovered even when it hurts them.

If your harmless request was downgraded to Opus, you're billed for Opus. They were 100% clear about that. I'd much rather have a Mythos-class model that falls back to Opus 10% of the time than be capped to Opus 100% of the time. If that doesn't work for you, then make a suggestion for something better!

If you are a white-hat security engineer hitting guardrails, I don't think you have standing to complain. I really don't. Their Glasswing program actually got banks and the industrial sector to take action to fix security vulnerabilities. Do you realize how special that is? A huge portion of the economy runs on vulnerable code and has for decades, despite security experts testifying to Congress, begging business leaders, pleading for intervention-- with no results. But suddenly they're all enrolled in a program that will find *and fix* vulnerabilities! White-hat security people should be rejoicing. Instead some of them are throwing rocks. Unbelievable. Shameful.

Meanwhile, society is screaming at the AI labs to be more conscientious about potential harms of AI. Legislatures are passing laws limiting data center construction. There are protests. And you, the HN community, the vanguard of our profession, have the temerity to demand "NO GUARDRAILS!" "HOW DARE YOU TRY TO PROTECT DEMOCRACY!" "MY SOFTWARE PROJECT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN KEEPING NUKES AWAY FROM THE BAD GUYS!"

Go ahead HN, downvote me. It'd be an honor.

- It can make kids "overconfident when they see material they think they already know, so they end up not engaging."

- Some programs, particularly RSM, are criticized for valuing speed over depth. Current culture for K-8 math teachers is the opposite, they value depth over speed.

Left unsaid:

- It can make the teacher's job harder when the class has a wide span of abilities.

- Current teaching culture is skeptical of accelerating and/or skipping grades in math.

Notably, we've never heard English teachers be upset about a kid reading a book outside of school that's above grade level, or using advanced vocabulary in an essay. They tend to praise it.

Between San Jose and San Francisco, 15%-30% of kids are in private school (it's 30% in SF where the public schools are extra dysfunctional). That's far above the California statewide average of 8% in private school.

Among our peers, somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of kids are doing advanced math outside of school, typically either Russian School of Math or Art of Problem Solving. This group only partially overlaps with the private school group. This is happening despite the fact that both public and private school teachers strongly discourage math outside of school!

So by decelerating math in the public school, incentives were created for privileged parents to take matters in their own hands and put their kids into programs that accelerate math education far beyond what public schools used to do. We now have a system that is creating even wider disparities in outcomes. It stands to reason that it's producing far less equitable outcomes, too, given that extremely bright kids who happen to be in lower-resourced schools have fewer opportunities. Universal screening for giftedness, advanced public school math courses, and the SAT -- all avenues for advancement regardless of background -- were all eliminated.

Which people are you referring to?