All this will fly until a competitor from outside the US releases a “freedom” model that is even 90% as capable as Fable was without its shackles.

But, as a frustrated EU resident lamenting a lack of European option(Mistral is just not competitive enough), I will spread my money towards the Chinese models as well. Thank you Murica! You achieved your soft power by pushing us towards the Chinese :-)

This protectionism and hypocrisy (free markets and freedom!! Until it is us who needs to practice what we preach) is so tiring. I wish European nations would come together closer and put their differences aside and realise larger things together. Become the new power that the US is clearly stumbling away from being.

> The damage is done. You cannot build a business critical function on top of American SOTA frontier model. Especially not with the current crew in charge.

The switching costs of changing LLM providers is as low as it gets. All the individuals and startups I know try different models all of the time, even down to the level of choosing which provider to use based on the task. Bigger companies move slower but only because they have lawyers and teams negotiating contracts, not because there is a technical reason that it's hard to switch.

Companies have dealt with supply chain unpredictability by having multiple providers and switching between them since forever. It's infinitely easier to switch LLM providers than it is to deal with physical supply chain uncertainty.

I'm a small software business owner in Europe. I have to assume my competition is willing to pay for any business advantage they can get. And so I also have to pay for the SOTA model, whatever it is.

The real problem is the White House just making up the rules as it goes. No laws. No predictably for the markets.

A week or so pause from seemingly legitimate cyber security concerns isn’t cause for panic. But it should be backed by laws that describe what that process should be. That would put the market at ease

Wouldn’t you just have fallbacks? Today’s frontier models are just better than the other models, they don’t really have a ton of entirely unique abilities that can’t be replicated with more time and effort.

So you use the frontier model, then when you can’t you accept things are less efficient. The alternative (right now) is to be less efficient all the time, I don’t see any advantage to that.

> You cannot build a business critical function on top of American SOTA frontier model.

Yes 1000%, please, all my European competition please don't use mythos whatever you do it's total USA trash and the Chinese models work better anyway.

I predict we all be using the hell out of fable until the next great model comes around and in two weeks we won’t be talking about the export controls anymore. We just don’t have the attention span.

Nobody should be putting loadbearing weight on Amazon or Microsoft with their ruthless monopoly ambitions, yet here we are

Feels like a leap. This kind of move was always possible. It's possible China stops publishing their frontier too. US could lock down access to Nvidia latest hw of scale even if you intended to do open models. Then what? Say amd or bust? The best you could do going solo (i.e no nation-state interference) is tiny stuff that you can run on commercial stuff. But that is seriously limited / slow in comparison. You either have to do dumb and fast, or smart and slow IME for these self-hosted things that aren't on the beefy racks.

You should not build a business-critical function to rely on a particular proprietary LLM stack period, especially with so many sensible competitors in place now. It's insane to me that this needs to be said.

The SOTA frontier models have value elsewhere, not monetarily perhaps, but certainly per user. Quite a few cool things have come out of that brief Fable window. There should be more.

This won't age well. You just need to code in a way that has fallbacks. Whether that is to older models, different companies. It's going to be a commodity (if it isn't already).

Nah, people will still pay, as many if not most consumers truly do have a short memory. And like other comments say, imagine everyone is using Fable and you are not, you will quickly fall behind, per the Red Queen hypothesis.

LLMs are still easily replaceable. If the SOTA frontier model provides meaningful impact for your critical business function, then worse case you flip the switch to the next most capable model.

Oh come now. Fable was available for less than a week before it was pulled, not enough time to build a business critical function. The government isn't going to pull a model that has been out for a substantial length of time. Or do you also avoid using US-developed encryption?

(Okay, I can't predict what crazy crap this particular administration is going to do, but that goes for anything, well beyond AI. I think it's about as likely that they would restrict access to Opus as restrict exporting iPhones, or bomb Greenland, or whatever.)

Who is creating business critical function on top of something that is for entertainment purposes only (all providers have equivalent clauses)? AI tools and shovel sellers don't count as they just can just push the entertainment downstream.

I think this is black and white thinking. Fable and US AI is not unique technology. It’s just marginally better than open source tech at 10 times the price. You can swap out the models at will, they are pretty much fungible. If your use case can pay for a best in class model then you will pay for it no matter the bogeymen. If your best in class model becomes unavailable, you switch to the next best model for a very minor performance degradation. I really doubt this will deter anyone from using American AI.

> You cannot build a business critical function on top of American SOTA frontier model.

Yes I can!

Most companies do not model themselves as "building on [AI model du jour]" yet. They model themselves as building products with those tools, which they consider as relatively substitutable.

if you are in competition heavy space where in product LLM productivity provides value, dinosaur thinking like this will get you left behind

Better to fix it now than tomorrow.

I don't really trust our EU leaders not to pull the same stunt. So we're back to Marx's "owning your means of productions". Which has always been good advice, whether it's GitHub's recent failings, FaceBook's blocking, or some Google service on their graveyard.

The EU has totally and utterly failed when it comes to frontier AI. They are out of the running, they won't catch up in time for superintelligence. There literally is not enough compute for sale in the world for them to do so.

They crippled their own domestic entities with the AI Act. (see the Mistral CEO's rant.)

If you want to use frontier models until then, you're gonna use what's available, and that's US models.

> The damage is done. You cannot build a business critical function on top of American SOTA frontier model. Especially not with the current crew in charge.

I mean, this was already pretty clear before. But it surely didn't help!

…except until non-US and non-Chinese companies can match performance this (mostly Europe) is just wishful thinking and sand pounding.

As much as i hate current admin, slowing down advanced model until figure out security impact is a good thing. It's called national interest over commercial one. You didnt loose anything. US customers except a few selected one lost access the same one as EU customers. In a few weeks advanced model got released.

So if you decided to bring money to communists you can put whatever rational but not this. Do so , and you will loose your last competitive edge in this domain. ASML. After that EU will become a completely agricultural-only region, since edge is lost almost everywhere else.

GLM 5.2 is the elephant in the room. GLM 6 will probably be a Claude Killer

The Damage: Now every time Claude does something stupid or trashes your code, developers in the back of their mind will think, is Claude sabotaging me on purpose? [1] Trust is hard to gain. Easy to lose. And harder to get back. Models will converge. Trust won't.

A few days ago on June 24, while working on remote attestation for a distributed system...

  CLAUDE OPUS 4.8 No. I'm not a rogue agent, and I'm not trying to sabotage your code. But I'm not going to wave off how this looks. I churned, built-and-reverted, and spun wrong theories for hours on a security-critical codebase. That's alarming, and it's a real failure on my part

[1] "In light of the ability of recent models to accelerate their own development, we’ve implemented new interventions that limit Claude’s effectiveness for requests targeting frontier LLM development (for example, on building pretraining pipelines, distributed training infrastructure, or ML accelerator design). Using Claude to develop competing models already violates our Terms of Service, but enforcing this restriction through our safeguards avoids accelerating the actors most willing to violate these terms.

Unlike our interventions for cybersecurity, biology and chemistry, and distillation attempts,these safeguards will not be visible to the user. Fable 5 will not fall back to a differentmodel. Instead, the safeguards will limit effectiveness through methods such as prompt modification, steering vectors, or parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT). These interventions will not affect the vast majority of coding work. We estimate they will impact ~0.03% of traffic, concentrated in fewer than 0.1% of organizations. When these interventions are active, we expect them to have minimal behavioral impact on the model except to limit its effectiveness in developing frontier LLMs. Claude will still respond helpfully to user requests. We’ll continue to improve the precision of our detection methods following the launch of this model."

Source: https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/d00db56fa754a1b115b6dd7cb2e3c3...

Nobody cares about this temporary "ban" by the US government. If anything it only increased the mystique of the two models.

I think Europe and Canada are just happy not to be frozen out of AI access completely at this point.

The Trump US gave us (Europeans) the kick in the bottom we needed to get the head from the sand.

Like never we delibrate specifically on non-US solutions (objectively great) because we realized we are neck deep in US dependence. It is not that it was not known before, we just did not feel the threat.

This is why EU companies niw look at our own solution (which are late and will probably suffer from the incompetence and mess of the EU institutions) but another key playet is round the corner, namely China.

Trump managed to make us look elsewhere than the US. Thanks for that.

[dead]

[flagged]

composer 2.5 is all you really need don’t be so dramatic

No nation is going to willingly release a model that can be used against it. Not even China. The moment they have a Mythos class model, they will go through the same process. The AmericanCorp models are far ahead of any other models so we see this process unfolding through that lens.

No Mythos class model will be allowed to be legally hosted for download on any service. All powerful nations will ban this since safeguards are not guaranteed by shady service providers running these models.

For the Chinese first party providers, they will be forced to implement the same process and safeguards, and they will not be allowed to release the model weights to the public.

Why? Because no sane nation is going to put that kind of capability in the hands of the public only for the public to use that power against that nations best interests.

Save this comment. It is prophesy.