Anthropic's Fable Backlash, Nationalizing AI, Inflation Heats Up & California's Broken Elections

**Jason Calacanis** (0:00)
All right, everybody, welcome back to the number one podcast in the world. It's your favorite podcast. It's your podcasters' favorite podcast. It's the podcast that everybody likes to rip off for 50 episodes, and then they quit. But the AllIn podcast is not quitting. We're doubling down with the original quartet. Everybody's here for a big, big week. Lots of debates. And we got to start with Anthropic. Anthropic released a Mephos level model with some interesting guardrails. And it seems as though Dario is back to blogging. Okay, the model's called Fable 5 No idea why they're calling it that. Released on Tuesday.
And it tops every benchmark, nearly every benchmark. The tokens, however, cost twice as much as Opus 4.8, but it should use less tokens overall because it's theoretically that much better. It's unclear if this is going to alleviate some of the hand wringing around the cost of tokens. But you remember in April, Anthropic famously did not release Mithos because publicly it had some strong hacking capabilities. So they gave it to some folks. And we had the CEO of Nakesh of Palo Alto Networks who said, hey, Mithos was the real deal and that they used it to seal up some of the vulnerabilities inside their shop. Obviously, this new model is sensitive to topics like bio weapons, hacking, all that stuff are blocked in it.
But they got a big developer backlash. And then I'll get your feedback after I explain this. While using Fable, Anthropic stores all the prompt data you enter for at least 30 days. And so that's a bit of a privacy issue. And if Fable 5 detects you're doing frontier AI research, in other words, using their model to make a better model, competitive model, they were downgrading you, but they weren't telling you. And this was buried deep in a 319 page document. So many kerfluffles, freakouts going on on X over this, but they've since walked it back a bit, quote unquote, in Wired. We're changing Fable 5 safeguards for frontier LLM development to make them more visible. I'm going to stop there, Chamath. What's your take on Anthropic and these extraordinary models they keep dropping? And how are they handling the release of them? Are they being thoughtful? Are they being dramatic and drama queens? A little bit of both. Where do you stand on it? You know, after getting Nikesh's feedback and seeing the latest model come out, have you played with it? What's going on at 80, 90, and the software factory in terms of benchmarking it as well?

**Chamath Palihapitiya** (2:37)
It's a really incredible model. And so kudos to these guys for continuing to push the boundaries of the closed frontier lab models. They're firing on all cylinders. I think that it creates a pretty obvious risk now.
And I think that obvious risk is twofold. One is Anthropic has essentially shown their hand, which is that they will increasingly take in prompts, evaluate the prompts, and decide what to do with them before they generate output to you.
And I think if you were a person, you should generally now think there's a risk of censorship. If you're a company, I think it's almost a non-starter. And the reason is because you could accidentally trip one of these things without even knowing it. A downstream scientist using the Clot APIs could trip it. A business executive inside your corporation could trip it. A person doing scientific molecular research could trip it. And all of a sudden, you'll get cut off from a very important source of business differentiation for yourself. So I think if you take both of those two things together, we're at this very unique moment in time where I think companies need to start underwriting this next phase of AI, which is how do I have control?
Who am I allowing to learn off of all of this information? Do I want to have single point of failure risk with respect to AI? And I think the answer is that you need broad diversity and a governance approach that's better managed. One thing I'll say about Anthropic is they tell the truth. Yes, it's just that the truth sucks when you actually take it and you eat it and you're like, it's in your tummy and you're like, no, this is not good. I don't like this. And so there's the censorship risk on the one hand, and then there's just the governance business risk for enterprises on the other. Both are not good.

**Jason Calacanis** (4:47)
Friedberg running your own company now, and I'll let you back clean up here, Sacks, obviously, you'll have a lot to say.
But Friedberg running your company, do you worry about getting rug pulled by one of these companies, investing your time into one of these platforms, having them then constrain your use of it and or take what you're doing at Ohalo, put it into their model and make it available to other people? What concerns do you have as a business owner at the forefront of your field using these tools?