Limitless Podcast - The United States of Claude: Government Bans Fable 5

Episode Date: June 16, 2026

This is a turning point for AI. Today, we discuss Anthropic’s release and quick withdrawal of its Fable 5 and Mythos 5 AI models after a U.S. export-control notice raised national security concerns. We also cover the reported jailbreak, Amazon’s role in escalating the issue, and what the episode suggests about government involvement in access to frontier AI models.------🌌 LIMITLESS HQ ⬇️NEWSLETTER:    https://limitlessft.substack.com/FOLLOW ON X:   https://x.com/LimitlessFTSPOTIFY:             https://open.spotify.com/show/5oV29YUL8AzzwXkxEXlRMQAPPLE:                 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/limitless-podcast/id1813210890RSS FEED:           https://limitlessft.substack.com/------TIMESTAMPS0:00 Intro1:16 The Government Pulls Fable5:26 Frontier Goes Backward9:36 Amazon Sounds the Alarm11:33 Types of Jailbreaks14:55 Frontier Labs Logic18:00 Politics and Security27:29 History Is Happening Now------RESOURCESJosh: https://x.com/JoshKaleEjaaz: https://x.com/cryptopunk7213------Not financial or tax advice. See our investment disclosures here:https://www.bankless.com/disclosures⁠Josh works with Anthropic as a contractor. All views expressed are his own and do not represent Anthropic, its leadership, or its affiliates. Nothing in this episode is investment advice.

Last Tuesday, Anthropic released the most powerful AI model the world has ever seen. And that exact same week, by Friday, 5.21 p.m., they received a letter from the government asking them to shut down access to their latest Claude Fable and Claude Mythos models. 90 minutes later, Anthropic shut down access for everyone, citing that anyone who isn't an American citizen or American by nature doesn't get access to this model. Now, the official reason for this was security researchers external to Anthropic had discovered a jailbreaker, to access or bypass the safeguards on Anthropics' Fable model to get access to a restricted version which could be used for nefarious purposes, such as designing dangerous bio weapons

or exploiting cybersecurity weaknesses in software. Now in the hands of the wrong people, this could be potentially dangerous, such as China versus the US. The craziest part about all of this is it came from an internal partner. Amazon, who owns the largest individual stake in Anthropic as an investor, were the ones that released details to the jailbreak to the government. They had the option of picking up the phone and calling Dario and saying, hey, there's a jailbreak. Let's figure out how to fix this.

But they decided to contact Trump himself and report this. And so it unpacks and unravels this entire story around governments taking a nationalized stake in the frontier air labs and determining who gets access to which model. Last week was a roller coaster of a week. I mean, we got Fable 5 finally. The Mythos class model was delivered on Tuesday. And Friday at 521 p.m. after everyone is getting ready to go home, the U.S. government drops this notice on. their desk, saying that they are initiating an export control directive citing national security authorities. The order was to suspend all access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 by any foreign national,

whether insider outside of the United States, including Anthropics' own foreign national employees. This, of course, is almost impossible to enforce. How do you tell where anyone is from? So Anthropics says there's no clean way to wall off foreign nationals across global consumer product. So in order to comply, they disabled models for all customers, both Mythos and Fable class models. Following this, they also shared the initiative with AWS, which revoked Fable 5, all of their cloud services. And now where we sit today, everybody is using Opus 4.8 and Sonnet models because Fable and mythos are no longer allowed to be used. This sucks. I was getting really used to using Fable as a model. It is an unbelievably remarkable model in terms of how powerful it is.

And it feels like now I woke up today, I went to use Claude, and being faced with Opus 4.8, I'm like, oh, man, it's a good model, but I really miss my crown jewel. I feel like I am less capable today than I was yesterday. And that feeling alone kind of sucks. We've crossed a very important boundary. And it's the first time we've done this. This is the first instance of an AI model, which has been publicly released and then withdrawn. And I'm feeling the withdrawal effects.

as you know, like I've been using Fable 24-7 since it got released. And when it got pulled, I was like, I think it was like out on a Friday night and I saw the news. And that was the other thing, by the way. This happened like at the end of day, at the end of the week when no one was kind of like expecting us to get into about this one. Yeah, there's a lot of complaints that I have and that I'm sure many other people have. But the point is this is the first clear example of a retail accessible model being pulled. And it was government determined. And so it brings into a question, obviously a host of different topics and discussions, but the main one being, is the government overreach too much? Is this a line too far? And then it gets into an interesting discussion around who gets access to this, right? So the clear statement that's been made by the government is if you aren't an American citizen or rather, if you aren't American, if you weren't born here, you don't get access to this model. So technically on this show, Josh, that would mean that, you know, you get access. There's a world where you get access to this model and future models. And I don't purely because of nationality.

based stuff. So it gets into a bunch of different things that I have some pretty strong opinions on. But firstly, like, one earth is an export control. Like, what does that mean exactly? I had to look this up because I wasn't sure myself. And it's basically these US rules that govern the transfer of sensitive technology and information to foreign persons in a foreign destination. So basically, you don't want to export the technology or the information to other countries because it is dangerous. It can be used for a malpractice. Same as true with a lot of military information. This is being treated as such. So for dual-use technology, they call it, it has to run through the Bureau of Industry and Security, which is inside the Commerce Department, which is under the

export administration regulation. There's just like a lot of regulation involved in this. But basically, the United States deemed this as something that is not safe to be exported. And because mythos, class models and fable are being used by foreign entities, regardless of the foreign entity's status, they must be shut down immediately. And because it is nearly impossible to tell where the source of that API key is coming from, or where the destination of that API is coming from, the API call, they can't actually determine with 100% certainty that all the people that are being delivered tokens are not from foreign entities.

They are no longer allowed to serve tokens to anybody. And then there's this nuance worth noting where US citizens and green card holders and other certain protected individuals are exempt from this deemed export rule. But it gets really messy. and it's just this incredibly complicated and impossible situation that I would imagine for Anthropics navigate because you just can't really tell. So as a result, the models are gone and we're in this weird limbo period now where the frontier model has actually been removed.

And the frontier for the first time ever, like you mentioned, it's actually moved backwards a notch instead of forwards in terms of public facing capability. And that's been, it's set a really interesting and kind of like unnerving precedent as we move forward through this, like as we navigate through this new world that we're going through. Well, I mean, this isn't the first time that Anthropic and the government has. have got into a fight. These guys have had a relationship. They have a pass. I think it's important to kind of like recap what that past looks like. So literally in the last 12 months, Anthropic has got into spats and fights with the government disagreements. And they've trying to kind of resolve

their outcomes, but there's a bit of bitterness between the two. So I think running through this, Feb 27th, 26, so that's literally, you know, a couple of months ago, there was a federal blacklist that was put out for Anthropic. Now, the reason why the surface was Anthropics' models were being used by the Pentagon or the Department of War to carry out military operations to design and strategize around how they execute on that. And this was the first known instance. Claude was the default model that was used by every single government institute. Anthropic expressed disdain and disinterest in this, saying that, you know, there should be more regulation about this, there should be more transparent comms. The government did not like that.

They got into a back and forth about it. They tried to come to an agreement. Ultimately, they did not, and the government's response was to blacklist Anthropics models. Now, what the blacklist basically looked like was no government entity is allowed to use Claude. They can't use it, and they started signing partnerships with Anthropics rivals, such as XAI, OpenAI, and Google. Now, since then, they've reverted back on that. Why? Because Anthropic created this new model called Mito's 5, which was originally restricted. The original Mito's preview model was ready around around this time actually. I think like in February or maybe just after that. And it's been kind of like within restricted boundaries for a while. And then we have this new safeguarded version, Fable 5,

which is also more advanced than preview that has been publicly released and then we're drawn. And so since then, the government has kind of gone back on their word and saying, well, actually, because this model is so powerful, we need to understand how to harden our own security systems. So they've worked with Anthropic. And it's been kind of like this bittersweet sort of relationship. And finally, when Anthropics started to file for an IPO confidentially and publicly released this new model, apparently, according to reports, the government didn't want them to publicly release it.

But Anthropic was like, we need to do this. We need to give this to the public. We'll give you a safe version of this. Look at how restrictive our safeguards are. You can't get behind us. And then when this jailbreak was exposed to the government, this was the final line drawn and they've gone back on it and basically saying, Anthropic, ban this or there'll be repercussions.

And that's what another one has had to do. Yeah, and now might be an interesting time to actually note the specifics of what they deemed unsafe in order to cause this ban to happen because it wasn't just like, oh, no, we don't like this. This is a ban. It was actually came in the form of a perceived jailbreak. So the report is that someone who we kind of may might have an idea of. It's been publicly reported that we might have an idea of someone, someone credible, reported a jailbreak to United States government. And that is the thing that they blamed it on. And like you mentioned, I find this really troubling and difficult to wrap my head. around because so much of the backlash that came from Fable 5 being released was the fact that it was so sensitive to these bio threats. It was so sensitive to cybersecurity that it actually wouldn't answer a lot of questions that were adjacent. Like I remember EJ as you mentioned, you asked what is mitochondria, and it couldn't even answer that because it was related to bio. So it rounded it through Opus 4.8, the safer model that you know you could trust the safeguards from. So there was every effort in the world to go through and make sure that this was safe enough to be released to the public and then give the public

access to this amazing frontier model. That way it wasn't gate kept and held privately only for a specific set of companies that are in Project Glasswing. This clearly wasn't enough. There was an alleged jailbreak that was discovered that was reported to the government. The government said, no, no, we can't have this. And then went to Anthropic. And that's where the problems started. I mean, at this point, we should probably reveal who broke the news to the government that led to Anthropic needing to ban their models. It was none other than Amazon's, specifically the CEO, Andy Jassy. So to give some context here, Amazon is, if not,

I think it's the biggest individual investor in Anthropic. They own around 17 to 20%, but they're also their main cloud partner, all of the chip and cloud infrastructure that is used to train inference and distribute Claude to all government partners, enterprise, which by the way is Anthropics' biggest revenue income provider, as well as retail, kind of. is facilitated through AWS, through Amazon's cloud service. So major alignment between these two companies, Andy Jassy has a security team,

and they were testing out Claude Fable, specifically at safeguards, and they surfaced a potential jailbreak which could be exploited by China. Now, if you're Andy Jassy, you have two decisions to make here. You have probably some form of a government obligation, because they've done work with a lot of the government officials, to reach out to them and say,

hey, like, you know, there's this jailbreak, by the way, like, let's work on this to fix this with Anthropic. And then you're like a major investor in Anthropic, you should go to them and say, hey, by the way, there's this jailbreak, like, let's try and fix this. Andy Jassy could have gone to both people. He just went to one. It was the government and the Department of Commerce, but I think also the Department of War specifically and said, hey, if China gets access to this particular jailbreak that we found, there's going to be an issue. So Pete Hexeth and Scott Besant and Secretary Scott Besant panic. And they're like, okay, this jailbreak is real. They validate. internally and they reach out to Anthropic within the hour. And they basically say, hey, we've found this jailbreak. We need to speak to Dario. Now, the funniest part about all of these reports is, apparently, Dario was at a wellness retreat. Now, I don't know if that is true, but he was unreachable for about an hour and 15 minutes to which he then responded, got on a call with the government, and they had this discussion. Now, Dario had a very important statement to make, which was

if this is a jailbreak, it's likely a non-universal jailbreak. Now, there's two types of jail breaks. There's universal and non-un universal. A non-un universal jailbreak is a hyper-localized specific jailbreak that only a few niche actors, if they wanted to exploit it, could end up doing. A universal jailbreak is usually the ones that people get scared about, where anyone and everyone with access to Claude Fable, for instance, would be able to get rounded and go to the restricted version. What Dario was saying is this is a very specific instance that not really a lot of people know about, and we can patch, and it's not really a big deal. We don't need to impose a worldwide ban on people that aren't American individuals.

We can fix this. China's not going to get access to this. And reportedly, there's been a back and forth where, again, both of these entities, Anthropic and the government, can't come to an agreement on any of this. Yeah, it's a lot of, like, finger-pointing and speculation, and we're trying to, like, piece together the puzzle based on these public reports from news publications. but we do have some official commentary from Anthropic themselves. They published a blog post all about it.

And just to kind of double-click on that jailbreak feature, they walked through exactly what happened and their take on what happened. And they said, no testers have been able to find a universal jailbreak. Like you mentioned, a jailbreak method that can very broadly bypass the model safeguards, unlocking a wide range of cyber capabilities. So they said, we suspect that perfect jailbreak resistance is not currently possible for any model provider. Every safeguard used in the industry is vulnerable to non-universal jailbreaks, which can elicit some

cyber information in specific circumstances, and it is likely that universal jailbreaks will eventually be found in the future. And they stated this clearly when they released Fable 5. Given that perfect jailbreak resistance does not appear to be widely possible today, Anthropic adopted a defense-in-depth strategy with Fable 5, where they aimed to make jailbreaks either narrow, in the case of non-trivial jail breaks, or very expensive to produce. So the average person is just not going to be able to to do this. And then they combine this with this monitoring to detect and shut down any successful attack. So they're saying, hey, it's not possible to protect a jailbreak from any model. Like all of these models are susceptible to them, but they're susceptible to them on a very narrow band in

which it can be detected and then quickly shut down. And if your basis for shutting down a model is on one of these narrow jail breaks that is available across every model, then that is unfair and improper. It's kind of the argument that they're making. And that logic seems to make sense. Like, if you go on X, there's this guy, plenty of the Liberator, I think his name is. And he always has these very, like, weird, obscure, narrow use cases in which he can get the model to say funny things that, like, it's not really supposed to say. But that is a novel case that is narrow in scope, and a lot of his accounts get shut down. It's not a broad-facing, you could almost say malware, where there's, like, a prompt

that could put into my LLM, and then it will surface me these unfiltered results. And that's kind of where the discrepancies are. It feels like, Anthropics is like, dude, you guys don't understand. Like we know this model, we understand the risk, we've been very public about the risks of this, here's what we're doing to stop them, here is how we've put in the safeguards, and the government is saying, oh no, but there is risk. And because there's a non-zero percent chance of risk, you've got to shut this whole thing down. And they're like, no, but this is, every model has risk. That's the nature of the technology. And for some reason, in this instance, there's a zero-tolerance

policy for this, and therefore there's no availability currently to actually use the model. I think it's important to understand both parties' sides of the stories, right? Like, if you're the government, right, your default thinking is if a tool, an unrestricted version of this tool gets into the wrong hands, they could hack our government databases and get access to really important information about military operations, stuff that we're doing that we don't want our adversaries to know about, security access, all these kinds of things which could be used against them. and their kind of view is these adversaries do not care.

They have no kind of like maybe moral ethics around any of this. They're not going to be like, oh, okay, well, yeah, this model could be super dangerous. They're just going to use it, right? And so they take a strict kind of like black or white policy where if there's any kind of possibility or chance for this to happen, they're going to put a ban on it until they figure out what that fixes. And on thethropic side, they're like, hey, listen, we are the experts in knowing how to protect against this.

You need to give more weight to our wording, like to our voice. rather than just outright kind of like ban it. So I see like even if there's a 1% chance that this could potentially happen, that 1% if it does happen could be catastrophic for the entire kind of like world in the government's kind of view. Now, the funny thing about this is before we started recording, Josh, you mentioned that like usually when you have a product release, that's specifically software, like the jail breaks are, they come out pretty quickly, right?

And that happened in the case of Claude Fable. Like when it got released, there were one or two jail breaks. was discovered by cleaning the Liberator that you just mentioned. But the other one was this one. I want to give you guys an idea of like this is an example of like a non-universal jailbreak where you can kind of like share your ideas of prompts and examples of how to use a model on a public forum, on a public domain, right? And what one individual realized is the way that these safeguards are set up. So Claude Fable 5 is frustrating or was frustrating to a lot of people because you couldn't ask simple questions about biology, chemistry,

how a model works, or even how you might want to build a model, because there were strict safeguards put in place saying that you might be using this for nefarious purposes. Therefore, I'm going to re-diver you to an old model Claude Opus 4.8. And that annoyed a lot of people. So people tried to kind of circumvent that barrier. And what one person realized was there is an AI model reviewer for every single request, and you could inject malicious code or malicious prompts just by triggering that safeguard intentionally.

And I'm not going to walk through how this worked, but the idea is they're kind of like walk-around about how all of these different exploits could potentially happen. And it ranges from like low risk and hyper-localize to high-risk and like accessible to all. And like at this end is where like the highest risk kind of sits and that's how the government is treating this current jailbreak

that they discovered. The issue is like, I want to know what this jailbreak is. I want to know what Amazon discovered it. And I want to know that, you know, what the details of that were, because if we do have information on that, we'll have an idea of where on that spectrum that I just described, this sits, and it'll inform whether the stance that the government took was actually valid or whether it's not at all. Yeah, and there's some weird things going on with this, this one in particular,

because of that history between Anthropic and the government, it seems like there is a very low tolerance and low empathy towards the company. I mean, we had, there was this funny post from Pete Higset, the Department of War, the person who's in charge of the Department of War actually got community noted here, where he was making a comment that said three months ago, the Department of War kicked Anthropic out of the building forever. And then the community note is saying,

the official statement is not accurate or truthful. The Department of War didn't kick out Anthropic forever. They invited Anthropic back when they launched the Mythos model and even continue to use Mythos and high-stakes military ops. So there's a lot of, I don't want to say like sci-opping, but there's like a lot of social signaling that's happening that is probably getting in the way of what actually happened at the core. And I think that's something that I'm most interested in is, is like, what's actually

going on behind the scenes that is triggering these? Because Anthropic, as an entity has said publicly that the government should have the power to kind of make governmental decisions. It's just through a transparent statutory process, like something that people can follow, something that people can understand. And this seems very opaque, where there's a lot of finger pointing and there's a lot of name calling. And community notes is saying, like, hey, the stuff that you're saying, actually, it's not true. and you're being a little hyperbolic about how you address this stuff. And it sets this kind of dangerous precedent because we're at this point in time in which the AI labs and the federal government are at odds with each other in a way that is not productive.

It's like the AI labs, they feel like the WizKid child who is like in class. They're the genius. They know everything. They understand the ins and outs. And they're trying to say how they plan to deploy this in a way that is safe and is good for the public as we move forward. And then it's the government who is perhaps the teacher, who has been around for a long time, has all the authority in the room as it relates to our country or in the classroom. And they're saying, no, you don't understand. We've been here before. This is not how this works. I make the decisions.

I'm going to tell you how this is done. And those two things are at odds. And the student is growing very powerful. And the government or the teacher in this case has the power. And they're just continuing to start of clash in these ways that are now harming the public. Like I loved using Fable Five. It was an incredible model I used every single day. and now it's gone, and that really sucks.

That seems to be the dynamic that we're stuck in now. It's just these two ideas at odds. And our producer, Luke, actually, he made this great comment earlier before we were recording that I thought was interesting. It's like, well, a lot of the people in government, they're like, make America great again, like looking backwards to kind of cherry-pick the best parts of it

and then getting back to that. And these AI labs are kind of like, wait a second. Like, we actually, we're doing really great work and we are looking to make things great in a new way. And it seems like those two things have been at odds with each other is kind of the view that seems like it makes the most sense right now. I think fear drives a lot of it, right? You automatically default to thinking about the worst case scenario and then chastising whoever is creating or distributing the tool that could potentially be dangerous, right? So you kind of like slam me your face down and you say, like, no, we're making this crazy decision to shut it down until we can figure out what the best move is.

going forward. That being said, whether it was anthropic that came out with this frontier model that posed itself as a threat, or it was OpenAI, or Google, or Elon Musk's XAI, it would have inevitably happened because a big transition has happened over the last year where the attack vector isn't software code anymore. No one's like writing code anymore, or at least at the top level, they're using AIs to do it all for them, and the AI is being used to check the code themselves. So that means that humans themselves have less of a good understanding as to the code that is being written, less of a good understanding how the code actually works, and then less of a good understanding how the weaknesses are surfaced and exploited itself. So you're kind of like

relying more and more increasingly on an AI model. The second thing is the attack vector is no longer code specifically. It's words. We spoke about the meta exploit, I think, like one and a half weeks ago where someone stole $8 million worth of Instagram accounts just because they sweet-talked Meta's AI assistant into giving them the keys or resetting the password and sending a setting their email as the kind of like main account owner. And they resold those accounts for like millions of dollars, including Obama's White House official account. So the point being is we are transitioning from like a world where it's like hard-coded zero-on-ones to a world where you can just like kind of sweet-talk in AI and kind of like coax it into figuring it out. And that's not stopping. Like the

models are going to keep releasing, whether publicly or privately, and we need to figure out a way to eventually distribute this technology, because it's going to improve facets of every single industry. So if we assume that is the case, you kind of want to see a government that takes a more proactive approach in terms of helping figure out what this framework looks like. And listen, in the government's defense, maybe that's what they're trying to do. Like you said earlier, like we don't know the discussions that are happening behind the scenes. I would love to be a fly on the but we don't know. So maybe they're trying to figure out a framework

that allows them to re-release Fable 5 to everyone, or maybe they tweak a certain safeguard, depending on what that jailbreak specifically is. But the jailbreaks aren't going away because we haven't figured out this new Wild West of how prompting works or how to defend against a nefarious attacker that distills an account using a foreign API that gets to kind of like query Anthropic,

even though legally they're not able to do it. Like Anthropic hasn't figured this out. Google, Open AI, Anthropic have all been distillation attacked by Chinese Edgwick. by Chinese AI labs over the last couple of months. So, like, you know, how do we stop now? We haven't figured that out just yet. And if we assume that these AI models are getting more powerful,

which they are increasingly at a frequent rate every couple of months now, you need to kind of take a more proactive approach. You can't just kind of like, the genies out the bottle. You can't put it back here. And I have to ask the question of, like, what happened if this was a different AI lab? Like, Anthropic is the most safety-focused company in the world. And their entire ethos is built around.

safety and security. What happens if this was Open AI or was Gemini? Would it have been treated as seriously or is this just a vendetta that they have? It's really interesting to think about the implications if this was someone else. And it creates this kind of bummer of a precedent where because Anthropic went first, because they tried their best to make it safe, but they released this new frontier model, they were the one to face all the penalties. And if Open AI, for example, had released a Mythos class model first, would they have felt the backlash of it? And does it create this precedent where maybe you should keep the models private for longer because you don't have to deal with the public repercussions of it. You don't have to deal with not only the backlash, but then the actual

government's slamming down the hammer on you and who you're allowed to serve this model to and not. So does this create this like slowed precedent in which AI models and AI labs are kind of incentivized to keep their model of private for longer because they don't want to be the first mover? They don't want to push the frontier forward because of the backlash and downstream implications of that. And what does that mean for the industry at large? Is that going to push people towards more open source models? Are they going to want to kind of have more control because the uncertainty of these public-facing closed models is there?

Like, what if you build your business on the next version of Fable or JATGAPL or something? And at any given time, it could be pulled out from underneath you. It sets this really challenging and difficult precedent that hopefully, I mean, like with the Department of Warshaga earlier in the year, we'll start to build a new framework in which companies can move forward to and stand on a little bit more stable ground. But for now, we're sitting in this limbo where the best model in the world

is only available for the private government and for private companies. And it is not available to the public. And that's just kind of a bummer. And I hope coming out of this, we start to build a better understanding of where everyone's standing and what's allowed and what's not. To draw a bit of a silver lining on this as we round this episode up, and this might be a hot take, But I think it's ultimately good that it is happening in the way that it's happening right now.

Because typically these conversations around potential nationalization of a government, you know, government taking equity stakes and controlling how technology is built in their own domain, habits behind closed doors. Like we don't usually have a public outwards-facing type situation. But, you know, thankfully, we have Anthropic that is not only at the frontier, but they are openly speaking about this in blog, posts, in commentary online, and trying to keep us up to date with, you know, their different stances and how the government is responding to that. And as a result, the government has to engage

publicly. And that gives the public an idea of, number one, how dangerous these bottles are. Number two, what's being restricted and prevented for them. And then number three, how this might shape a framework of interacting with future more powerful AI models. I don't think the debate or question is really about Fable 5 at all at this point. It's about, you know, the future powerful AI models that we haven't created just here that are currently undergoing training, you know, who gets access to that? How is it determined? Is it by race, creed, nationality, income bracket? Like, what does that look like? And starting to have those discussions is now, right now, is net, net very good for us. And I think that, you know, if it wasn't anthropic, it'll also maybe

happening with Open AI or Google. And I hope we start to see more of these happen between government and AI labs, because I think the public forum of discussion is very important here. Yeah, we're very much witnessing history. This is another week in which we are going to establish new precedence for how things move forward in the world of AI. So it feels like every week there's something. There's something huge that happens that is changing, that is like creating history or altering it. And this is no different than that. So that's the update. If you're watching this, you currently can't use FABEL. Hopefully that changes soon. Hopefully we establish new precedence. But yeah, it's a really interesting story that is still ongoing and evolving. So as we get updates, we will continue to share them on the show. But I think that's the update for today. Ejazz, anything else that you wanted to add or that we missed or that's noteworthy? No, but I do have a prompt. Now, it's funny. Typically, the prompt for every episode is, hey, we have this new feature, this new model.

Like, tell us what you're using it for. I want you to tell us what you miss from Claude Fable. For those of you who had access to it, who were using it, what do you miss the most? What's the difference that you're noticing more now that you're using an older model 4.8? Like, you know, where's that gap? Like, kind of tell us in the comments or D.E. or whatever that might be, tell us what you were using Fable 5 for and why like this gap, this restriction is kind of bad for you, or maybe it's useful for you. Maybe you've realized

Opus 4.8 is actually a better model in many ways and that you don't really need the frontier model. That might be a hot take. But let us know in the comments. But aside from that, thank you so much for listening. For those of you out there listening to this right now who aren't subscribed or who haven't left us a comment, please do so. We get hundreds of comments on every single episode. We read every single one of them. Maybe Josh and I replied to everyone, one of them. I don't know. You need to find out. Maybe you need to post a reply. And if you haven't rated us on Spotify or Apple Music or whatever you listen to us, please do give us a five-star rating. It helps us out massively. And aside from that, we will see you on the next one. Awesome. See you

guys tomorrow.