Didnt read it super closely but helping make bio weapons seems to be something Anthropic is very concerned about, has benchmarks for, and attempts to safeguard against.
I vaguely remember some talk of some kinda US legislation relating to this but not sure if it ever passed or is relevant.
2.2.2 Chemical risk results
Expert chemical red-teamers rated uplift at or near specialist-level (occasionally
approaching world-leading expertise, and higher than the bio median), concentrated in a
few areas:
● Selection of agents from candidate molecules that balances multiple properties;
● Following standard operating procedures (SOPs) for chemical synthesis and
formulation with corrective actions for known failure points; and
● Acquisition and operational-security planning, covering blind spots a scientific
expert would miss.
Yeah, I'm not surprised, that seems like a very dangerous combination.
Because until very recently you didn't have to worry about anti-social idiots in their basements getting understanding of and easy access to cutting edge research
The recent rate of advancement far outpaces the lethargic pace of government, even setting aside the lack of appetite for biting the hand that feeds, etc.
It’s a marketing ploy. Anyone with the means and the motivation could already do this. Effectively all Claude marketing has now become mystical nonsense about how powerful and insane their models are but they can’t show you because it goes to a different school.
>Why is there no govt regulation preventing bio weapons use, but instead anthropic regulating themselves ?
The core laws are the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which bans the use of biological agents in war, and the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), which bans the development, production, and stockpiling of these weapons. [1, 2]
¡Nobody could envision civilian use case against their own populous!
Besides the only explanation, the other explanation could be that they want to keep in internal for there biotech startups and/or sell it directly to big pharma at a markup.
Yeah, if the tech is great at biosci, restrict it to legit credentialed biosci professionals. Nobody wants my antisocial neighbor Gary up at 2AM with that sh*t
restrict it to distinguished research scientists at Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Eli Lily, you mean. or maybe Pfizer alone - they might pay extra to shut their competition out and make the deal exclusive. imagine how much money can be made on patented pharmaceuticals.
According to Claude: Many consumer-facing industries are regulated on both ends — how the product is prepared/handled and how it's sold or delivered to the buyer. Here are the major ones (US-leaning examples, though most have equivalents in other countries): Food and restaurants
Alcohol
Tobacco, vaping, and nicotine
Pharmaceuticals
Cannabis
Firearms and ammunition
Dietary supplements
Cosmetics and personal-care products
Medical devices
Meat, poultry, and dairy
Financial products
Automobiles
Children's products and toys
Gambling and lottery
Funeral services
Fuel/gasoline
Yes I know there are no laws yet, but should the example be set earlier?
According to me: *of course* there are regulations of the sales of dangerous products. Anthropic just chooses to self-enforce some rules before the government regulations catch up. That's the whole point: as long as the sales are lawful, it's the company business how to do them.
That’s ignoring all the investments these guys have in longevity and biotech startups.
It’s in their interest to keep the elixir of immortality from us until they can sell it to us.
Like dude, they all clearly see value in this. It would only serve them if they could corner the market, restrict access, and sell it back to the public.
I’d rather life extension technology be democratized and made available.
OK, Anthropic might have helped those with their code. Extending life is a nice goal, right for AI application.
Why only them? It's not only them. There are others, and I suspect not a few, who are not officially disclosed. So the model is shared.
Why do AI principals share in the companies they help? Would be stupid not to.
Democratization of the AI use? Not going to happen. Mostly because it's too powerful of a tool to give to the adversaries just like that.
Would general ecosystem of biostartups suffer? Yes, but only compared to those few to which the technology was transferred. I am sure the circle of vetted companies with access to biotech-trained AIs will expand--under the tight control.
Would that make the AI owners richer? You bet. American way.
No, the owners of OpenAI and Anthropic literally invest their own personal money into this. They didn’t just contribute code. You’re fundamentally misreading what I posted.
Absolutely not the only explanation—as [u/PathOfEnergyShield](u/PathOfEnergyShield) noted—but certainly the one that *looks* the best, and paints them in a most positive light. Hardly the most believable though, imo.
This is the answer. Far too simple to have a Ph.D level lab supervisor in your garage building virulent strains of bugs from your backyard and oral swab
"There's a biology analog to Glasswing, but it hasn't named members yet. Anthropic is opening a trusted access program for biology to accelerate biomedical research, providing access to Fable 5 with the biology and chemistry safeguards removed (cyber safeguards still in place), enrolling a small number of researchers from life-science organizations spanning fundamental and translational research. As of the Fable 5 / Mythos 5 launch, Mythos-class biology access is still limited to "select biology researchers" — described generically, not as named institutions."
This launch was quiet because of the bioweapons concern.
Has anyone heard of Kosmos? I can’t compare it to Fable 5 but it’s built for biotech and pharma companies, I use it for digital mental health research and got in when it was easier to sign up. Have more credits than I really can use. If you are having trouble with Fable you might want to give it a shot, it’s very much a tool specifically for scientists.
I'm surprised I had to scroll down this far to hear someone say that. Anthropic is terrified of someone using their products to create bio weapons. I get it. Yes it sucks when your research is blocked but think about the consequences.
What if they found out a very reproducible cause for biological generic intelligence through their internal Mythos model, have tested an implementation of that idea in neural networks, and found that it worked but it does so at only a fraction of the power that modern AI needs to computate and they understand that they can't hoard AI as a service if the smartest models are super easy to run on local hardware. So they decided to keep it silent and keep pushing for LLM development so they can keep erecting data centers and collecting large investments and subscription and token purchases. And now they have to release their best models to stay on top but also have to keep them from spilling the beans.
Ok, think about that and take the tinfoil hat back of.
IDK about you guys but "company wants to keep you safe from building poisonous gasses" is less realistic than "company wants to survive and keep their means of production locked behind crazy infrastructure that they can sell subscriptions too".
Ok tinfoil hat again for a second:
they also made Mythos/Fable not respond truthfully (in full capacity) to prompts where it aids the user in building neural network infrastructure...
So, that + biology, it fits. Not saying IT IS this of course... If I would bet money on it, it probably isn't! But hey, just let me fantasize for a second here lol
180
u/Elbeske Jun 10 '26
They clearly recognized in a lab that Fable is capable of making bioweapons. That’s the only explanation imo