Contact Me By Email

Saturday, June 13, 2026

Anthropic Blocks Foreigners From Using Mythos and Fable AI - The New York Times

U.S. Bars Foreigners From Using Anthropic’s Most Advanced A.I. Models

"The company said on Friday night that the federal government had ordered limits on its Mythos and Fable 5 A.I. systems, citing national security concerns.

A hand holds a phone whose screen displays the logo for Anthropic Claude Mythos.
Anthropic’s Mythos A.I. model has raised worries that it could be used to attack computer networks.Nicolas Tucat/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Anthropic said on Friday night that the U.S. government had ordered the company to suspend access for all foreign nationals to its Fable 5 and Mythos 5 artificial intelligence models, citing national security ​concerns.

The company revealed the order in a social media post, saying that it “must abruptly disable Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all our customers to ensure compliance.” Foreign nationals who work for Anthropic are also affected by the suspension.

The order to limit access to the new A.I. models came from the Commerce Department, said a person familiar with it who spoke on the condition of anonymity. It was unclear how long the restrictions would last.

The limits on foreigners represent a new chapter in Anthropic’s often prickly relationship with the federal government and are a highly unusual example of federal authorities’ dictating how a technology company can operate.

It is also the second time the Trump administration has targeted the company, which is based in San Francisco. In March, after tense talks over how Anthropic’s A.I. could be used in military and intelligence settings, the Pentagon said it had deemed Anthropic an unacceptable supply chain risk, potentially limiting its use by federal agencies.

Government restrictions on selling key technologies such as computer chips to countries such as China are common. But the order limiting who can use Anthropic’s technology is unusually expansive, and could in theory block Anthropic employees who are citizens of allied nations like Canada or Britain from working on it.

What you should know about anonymous sources. The Times makes a careful decision any time it shields the identity of a source. The information the source supplies must be newsworthy, credible and give readers genuine insight.

The order could also cause significant problems for technology development at Anthropic, which along with OpenAI is one of the most influential A.I. companies in the world. Though Mythos and Fable 5 are new, they were considered a significant improvement on earlier A.I. models.

Anthropic declined to comment beyond its post, and the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Anthropic unveiled Claude Mythos in April, but said it could not share the A.I. system with the public because it could become a powerful tool for hackers looking for ways to break into computer networks.

Mythos quickly became a security concern in Washington and Silicon Valley because it could represent what experts had worried about for several years: that A.I. represented a new and far more dangerous threat to computer networks.

Anthropic shared the Claude A.I. system with about 40 organizations that maintain critical computer infrastructure so they could use the system to patch security vulnerabilities before hackers exploited them.

Reactions from researchers who have had access to Mythos have varied. Some agreed that Mythos was a new and alarming threat. But others said that it was more evolutionary than revolutionary, and that they could use it to protect their networks just as hackers could use it to break into them.

In its brief statement on Friday, Anthropic seemed to indicate that it considered the government’s decision an overreaction. “We apologize for this disruption to our customers,” the company said. “We believe this is a misunderstanding and are working to restore access as soon as possible.”

After Anthropic unveiled Mythos, the White House started considering new oversight of A.I. systems. Last week, in a significant shift in policy for an administration that had taken a very hands-off approach to A.I., President Trump signed an executive order that asked companies to voluntarily give the government oversight of new systems before releasing them to the public.

Earlier this month, Anthropic said it would share the system with about 150 other organizations. Then, on Tuesday, the company unveiled a straitjacketed version of Mythos called Claude Fable 5.

The Fable system, the company said, included additional guardrails designed to block responses in areas like cybersecurity, biology and other sensitive topics. The guardrails may prevent malicious hackers from using the technology to attack computer networks. But the guardrails may also prevent companies and cybersecurity experts from using the system to defend against attacks.

Most queries that it deemed risky, Anthropic said, would instead be shuttled to an older A.I. system called Opus 4.8.

Anthropic’s Opus 4.8 and other older A.I. models were not affected by the government’s order on Friday, the company said.

Cybersecurity experts have disagreed on whether Anthropic was right to limit the release of Mythos, pointing out that this kind of system can be used to both attack and defend computer networks. Other companies, most notably the Anthropic rival OpenAI, offer similar technology.

Former U.S. cybersecurity and technology policy officials said they were surprised by the news, calling it highly unusual and out of step with other moves by the Trump administration, such as allowing some advanced A.I. chips to be sold to China.

“I have no words,” Dean Ball, a senior fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation and a former adviser for A.I. under Mr. Trump, said in a social media post. He added that the decision was “baffling.”

A week after Anthropic unveiled Mythos, OpenAI said that it would also limit the release of its latest system, called GPT-Cyber 5.4. But OpenAI shared its technology with a larger group, initially sharing the system with hundreds of experts before opening it up to thousands.

Cade Metz is a Times reporter who writes about artificial intelligence, driverless cars, robotics, virtual reality and other emerging areas of technology.

Dustin Volz writes about cybersecurity and intelligence for The Times. He is based in Washington."

Anthropic Blocks Foreigners From Using Mythos and Fable AI - The New York Times

Wednesday, June 03, 2026

Apple Plugs Security Hole That Enabled FBI to Access Deleted Signal Messages on iPhone

 

Apple Plugs Security Hole That Enabled FBI to Access Deleted Signal Messages on iPhone

“Apple released iOS 26.4.2, a security update that patches a vulnerability allowing the FBI to access deleted Signal messages. The update addresses a logging issue that retained notification data, improving data redaction.

The iOS 26.4.2 update is actually a big deal for privacy, even for people who use other messaging apps.

A phone showing the iOS 26.4.2 update to be installed.

Apple has released the iOS 26.4.2 update.

Jeff Carlson/CNET

Apple has released iOS 26.4.2, a seemingly minor security update for iPhonethat turns out to patch a serious security vulnerability that allowed the FBI to read sensitive messages from the Signal messaging app, even after the app had been deleted.

In early April, 404 Media reported that the federal organization had extracted the messages from a defendant's phone because the system still contained copies of the notifications that were generated when the texts were sent.

Although Apple doesn't specifically call out the FBI incident, the description in the company's security note (which also applies to iPadOS 26.4.2 for iPad models) matches the issue. "Notifications marked for deletion could be unexpectedly retained on the device," the note reads. The update fixes a logging issue "with improved data redaction."

To bring your iPhone or iPad up to date, go to Settings and tap General. Next, select Software Update and then Update Now and follow the prompts.

It's easy to ignore small updates like this, but sometimes there's a problem like this that needs to be tackled immediately. When Apple released iOS 26.4.1 in early April, it enabled the Stolen Device Protection feature on iPhones to bolster security against known vulnerabilities.

Now Playing: Don't Wait: iOS 26.4 Brings New Emoji, Keyboard Fixes, AI Playlists

Note that this update doesn't appear to fall under the category of Background Security Improvements, which are quietly installed behind the scenes when critical security updates are needed.

iOS 26.4 brought new emoji, video podcasts and more to the iPhone experience. iOS 26.5, currently available as public and developer betas, could bring features like end-to-end encryption to RCS messaging, plus improvements (and possibly ads) to the Maps app.“

Monday, June 01, 2026

Why Some Cameras Lose 50% Of Their Value Fast (And 3 That Actually Hold Strong) - YouTube

 

AirPods Pro 3 - 6 Months Later: The TRUTH!

 

Tech billionaires are spending unprecedented sums in California races. Experts say it’s the tip of the iceberg | California | The Guardian

Tech billionaires are spending unprecedented sums in California races. Experts say it’s the tip of the iceberg

"From Google co-founder Brin spending $66m to fight a billionaire tax to Google and Meta funding a joint Super Pac, Silicon Valley is engaged in an existential fight for its political power at home

Illustration of a hand cursor placing a stack of dollar bills into a ballot box amid stacks of cash
‘They’re not looking for balance.’ Illustration: Guardian Design / Getty Images

Tech billionaires have shelled out hundreds of millions of dollars ahead of the 2 June primary election in California, in an unrivaled attempt to influence who gets to run the state that Silicon Valley calls home.

The industry has used a cover-all-bases approach, funding candidates and ballot measures big and small, contributing to what looks to be the most expensive primary season in California history. The goal, experts say, is to gain both political and regulatory leverage that will perpetuate dominance in business.

“This money is flowing in the direction of politicians that can be influential in defining the regulatory agenda for the next five years,” said Francesco Trebbi, a public policy professor at the University of California in Berkeley. “Reinforcing the cycle of economic power produces political power, and political power further establishes economic power. So, this cycle is ongoing.”

Combing through campaign finance filings with California’s secretary of state, the Guardian found:

  • Google co-founder Sergey Brin has spent $66m since January, more than any other donor, to fight a billionaire tax that’s up for a vote on the November ballot.

  • Democratic gubernatorial candidate Matt Mahan has received more donations than any other candidate, including from top executives at Google, Amazon, Snap, LinkedIn, Reddit and Palantir.

  • Crypto mogul Chris Larsen has funded three Super Pacs with $26m to sway campaigns across California, including giving $1m to back a primary candidate for state insurance commissioner.

  • Google and Meta have collectively funded a Super Pac with $10m to back assembly and senate candidates in local district races across the state.

  • Silicon Valley money is flowing toward city primaries as well as state-level ones, with tech-backed Pacs sponsoring voter guides suggesting how to vote on local tax measures.

For Silicon Valley, pouring money into politics at this moment is existential as it races to develop artificial intelligence. With favorable candidates in office, tech companies say they will be able to grow at a breakneck rate while avoiding stifling regulations.

The vast amount of spending that’s been disclosed in public records likely isn’t even the half of it, Trebbi said. People looking to sway election outcomes often fund dark money entities that aren’t traceable through campaign finance filings.

“These people are sophisticated political givers, so they will use both visible and invisible forms of influence,” Trebbi said. What we’re seeing now is “just the tip of the iceberg”.

Money-for-influence leaderboard

The influx of dollars has meant that voters from Oakland to Bakersfield to Orange County have been bombarded with TV ads, robotexts and mailers touting various issues and candidates sponsored by super political action committees (Pacs) funded by the tech industry.

Top spenders for these Super Pacs include billionaires Larsen and Brin. Larsen, the co-founder of crypto company Ripple Labs, is worth about $12bn and has spent millions on more than a dozen primary campaigns up and down the state, targeting races and issues at a city and county level, as well as bigger state-level races. Brin, worth about $290bn, has homed in on fighting a one-time 5% tax on the state’s billionaires up for a vote in November, the proceeds from which are intended to help cover education, food assistance and healthcare programs.

To date, Brin has donated at least $66m to a Super Pac dedicated to blocking the billionaire tax, according to campaign finance filings with the state. The former Alphabet president also spent $500,000 in San Francisco last month to battle a city measure that seeks to expand a tax on high-paid CEOs, which is up for a vote on 2 June. These donations come even as Brin moved out of California late last year to Nevada.

Larsen and Brin did not respond to requests for comment.

Along with contributing millions to Super Pacs and candidates in California, the tech world is also spending eye-popping amounts on lobbying.

An analysis by news site CalMatters found that in 2025 alone, the tech industry paid $39m to lobby the state government. That’s more than any year prior and surpasses what was spent by the oil and gas industry, which typically tops the high roller list. According to a Bloomberg analysis, the biggest tech and AI companies spent a collective $109m on federal lobbying in 2025; that their state lobbying in California is equivalent to 36% of their federal spend showcases the state’s importance to the tech industry.

Tech picks a favorite in the governor’s race

Of the 62 candidates listed on the 2 June primary ballot, one has stood out as the tech industry’s darling: Matt Mahan. The centrist Democrat and upstart mayor from San Jose, a large city in Silicon Valley, entered the race late and quickly made headlines as he racked up contributions from a who’s who of the tech industry.

Before Mahan got involved in politics in 2020, he had a career in the tech sector. He was an undergraduate at Harvard with Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, and in 2014 co-founded a startup with funding from the Salesforce CEO, Marc Benioff, tech investor Ron Conway and Napster co-founder Sean Parker.

Since Mahan’s candidacy announcement in late January, he’s received nearly $50m in contributions, according to Politico – more than any other gubernatorial candidate (with the exception of Tom Steyer’s self-funded campaign of about $200m). Mahan has received donations from prominent venture capitalists, along with former and current executives from Google, Amazon, Snap, eBay, PayPal, Stripe, LinkedIn, DoorDash, Reddit, Netflix, Palantir, Anduril, Roblox, Riot Games and more, public records show.

Google’s Brin donated the maximum limit for an individual campaign donation at $78,400 and contributed $1m to the pro-Mahan Super Pac Deliver for California, according to public records. Mahan flew to Lake Tahoe where Brin lives in March to make a personal appeal to the billionaire and his conservative influencer girlfriend, the New York Times reported. Brin’s girlfriend alleges that Mahan texted Brin afterwards to apologize for attending a No Kings rally.

Mahan’s overtures to both progressives and conservatives haven’t won him many friends among the state’s leading Democrats. Silicon Valley congressman Ro Khanna chose Steyer to endorse and state assembly members from Mahan’s district have publicly criticized him, saying he was “handpicked” by the tech industry. Similarly, Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, president of the powerful California Labor Federation, saidMahan is the only democrat she’s not promoting because she’s “opposed to the candidate funded by Trump’s big tech billionaires”.

Mahan said he has no plans to cater to special interests and his goal is for the system to work for everyone.

“I’m not running for tech, and if you look at my record – I’ve been in public office now for six years – I think you’d be hard pressed to find – you would not find a single example of me ever doing something to benefit the industry to the detriment of the community,” Mahan said. “If anything, I’ve fought hard to get them to do their fair share.”

The influx of tech cash into Mahan’s race hasn’t bolstered it as much as early predictions forecast. His campaign has failed to gain traction with a wider audience and polls have put him at just 4% of the vote. The Brin-funded Deliver for California Super Pac shuttered last month.

Mahan did not respond to further questions about his interactions with Brin or the termination of the Super Pac.

Targeting state and local primaries

Although the tech industry has mostly focused on a sole candidate for the governor’s race, it has taken more of a scattershot approach in local campaigns. Silicon Valley money has infiltrated nearly every segment of politics – from local ballot measures to state congressional campaigns to the race for California’s new insurance commissioner.

The tech executive who appears most dedicated to local politics is Larsen, the crypto mogul. He’s funded Super Pacs aimed at different causes and candidates. The Golden State Promise Super Pac has received a total of $10m entirely from Larsen and Ripple Labs, public records show. The Pac, which is devoted to combating the billionaire tax that’s up for a vote in November, launched an attack ad against the tax earlier this month.

Another Super Pac supported by Larsen is geared toward the state’s insurance commissioner race. Earlier this month, Larsen donated more than $1m to the Pac, Californians for an Affordable Future, which is dedicated to electing Ben Allen, a democrat. It’s a heated primary race with several candidates vying for the seat, including Bernie Sanders-backed Jane Kim, also a democrat.

Larsen has spread his money across elections for California’s state legislature too, mostly through a Super Pac called Grow California. He’s donated $15m to the Pac, while crypto evangelist Tim Draper has contributed $5m, according to public records. Grow California’s stated goal is to “rebuild a state capital”.

The Super Pac has injected hundreds of thousands of dollars into roughly a dozen state assembly and senate primaries across California. For example, Mark Pulido, who’s running for assembly in Orange county, has received more than $1.5m from Grow California. Likewise, a senate candidate in Northern California’s Alameda County, Scott Sakakihara, has received more than $500,000 from the Pac.

“We have a group of people who are not acting in a pragmatic way. They’re not looking for balance. They’re completely fucking owned by one side,” Larsen told Politico, in reference to organized labor’s power in the legislature. “So we’re going to work on taking out those people who are not working for the people of California.”

Google and Meta have supported a similar Super Pac, California Leads, with $5m each and have distributed funds to several candidates in the Central Valley, as well as to many of the same contenders as Grow California. According to public records, Pulido has received nearly $750,000 from California Leads. The Super Pac’s stated mission is “supporting leaders focused on California’s future”.

John Bennett, director of the advocacy organization California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, said spending upwards of $500,000 on a local district primary is a “huge sum of money”. He’s been studying the races and said the bulk of tech spending has gone to about a dozen open seats in the state legislature.

“They’ve been hyper-focused on those open seats, not going after incumbents this time around,” Bennett said. “So, it seems like they’re doing a long-term strategy to slowly turn the legislature to become more friendly to them.”

Other companies, like Airbnb and Uber, have also donated to local assembly and senate races across the state but with smaller contributions.

City campaigns are seeing a tech infusion too. Joe Lonsdale, a Palantir co-founder, contributed to former reality TV star and Los Angeles mayor hopeful Spencer Pratt – even though Lonsdale lives in Texas, records show. And several 501(c)(4) groups backed by Silicon Valley money have cropped up across the Bay Area sending out mailers and robotexts with voter guides that highlight preferred local candidates, along with suggestions to vote down issues like a union-backed parcel tax.

“Now they’re going at this from multiple fronts,” Bennett said. “They’re spending in elections, they’re spending in the legislature, and they’re trying to do whatever they can to ensure that they don’t lose their foothold in this economic system.”

Lauren Gambino contributed reporting"

Tech billionaires are spending unprecedented sums in California races. Experts say it’s the tip of the iceberg | California | The Guardian

Opinion | Bernie Sanders: A.I. Belongs to the People, Not to Billionaires - The New York Times

Bernie Sanders: The Public Should Own Half of the Big A.I. Companies

An illustration of two marchers with raised fists carrying a banner that reads “Workers of the world, unite!” in binary code.
Erik Carter

By Bernie Sanders

"Mr. Sanders, an independent, is the senior senator from Vermont.

Artificial intelligence will almost certainly be the most transformational technology in the history of the world. It will profoundly affect the life of every man, woman and child in our country. It will bring — and is already bringing — unimaginable changes to our economy, our democracy, our emotional well-being, our environment and how we educate and raise our children. Further, there is a very real fear that as A.I. becomes smarter than humans it could eventually function independently, with potentially catastrophic consequences.

The question, then, is not whether A.I. will change the world. It will. The question is: Who will own and control that future? Who will benefit from it, and who will be hurt by it? Will A.I. be used to make life better for working families? Will it enrich our quality of life? Will it help us eliminate poverty, extend life expectancies and solve the climate crisis? Or will the future of humanity be determined by a handful of billionaires who have promoted and developed A.I., with virtually no democratic input, who stand to become even richer and more powerful than they are today?

That is the choice before us.

Let us be clear. Artificial intelligence was not created out of thin air. The data and language used by generative A.I. tools didn’t just pop into Sam Altman’s head or Elon Musk’s imagination. A.I. is built on our collective intelligence: our books, songs, artwork, journalism, computer code, scientific research, videos, conversations, images and ideas spanning generations. That is not just the opinion of Bernie Sanders. According to Mr. Altman, the head of OpenAI, A.I. models were trained on our “collective experience, knowledge” and “learnings of humanity.”

For the most part, tech oligarchs have fed this knowledge into their A.I. models without permission, without acknowledgment, without compensation. In other words, the creative work of millions of people — writers, artists, musicians, journalists, teachers, scientists and ordinary citizens — has essentially been stolen by some of the wealthiest people in the world. It’s time for us to reclaim it.

Since A.I. is built on the collective knowledge of humanity, the wealth it generates must benefit humanity. Not just Mr. Musk, Mr. Altman, Dario Amodei and other moguls whose companies are positioned to dominate the industry. Not just venture capitalists in Silicon Valley or money managers on Wall Street who undoubtedly see A.I. as the next great wealth-extracting machine.

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter  Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. 

That is why I will soon be introducing the American A.I. Sovereign Wealth Fund Act. This legislation would give the public a direct ownership stake in the largest A.I. companies in our country. How? It would create a sovereign wealth fund through a one-time 50 percent tax — not on the profits of OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI and other companies, but paid with something far more valuable than that: the stock.

If passed, this legislation would do two crucial things. First, it would give the public a direct role in determining the future of this technology. No longer would the future of A.I. and the transformation of human life that it will bring be dictated by a handful of Big Tech oligarchs. The federal government would have the power, through its voting shares and an equal representation on each company’s board, to block decisions that hurt our citizens and to push for policies that help them.

Second, this legislation would guarantee that the trillions of dollars potentially generated by A.I. are used to improve the lives of all of us — not simply to make the richest people in the world even richer. If the big A.I. companies continue to grow as rapidly as many analysts expect, then the value of the sovereign wealth fund will grow as well — and the benefits to the American people will grow along with it.

This is not an original idea. It has been proposed by scholars. It has been endorsed by some of the leading A.I. companies in America. OpenAI, for example, recently proposedcreating a “public wealth fund that provides every citizen — including those not invested in financial markets — with a stake in A.I.-driven economic growth.” Anthropic, led by Mr. Amodei, similarly proposed the creation of “national sovereign wealth funds with stakes in A.I.” Mr. Musk, who runs xAI, wrote, “Universal HIGH INCOME via checks issued by the Federal government is the best way to deal with unemployment caused by AI.”

Dozens of sovereign wealth funds exist all over the world to ensure that ordinary people benefit from national wealth. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, one of the largest in the world, was funded from the country’s oil wealth and is now worth more than $2 trillion. Instead of a few oil executives pocketing all the benefits of this national resource, Norway made the decision that this wealth should be used to improve life for all of its people.

This concept has already been put into practice right here at home. Fifty years ago, Alaska created a sovereign wealth fund from the state’s oil revenues. For decades, it has paid annual dividends directly to Alaskans. Moreover, public pension funds in states across the country already hold hundreds of billions of dollars in the stock of companies throughout America. Even President Trump, in an executive order, has proposedestablishing an American sovereign wealth fund.

To start, the billions, if not trillions, of dollars generated by this fund would provide direct payments to the American people. And as the fund generates more and more wealth, the proceeds would be used to ensure that every man, woman and child in our country has a decent and dignified standard of living, including health care, education and housing.

Needless to say, I recognize that for the government to have a major stake in a company, particularly one for which A.I. is only part of its business, is complicated. More details — including the specific spending priorities and the mechanics of implementation — will be included in the legislation I unveil in the coming weeks.

But the principle is simple: When a public resource generates wealth, the public should share in that wealth. A.I. is being built on a public resource far more valuable than oil: the accumulated knowledge, creativity and labor of mankind.

The future of A.I. and the fate of humanity must not be decided behind closed doors in Silicon Valley. It must not be dictated by billionaires seeking to maximize their power and profit. It must be decided by workers, parents, teachers, artists, scientists, communities and the American people. It’s our future. We must decide it."

Opinion | Bernie Sanders: A.I. Belongs to the People, Not to Billionaires - The New York Times