[vovavili]

The way I see it, a government led by an adult toddler and his sycophants has decided to punish a firm that refused to cooperate with it's military when it was embarrassed by a militarily weak adversary. The model strength spin strikes me as motivated reasoning.

The rubicon being crossed here is Republicans/the red tribe losing their comparative advantage of being opposed to overregulating a rapidly advancing technology.

[KronisLV]

Weren’t they claiming their party is opposed to over regulation and critiqued EU for that or something? Funny, that.

Anyways, this seems like pretty good PR for Anthropic: “Our models are so powerful even the government forbid us from exporting access to them as a service for a while!” for once this gets sorted out (if it does). It’s one thing when they just write self-congratulatory blog posts and people are skeptical, it’s another (at least, optics wise) when the government targets them, specifically.

Ofc the original intent might have been to hurt them by removing their advantage vs OpenAI, go figure. I wonder whether OpenAI's next models would get a similar treatment, or whether the govt. would also decide that Opus 4.X and GPT-5.5 shouldn't be given to foreigners as well. Who knows if some money needs to change hands behind the scenes in the form of a charitable donation.

If this affects all LLMs long term though, things will be pretty messed up.

[juliendorra]

It’s very bad PR for all US AI companies, not just Anthropic.

[thefounder]

I don’t see it as good PR for Anthropic at all. They did a lot of PR in that direction but now it backfired.

People/gov now think twice about relying on US ai products. I don’t think the investors are very happy with the place this landed either.

I think the right move for Europe and other countries would be to effectively ban US tech and follow the Chinese response to Nvidia (delivered personally to Trump: we want to build our own AI chips).

[pjmlp]

We are back to cold war computing days, the message has long arrived on this side of the Atlantic, even if most companies and governments aren't able to get rid of old habits.

[bjelkeman-again]

It is the old crypto export ban again, bu now for LLMs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...

[pjmlp]

Not only crypto, go look into the export restrictions of commercial languages.

For example, before becoming open source you naturally could not buy Visual Studio legally in countries forbidden by US exports.

Or even the PlayStation 3, when sold from US locations.

[KronisLV]

> People/gov now think twice about relying on US ai products.

Oh this has already been clear to anyone in the EU, for example. The current reliance on US tech and even widespread stuff like MS is pretty deeply rooted, however and it might take a while to do anything about it - so for many it’s a matter of convenience for now.

That said, as long as what you need sits behind an OpenAI or Anthropic API and you don’t have deeper proprietary integrations, there is no moat. I can even run Claude Code with DeepSeek if I so choose (though OpenCode is neat too).

Best EU has at the moment seems to be Mistral though, which is… sorta passable, but not cutting edge. Oh well.

> I think the right move for Europe and other countries would be to effectively ban US tech and follow the Chinese response to Nvidia (delivered personally to Trump: we want to build our own AI chips).

Not sure about outright ban, but homegrown govt. systems should have both the devs and the infra in EU.

Would also be really cool if we could make even regular CPUs and GPUs some day but I don’t think that’s super likely, though. Kinda amazing that China can do that! Even consumer stuff like the Chinese Lisuan GPUs (and Moore Threads I think), hell, even the Russian Elbrus CPUs.

[thefounder]

It has been clear but it was never enforced. Now EU and UK was placed on the same level as China.

[foo12bar]

Don't they lose money on every token they sell, though? It may be a blessing in disguise. They can now use all of their resources towards superintelligence, and can't be considered selfish/evil for not sharing their fruits. The government made me now becomes an excuse.

[BjoernKW]

> I think the right move for Europe and other countries would be to effectively ban US tech and follow the Chinese response to Nvidia (delivered personally to Trump: we want to build our own AI chips).

How would the EU replace US tech? There simply are no equivalent providers of such technology in the EU, regardless of pipe dreams in that respect EU representatives regularly conjure up (privacy industry, "European Google", "European Facebook", you name it ..,).

Maybe, however, such a move would actually be consistent with dominant EU policy. The EU seems hellbent on becoming poor and economically irrelevant, after all.

[tremon]

The primary European failure here has been to allow the hollowing out of the EU tech space. There have been plenty of web tech players in the EU; the US policy over the last 30 years has been to absorb them into US companies or buy them off using US capital, and the EU strategy has been to very much encourage that.

But it is complete fantasy to use the current landscape as evidence of capability. It would be equally shortsighted to say "How would the US replace Chinese manufacturing? There simply are no equivalent supply chains in the US, regardless of pipe dreams that pedophile sycophants regularly conjure up. The US seems hellbent on becoming poor and economically irrelevant".

[BjoernKW]

It never ceases to amaze me how people scramble to defend the EU's failed policies over the last three decades. The EU managed to regulate itself out of all relevant markets and it only has itself to blame.

[mr_toad]

The EU lost its manufacturing capacity to countries with cheaper labour, just like the US. The US has only succeeded in IT, everywhere else it struggles against Asia.

The ‘American dream’ attracted a lot of talent (look at how many tech leaders were immigrants), and once the network effects (both IT and social) kicked in it was hard to stop. This is a story that has unfolded many times throughout history. Talent moves to where talent is. And it will move if conditions change.

[weakfish]

You’re missing their point, they’re not defending EU policy and in fact agree that current capability is poor. They’re saying that it can change and that the US is also self sabotaging in other ways.

[viking123]

Way to miss the point lmao

[cherryteastain]

China managed it by keeping US tech out despite, initially, not having alternatives to Google et al.

In winner takes all industries you MUST be protectionist and develop domestic alternatives.

[BjoernKW]

> and develop domestic alternatives.

Therein lies the rub for the EU. They think they can just regulate such alternatives into existence, yet have time and time again failed to provide such alternatives.

[robotresearcher]

With exceptions. Linux being the most obvious example.

[adgjlsfhk1]

Cory Doctorow gave a talk a couple months ago with the answer to how. Stop honoring US copyright.

[tessellated]

I could start teaching bittorrent and adblocking in the local pub!

[Avicebron]

It's really not that bad of an idea. At least the adblocking part is justifiable considering considering how many times I see people (older/less tech savvy) getting caught with scareware from ads.

[kansface]

This would not end well.

[BjoernKW]

> Stop honoring US copyright.

I suppose some people just want to see the world burn.

I'm by no means a supporter of copyright and copyright laws, but unilaterally terminating such agreements is a recipe for disaster. How do you think the US would react to such a move?

[adgjlsfhk1]

The us got those agreements in the first place in exchange for 0% tarrifs for international trade. Now that the US has dropped free trade, there's very little incentive for other countries to hold to their side of the deal. If europe wanted to, they could really go to 25 year on US copyright with a plan to go to 0 if there was retaliation

[pjmlp]

By baby steps, nonetheless an improvement.

Foster having Linux/BSD distribution available pre-installed in stores like FNAC, Cool Blue, Media Markt and co.

Push for FOSS programming languages, OSes, products and frameworks at very least on public sector projects.

Forbid outsourcing outside European countries.

Forbidding companies to have apps only available on Android/iOS, they must cater for a diverse system of desktop and various mobile OSes.

And plenty more possibilities that could be done, yes it isn't easy, then again Rome wasn't built in a day.

Regardint relevance, last stage capitalism above everything else isn't something I wish for my country.

[BjoernKW]

It's way to late for baby steps. The EU is bound to become either a US or a Chinese protectorate in all but name in just a few years time now.

How isolationism and open source are supposed to stem that tide, is beyond me.

[pjmlp]

It is never too late for the Great Wall of Europe.

Like in each ones lives, sometimes hard decisions are only possible because they are forced upon us without alternatives.

Recent example, Ukraine would never gotten advanced drone technology, if it wasn't for the price they are being forced to pay to keep their country.

If unfortunately we're faced with similar hard decisions on who to depend on, they will have to be done, regardless of their cost to the local industry.

[ifoo]

Sure, it "backfired" but it would've happened anyway. Trump mad Trump get revenge. Trump smash. That's how he operates - and even though Anthropic were being dicks about the marketing, they got Trump mad. That's why this is happening, not due to the marketing - it would've happened anyway.

If anything the marketing is WHY it got so popular during these 3 days.

[AtNightWeCode]

On the contrary. This is more like a Kaspersky moment for American cloud services. Simply can no longer be trusted for use outside of US.

[carlossouza]

Good for Anthropic?

Can you think of any case in history where the US government suspended product sales due to national security concerns and that was ultimately beneficial for the company being regulated?

[drcongo]

https://newsletter.pessimistsarchive.org/p/when-the-mac-was-...

[idleprocess]

Larry Ellison, Softbank, and OpenAI invested a lot of money into project Stargate. Would be a shame if Anthropic took a piece of the pie.

[alpineman]

I mean it's obvious, isn't it?

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/05/trump-open-ai-altman-stake.h...

[felixgallo]

the way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if Anthropic was ordered to sell to Larry Ellison.

[rayiner]

The U.S. banned encryption over 40 bits throughout the 1990s. LLMs are orders of magnitude more significant.

[convolvatron]

that was pretty destructive. by unfortunate accident the process of developing network standards shut down as that was being lifted. people who tried to address the systemic security issues in internet infrastructure were shouting into the wind while the itar restrictions where in place, since none of their solutions could be deployed. that shortsightedness is at least a partial cause for the huge uncontrollable security issues we have today.

this seems like a direct parallel, sowing confusion during the formative years, for no apparent gain.

[rayiner]

I also think as a policy matter it’s futile. But my point is that this is a predictable response to this technology. Analyzing it in terms of one particular administration is missing the forest for the trees.

[convolvatron]

the trees being that the US federal government is basically off the rails, has abandoned its basic duties and used its authority for all sorts of corrupt and counterproductive ends. apparently you take great comfort in these 'both sides' statements, but the reality is that things have gotten radically worse recently.

[rayiner]

It’s not a “both sides” argument—I don’t even remember which side instituted the >40-bit crypto ban in the first place. I don’t think it was Clinton.

[chinathrow]

> led by an adult toddler and his sycophants

which are deeply entrenched with the competition (Grok, OpenAI)

[iandanforth]

Shutting down the growth prospects of a company based, not on its behavior, but on the capability of its models right before the IPOs of the companies you're going to profit from is staggeringly dumb. Yes the public is stupid when it comes to investing in stocks, but come on. If these companies growth prospects rest in large part on continuing to improve their products and the government said that if they do they face National Security Cease and Desist letters, then investing is a bad idea.

The selfish / corrupt thing to do is to do this after you've fleeced the public.

[echelon]

One day a few million dollars in tokens will enable you to mint an entire AWS or iPhone.

That will not be something you can purchase. Only enormous capital holders will have access and be able to play that game.

We're going to be left with scraps. Thin clients, shitty gaming cards (for but a few), which also dovetails nicely with trusted computing and device attestation.

We've already lived through this:

- open web -> platforms

- protocols -> closed products

- firefox -> chrome sans ad block

- urls are cool -> 92% of URL bars sent to a single company to show ads

- the personal computer -> locked down iPhones and increasingly locked down Androids without APKs.

- free to use internet -> national ID laws

- free to use cell phones -> required KYC

It's getting worse and worse every year. Why would you think you'll get to have these models? You're a serf.

They'll take your career and your hobby and leave you with nothing. Enjoy renting and being monitored.

Not a religious person, but I'm shocked at all of the people watching Noah's proverbial ark being built right in front of us, the rain starting to pour, and everyone just laughing. The flood is coming. 90+% of you, maybe more, are going to lose your jobs.

Your careers are about to die all at once and you're standing around laughing it off. Absolutely wild to see.

[fellowmartian]

This feeling of being defeated by and trapped inside the “machine” and seeing the “truth” is exactly what the “machine” would want you to do. The actual red pill is that there’s no “machine”, there’s only people and shared social constructions held together by our compliance and they’re contingent.

[aaimnr]

There's no machine, and there's no ladder. However with sufficient people believing it exists and acting like it does, it becomes real in its own way.

[wolvesechoes]

> there’s only people and shared social constructions held together by our compliance and they’re contingent

But that's what a "machine" is.

[blastro]

thank you

[idorube]

we also lived through

owning digital books => renting/subscribing

owning digital games => renting/subscribing

owning digital music => renting/subscribing

owning the right to repair => renting/subscribing

Vehicle ECU's => TCU's that share data with 3rd parties

I'm sad to say that I tend to agree with echelon.

[pjmlp]

I fully agree with you, and I find bonkers to see devs screaming how they got x times more productive, observe rewrites from major FOSS products, and still they assume their employer is going to keep the whole team employed.

Also on the other subjects you mention, I got distracted with convenience during the last years, however apparently it is about time to save what is still possible to keep computing open.

[AlexeyBelov]

I think you don't actually agree with them, because this user _is_ the one screaming in almost every thread. Full on psychosis.

[layla5alive]

Indeed. When are we going to wake up and stand up to this? "Freedom?" This is not freedom. Liberty? Nope. This really is techno-serfdom. Power and capability for me (govts / large corps) but not for thee (us, the serfs).

[Eisenstein]

Almost always, the future ends up being bad, but not in the ways we think it will.

[ai_brain_rot]

I bet 99.99% of people who have ever lived would say the future got better than when they were alive if they could.

This seems a silly statement

[Eisenstein]

You are mistaking aggregate for specifics. It may be better on whole, but there are always aspects that are worse.

[ai_brain_rot]

Got it, so your statement was meaningless

[wolvesechoes]

> I bet 99.99% of people who have ever lived would say the future got better than when they were alive if they could

This says much more about you, Last Man, than anything else.

[bubblethink]

>The rubicon being crossed here is Republicans Republicans/the red tribe losing their comparative advantage of being opposed to overregulating a rapidly advancing technology.

What purpose do Vance, Elon, Sacks, Sriram Krishnan and others serve? Are Lutnick and Hegseth calling the shots? It looks like the Valley also got duped.

[toss1]

>>It looks like the Valley also got duped.

The valley duped themselves the same way the German industrialists duped themselves by thinking they could control Hitler. Turned out they couldn't and a good number did not survive to 1945.

Those "geniuses" with their "philosophers" (Yarvin, seriously?) think they know everything, but don't even bother to read the most basic relevant history. Theil is already deciding to bundle himself and his family off to Argentina.

Even if things don't end as badly as they did for the Germans, the global economy in general, and America's place in the global economy in particular are already seriously damaged after only one third of this presidential term; even as they are managing to concentrate more wealth, having a bigger slice of a smaller pie is worth less. This really needs to be cleaned up.

[abraxas]

Some oligarchs are making out like bandits. This is russia level kleptocracy.

[clickety_clack]

While that is a tempting narrative, the idea that there would be restrictions on exports of AI began in the previous government. This isn’t a my team v your team problem.

[_heimdall]

Neither party in the US is opposed to overregulation, from my perspective that died a good twenty years ago.

Both parties want regulation and a larger federal government. They disagree only on what regulations they want, and even then its largely in optics as they tend to agree on much of the big picture.

Both parties agree that the federal government should have the authority to tell people what they can and can't do to their own body, for example. Its just that one party wants to use it to mandate vaccines and the other prefers to tell women they can't have an abortion.

[wavefunction]

The first party didn't actually force anyone to get vaccinated though. And that second party also says they can tell you what to put in your body and mandates death panels now in health care. Means-testing for cancer patients. Murder and rapine as government policies. The second party is actually doing that. But yeah, both parties...

[_heimdall]

The Biden administration absolutely wanted to mandate covid vaccines, they just didn't believe they would get it past the courts. Instead they leveraged their ability to drive a massive smear campaign against anyone in the public who chose not to get vaccinated.

And to be clear, vaccines are mandated for anyone who wishes to use the school system they already pay for via property taxes.

[iAMkenough]

Seatbelts are also mandated in the vehicles they paid for with their own money.

[cobbzilla]

Now imagine junkies could get high off of seat belts.. then how do you regulate??

[iAMkenough]

7% seatbelt use tax, with a required seatbelt fastener technology that charges you every click

[eptcyka]

There are states that require cars to be crash tested with the dummies without seatbelts. This then encumbers auto designers to cater for that crash test. Some cars will never be homologated in the US because of this, loads of other cars could be more spacious and safer if it was not for this requirement. And it is just 3 states.

[_heimdall]

Sure, are you assuming I'm not similarly opposed to that authority?

If I crash without a seatbelt on and die, my going through the windshield harms only myself.

The government shouldn't have any mandating what we can and can't do if the only victim in said crime would be the same person doing that thing.

[teh64]

This is why the libertarian argument does not make sense to me.

You crashing without a seatbelt and dying harms others as well:

1. Your body as a projectile could harm others.

2. The emotional harm of others seeing your dead body and the horrific injuries. Also the emotional harm on your friends and family.

3. The increase to my taxes and healthcare costs because people have to deal with your dead body. Also, if you almost die when going through the windshield, the costs are much greater trying to save your life than if you wore a seatbelt, as the injuries will be greater and could require things like air ambulances etc...

4. Your body being unrestrained means that your car can cause way more damage, including hitting other cars or pedestrians and injuring and killing them.

It is not a victimless crime.

[iAMkenough]

Are you assuming I don’t agree with you? I just stated a fact. People can interpret that fact however they’d like.

When someone else crashes into you on the street your tax dollars paid for, you should be free to not agree with seatbelts.

[Hizonner]

> If I crash without a seatbelt on and die, my going through the windshield harms only myself.

Mostly, yes. Whereas if you fail to get vaccinated and therefore spread a disease, you are harming others.

[sgarland]

I see nothing wrong with mandating vaccines if you want to exist in society. You want to use public services? Be a responsible part of the public. Vaccines were once heralded as miracles of science, because they are. It wasn’t until the U.S. began deemphasizing education and encouraging anti-intellectualism that we lost our collective minds.

[_heimdall]

That only makes sense IMO if paying for said public services is optional. If one has to pay taxes to fund public services it seems unreasonable to say they also must get vaccinated or they can't use the very things they are paying for.

[sgarland]

That’s a fair rebuttal. A counter - though not entirely so, depending on the logic behind your statement - is that public schools (in the U.S., anyway) are paid for by taxes, even if you have no children who are benefiting from it.

[reactordev]

This. Free Market my ass. GOP is a mafia now.

[diydsp]

History will note this action was made the same day scaffolding was set up to remove the president's name from the Kennedy center.

[kasey_junk]

They are putting a fighting pit on the White House lawn..

Something about bread and circuses seems in order.

[filoeleven]

I used to get irked when people would say America is on the path that was portrayed by the film Idiocracy. But the path from "fighting pit on the White House Lawn" to "Extreme Court arena battles featuring monster trucks with giant dildos" increasingly looks like a straight line.

[devin]

The difference is that president Kamacho cared about his people and was ok with being counseled by the smartest guy in the country to turn things around.

[HAL3000]

Don't forget that the Biden administration created export controls for GPUs by establishing tiers and limits for countries[1]. When Democrats come back to power, nothing will change in the context of export controls for models like Fable. This is what things will look like going forward. OP is right: this is a geopolitical and strategic shift that will be used by both Democratic and Republican administrations.

EDIT: Genuinely curious why is this being downvoted? Is this related to US politics or a left vs right thing on HN? I'm not from the US, so I don't have any attachment to either party.

1. https://www.pcmag.com/news/us-further-restricts-nvidia-ai-ex...

[dofm]

Did the Biden administration do that off their own backs or was that an extension/compromise of the action of a Republican-held Congress that is, for example, unreasonably jumpy about RISC-V?

I think there is good reason to consider that frontier models might cross the ITAR threshold, actually. Not least because of the risk that they can simply blurt out knowledge that already does. If ITAR exists, an AI that might know how to contravene it could be a problem, because no existing legal framework or threat of punishment will cause it to keep secrets.

But I don't think you can ignore that the two big AI companies were pushing for that judgement because it would benefit them commercially if open weights AI was regulated.

[HAL3000]

> id the Biden administration do that off their own backs or was that an extension/compromise of the action of a Republican-held Congress

Republicans reverted it so I'm not sure I understand your point.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250513-us-reverses-b...

> But I don't think you can ignore that the two big AI companies were pushing for that judgement because it would benefit them commercially if open weights AI was regulated.

This doesn't matter in this context, NVIDIA didn't push for restrictions for example but they got it anyway. So AI companies would get restrictions either way.

[dofm]

Republicans reverted it in the Trump era, though.

This happens a lot. Even I as a foreigner understand that Trump is routinely at odds with what long-standing cautious Republicans and right-leaning "national security Democrats" think is in the national security interest. They want the long term picture; he has no long-term perspective at all and wants the bargaining chip.

There was solid bipartisan border policy in 2024 that would have enacted strong border controls, for example — legislation Biden was very willing to sign, but Trump got Republicans who had argued for it to kill it off because he wanted to run against "open borders", not strong border controls. He wanted the advantage with voters.

Trump reversing export controls that sensible Republicans wanted for decades is not at all surprising when you consider just how utterly desperate he is to be friends with Xi (and how easily manipulated by Xi he is). Again, he thinks being able to open and close that tap himself is his own personal leverage.

I agree that in this case the calls for restrictions are coming from the corporate world. Because they want government support for anti-corporate-espionage measures.

[cynicalsecurity]

The opposite party would have outright banned AI. Just listen to the left commentators, they all want to ban technology and, similarly to how they did it in the UK, destroy the whole IT sector altogether.

[weakfish]

> “they all want”

Let me stop you right there - any time you generalize to that degree, you’ve already failed to think critically and charitably about the issue.

[Matl]

I am not sure I would characterize the current UK government as 'left' myself.

[OJFord]

Based on drawing the 'middle' where, or how widely? It's not as far left as Corbyn's Labour of course, but it's still a Labour government!

[dofm]

New Labour wasn't a consistently left-wing government, was it? Or they'd have banned FOBTs, not profiteered off them to an extent that they ruined a generation of people.

[Matl]

So it's based purely on party labels? Political parties are not static and is clear that Labour has been moving further and further away from a left platform.

I mean they tried to cut benefits for disabled people, supported Israeli war crimes in Gaza and prosecuted pro-Palestinian activism, sneakily increased taxes on the working class, clamped down on immigration to try and undercut the rise of Reform, I am honestly not sure of a single left policy they enacted, granted I haven't been paying super close attention to that shitshow.

Blarite/neoliberal fits them much more I'd say.

[OJFord]

> I am honestly not sure of a single left policy they enacted, granted I haven't been paying super close attention to that shitshow.

I'm likewise fairly disengaged, but off the top of my head: increased taxes, and removal of the two-child benefit cap.

Israel does not really fit on a left-right spectrum, nor even really (though slightly better?) on two (economic & liberty) axes. The Liberal Democrats & Greens are the only (somewhat significant) parties consistently, err, anti-Zionist if that's fair to say, pro-two-state, accusing of war crimes, etc.

[crote]

Today's Labour is even actively promoting anti-LGBT policies.

[teh64]

Also their anti-trans stance.

And any party that is pro-monarchy could not reasonably be described as left wing.

[zsizsi]

> Also their anti-trans stance.

Pro-women stance actually, though mostly because it would be electoral suicide to abolish single-sex spaces in law.

Third spaces are the most sensible compromise going forward, and are what trans activists should have been asking for in the first place if they'd had any foresight.