Skip to content

Nate B Jones AI Politics Business

The End of Unrestricted AI: Why Claude Fable 5 Was Just Forced Offline

Nate B Jones files from a plane after Anthropic takes its most advanced model, called Fable 5 in the video, offline to comply with a US government order blocking foreign access to it and a second model called Mythos 5. He reads the order in three layers: a safety case resting on a reported jailbreak pathway, a legal fig leaf in the phrase foreign nationals that acts as a full shutdown for a globally deployed company, and a business reality that makes the freeze temporary. The larger point is that frontier model access has become a policy surface, so model launches now become deployment questions about who is allowed to use them. He predicts the model returns soon on new terms, and argues that intelligence access should not belong only to large corporations.

Published Jun 13, 2026 10:03 video 21 min read Added Jun 16, 2026 Open on YouTube →

At a glance

Nate B Jones is filming this one from a plane, because, as he says, the news could not wait until he was back on the ground. Anthropic has just taken its most advanced model, which the video calls Fable 5, offline after a US government order that moved to block foreign access to it and to a second model the video calls Mythos 5. Jones reads the order in three layers. There is a safety layer, where reporting points to a jailbreak pathway and where he thinks Anthropic is directionally right but the government's process is the real problem. There is a legal layer, where the phrase "foreign nationals" sounds surgical but, for a globally deployed AI company, functions as a shutdown button wrapped in export control language. And there is a business layer, which is why he expects the freeze to be temporary. His larger point lands harder than the news itself: frontier model access has just become a policy surface, and if your work depends on one model, one lab, one country, and one access contract, you do not have a plan, you have a dependency.

A note on framing. "Fable 5" and "Mythos 5" are the names this video uses for the models at the center of the story; everything below reports the events as Jones tells them and attributes the analysis to him.

Filming from a plane, because the news could not wait

Jones opens cold and a little breathless. He is recording from a plane, and he wants you to feel why. Anthropic has taken Fable 5 offline after a US government order, and he did not want to wait until he had landed to talk about it, because in his words this is unprecedented.

The headline version, he says, is simple. The US government just moved to block foreign access to Anthropic's most advanced models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5. The order, as reported, covers foreign governments, foreign companies, foreign individuals, and even foreign nationals inside the United States. That last clause is what bends the story out of shape. A normal export control story is about shipping a thing across a border. This one reaches inside the border, to foreign nationals already in the country, and that, Jones argues, changes everything about how a company has to comply.

The reason is mechanical. If Anthropic has foreign national employees, or contractors, or customers, or any infrastructure exposure to people who fall under the order, then the only clean way to be sure you are complying is to shut the models off for everyone. You cannot reliably carve out a subset of users from a live, globally distributed system on short notice. So that, he says, is what Anthropic says it has to do. Pull it down.

His first real point arrives in the middle of that setup, and he flags it deliberately. Do not treat this as normal or expected. He thinks it matters a great deal that nobody shrugs at it. This is the first real test, he argues, of what happens when frontier models stop being treated like software products and start being treated like controlled national security assets. That reframing is the spine of the whole video, and he says there are at least three layers worth pulling apart: the safety layer, a legal fig leaf, and a business reality that is why he does not think the freeze lasts.

Figure 1. The three layer frame Jones uses to read the freeze. The safety layer is about a reported jailbreak pathway, where he thinks Anthropic is directionally right but the government's process is the weak point. The legal layer is about the words "foreign nationals," which sound narrow but operate as a full shutdown for a globally deployed company. The business layer is why he expects it to be temporary: a template for negotiated access already exists, and everyone has reasons to restore the model. The event underneath all three is the moment a frontier model got treated like a controlled national security asset rather than a software product.

Layer one: the safety case, and why process is the weak point

He moves to the safety layer carefully, because the public record is thin. The government has not laid out a technical finding in public, and he does not expect it to. What reporting suggests is that the concern may involve a jailbreak pathway connected to both Fable and Mythos. Anthropic, for its part, appears to be arguing that the issue is very narrow, that it is not universal, and that it does not justify the shape of the intervention in any way.

Jones's own read is more nuanced, and he splits from Anthropic on the technical substance while agreeing with them on the conclusion. He thinks Anthropic may be directionally right that a jailbreak path against one frontier model is not really about that one model. If a method works against Fable, the safe default assumption is that it probably works against any other advanced system until proven otherwise. That does not mean every model is equally vulnerable. It means the burden of proof ought to shift. In frontier AI, he says, you do not get to claim an attack only worked on one model and then stop looking. These systems are trained differently, wrapped differently, filtered differently, and deployed differently, but they share enough underlying structure that a real attack pattern is evidence about the whole class of model, not just the single instance that was broken.

So he is not dismissing the safety concern. The sharper criticism, he argues, is about process rather than substance. A verbal report, a vague claim, or a single narrow jailbreak pathway is simply not enough to justify a sweeping order without a real technical process behind it. And here he thinks Anthropic is right to push. If the government is going to intervene this deeply in a private company's affairs, there has to be a transparent statutory path, a clear technical standard, and a way for the company to respond to the actual evidence. Without that, the precedent turns ugly fast, because then any frontier model can be frozen on the basis of a claim the public cannot inspect, through a process no one can audit, under a standard no one can apply consistently. That, he says flatly, is not safety governance. It is the exercise of discretionary power wearing the costume of safety.

The safety question	Substance	Process
What is claimed	a jailbreak pathway tied to Fable and Mythos	a verbal report, a narrow finding, nothing public
Anthropic's stance	narrow, not universal, does not justify this disputes it	not enough to justify a sweeping order Jones agrees
Jones's stance	an attack on one frontier model is evidence about the class splits from Anthropic	needs a statutory path, a standard, a right to respond the real critique
If process is skipped	any model can be frozen on an unauditable claim under an inconsistent standard, which is discretionary power, not governance

Figure 2. Jones separates two questions the safety layer collapses together. On substance, he actually breaks with Anthropic: a jailbreak that works on one frontier model is evidence about the class of models, so a narrow finding is not automatically reassuring. On process, he sides with Anthropic hard: a vague claim with no public technical finding, no statutory path, and no chance to respond is not safety governance at all. The danger is not this one order, it is the precedent that a model can be switched off on an unauditable claim.

Layer two: "foreign nationals" as a shutdown button

The second layer is the legal one, and it is where Jones thinks the order starts to look like a fig leaf. The phrase "foreign nationals" sounds narrow on purpose. It lets the government say it is not banning the product, it is merely controlling who has access under existing US law. The trouble is that for a modern AI company, that line is almost impossible to draw in practice.

He spells out why. Anthropic does not operate like a sealed, US only weapons lab from the 1940s. It sells globally. It employs globally. It has enterprise customers with global workforces. It runs on cloud infrastructure, support systems, compliance systems, APIs, teams, vendors, and review processes that are all at least partly international. So when an order says no foreign national can touch the model, including foreign nationals inside the United States, that is not a surgical restriction. It is, in his phrase, a shutdown button with export control language wrapped around it. And he suspects everyone involved understands that.

The operational consequence forces Anthropic's hand. The company has to pull broad access back, which is exactly what it did, because the risk of accidental non-compliance is extreme. You cannot casually promise that no foreign national anywhere across your customer base can reach the model when you are distributing it to hundreds of millions of people. Not on a Friday night. Not with civil and possibly criminal penalties hanging over you. And not for a live frontier model. So a rule that is dressed as a targeted national security restriction works, in practice, as a forced pause on the strongest frontier model in the world right now. That is why he calls the foreign national language effective: it gives the government a way to say it did not ban Fable for everybody, while the way Anthropic actually deploys the model means "not for foreign nationals" collapses into "not for anyone."

Figure 3. Why the narrow phrasing produces a total shutdown. A restriction on "foreign nationals, including inside the US" meets a company whose employees, contractors, customers, cloud, APIs, and review processes are all at least partly international. There is no reliable way to carve out a compliant subset of a live model serving hundreds of millions of people under threat of civil and criminal penalty, so the only safe path is to pull access for everyone. The legal language stays narrow while the real world effect is a forced pause on the strongest frontier model available.

Layer three: the business reality, and why he thinks it is temporary

The third layer is why Jones expects this to resolve quickly. Anthropic and the US government have had their disagreements, but they have also shown they can work together, and there is already a template for exactly the kind of deal this needs. He points to the Mythos and Project Glossing story, which he describes as explicitly about giving trusted cyber defenders and infrastructure providers access to dangerous capability ahead of the wider public, in order to shore up the defenses of the broader internet.

That history matters because it means the underlying relationship is not just "Anthropic refuses and the government bowls them over." It is a template for negotiated access. There is already a worked example of all three parties saying the capability is real, the risk is real, and the answer is not necessarily a permanent public break. So a path back exists, and it is one both sides have walked before.

Anthropic's own posture reinforces the read. The company says it is working to restore access. It is not behaving as though Fable is dead. It is behaving as though the access regime broke, which Jones says is certainly true, and is probably the most accurate way to understand the whole episode. The model did not fail. The rules around who may reach the model failed.

He gets personal here for a beat, because he is frustrated. He loves Fable. He has been using it. He calls it incredible. But he is firm that this is not a story about whether Fable is good, a review he says is coming another day. For the record, he calls it extremely good and probably the best model in the world right now, and he explains what actually impressed him: not just that it answered harder questions, but that it could carry longer work. It could take messy source material, build real artifacts, preserve context, and get work to a reviewable state in a way that felt like a genuine step forward. He pulled his review for now only because the access story changed under his feet as he was heading out the door.

The shift: model launches become deployment questions

The ban, he argues, complicates the story permanently. A model this capable is no longer just a product launch, and he doubts we will ever see frontier launches as simple product launches again after this moment. From here on, model launches become deployment questions. Who can use it. Under what wrapper. With what safeguards. With what audit trail. With what fallback behavior. And, the loaded one, who decides when the risk is too high.

This is the future he says he and others have been forecasting: frontier models coming under national security scrutiny. This, he says, is what that actually looks like in practice, and that is the real Fable story for him. A few days ago, the question he kept asking was a question of ambition: what work do we get to ask the model to do now that it is this good, and how do we expand our imaginations to match it. Now the question has changed shape. It is no longer only what can the model do. It is who is going to be allowed to ask.

Figure 4. The permanent shift Jones says this episode marks. A frontier launch used to be a product question, measured by capability and answered with "what work can we now imagine asking for." After a model can be pulled offline by government order, every future launch becomes a deployment question: who may use it, under what wrapper, with what safeguards and audit trail and fallback, and crucially who gets to decide when the risk is too high. The exciting question, what can we ask the model, gives way to a harder one, who is allowed to ask.

The lesson: access is now a policy surface, so do not have a single dependency

For today, his advice is calm and specific. Take a breath. Do not overreact and declare Fable gone, and do not underreact and pretend this was just another policy hiccup, because it was much more than that. It is the first time a frontier model has been rolled back, and that is a big deal.

The durable lesson is that frontier model access has become, whether we like it or not, a policy surface. If your workflow depends on one model, one lab, one country's regulatory mode, and one access contract, you do not have a stable operating plan, you have a dependency. That is not an argument to stop using the best model available. It is an argument to know what that model is for, to keep your alternatives warm, and to avoid building critical work on the assumption that the frontier tier will always be available on yesterday's terms.

His prediction is that Fable comes back, and comes back soon, but on new terms: probably with more process around trusted access, more explicit compliance language, maybe some modified guardrails behind the scenes, and some reporting obligations that Anthropic has strong commercial reasons to work out so it can get the model back online. The incentives all point the same way. Customers, including large enterprise customers already running on Fable, want it back. And the government has its own reason not to look like it just kneecapped an American frontier lab at a moment when the United States has been loudly insistent about wanting to lead in AI. So he believes it gets resolved.

But the warning shot matters to everyone. The next era of AI, he argues, is not only about model quality. We have to stop thinking one-dimensionally and start weighing access quality and governance quality alongside raw capability. The new test for a lab is whether it can ship a model that is powerful enough to be on the frontier, tightly governed enough to be allowed by the state, and useful enough for customers to genuinely benefit. That is the line Fable is sitting on right now.

He closes on the politics of access, and his voice rises. He is excited to reveal the model with you. He thinks the model matters, and he thinks the fight to ensure intelligence access for all of us matters even more. If the future is the intelligence economy, then all of us need access to these models, and it is not fair or right for only large corporations to have frontier access. We should be asking for that access. We should be demanding it. Despite the headaches of the day and the fact that Fable 5 is offline as he speaks, he calls it temporary and believes the government and Anthropic will work it out. Then the sign off, true to where he started: keep an eye on your model dependencies, make sure you know how to deploy alternate models for your workflows, and yes, he will literally film from the plane to bring you the next update. Cheers, and he hopes he does not have to film more from the plane today.

Key takeaways

Anthropic took its most advanced model, called Fable 5 in the video, offline after a US government order blocking foreign access to it and to a second model called Mythos 5. Jones filmed from a plane because the news could not wait.
The order reportedly covers foreign governments, companies, individuals, and even foreign nationals inside the United States. That inside the border reach is what makes a clean carve out impossible and forces a full shutdown.
Read it in three layers. Safety: a reported jailbreak pathway. Legal: a fig leaf in the phrase "foreign nationals." Business: a temporary freeze, because a path back already exists.
On safety substance, Jones splits from Anthropic: an attack that works on one frontier model is evidence about the whole class of models, so a narrow finding is not automatically reassuring. The burden of proof should shift.
On safety process, he sides with Anthropic: a vague claim with no public technical finding, no statutory path, and no right to respond is discretionary power, not governance, and it sets an ugly precedent.
"Foreign nationals" sounds surgical but acts as a shutdown button. A globally deployed company with international employees, customers, cloud, and APIs cannot safely promise compliance except by pulling access for everyone.
He expects the freeze to be temporary, citing the Mythos and Project Glossing precedent as a template for negotiated access, and Anthropic's own posture of working to restore access.
The deeper shift is permanent: frontier model launches become deployment questions, who can use it, under what safeguards and audit trail, and who decides when risk is too high.
The lesson for builders: frontier access is now a policy surface. Depending on one model, one lab, one country, and one contract is a dependency, not a plan. Keep alternatives warm.
His larger argument is political: intelligence access should not belong only to large corporations. If the future is the intelligence economy, everyone needs access, and we should demand it.

Chapters

Timestamps are clickable. Click one and the player jumps there and keeps playing while you read.

0:00 Filming from a plane, the news could not wait
0:22 The headline, and why foreign nationals changes everything
0:38 Do not treat this as normal, the three layers
0:52 Layer one, the safety case and the thin public record
1:30 A jailbreak on one model is evidence about the class
2:10 The stronger critique is process, not substance
3:00 Layer two, foreign nationals as a fig leaf
3:45 Why a globally deployed company has to shut it all off
4:35 Layer three, why this gets resolved quickly
5:05 Mythos and Project Glossing, a template for negotiated access
5:40 Anthropic is treating it as temporary, and why he loves Fable
6:30 The ban complicates the story, launches become deployment questions
7:30 Who gets to ask the model to do the work
8:00 Take a breath, access is now a policy surface
9:00 His prediction, Fable comes back on new terms
9:40 The new test, and demanding access for everyone

Notable quotes

I'm filming this from a plane because this is unprecedented. Anthropic just took Fable 5 offline after a US government order and they did not want to wait until it was back on the ground. Nate B Jones, 0:00

This is the first real test of what happens when frontier models are treated less like software products and more like controlled national security assets. Nate B Jones, 0:42

If a method works against Fable, the default assumption should probably be that it will work against any other advanced system until proven otherwise. Nate B Jones, 1:33

Any frontier model can be frozen on the basis of a claim the public cannot inspect, from a process no one can audit, under a standard that no one can apply consistently. And that's not safety governance. That's simply the exercise of discretionary power. Nate B Jones, 2:35

It's not a surgical restriction. It's a shutdown button with export control language wrapped around it. Nate B Jones, 3:40

The model launches from here on out are going to become deployment questions. Who can use it, under what wrapper, with what safeguards, with what audit trail, with what fallback behavior, and who decides when the risk is too high. Nate B Jones, 6:40

A few days ago the question I kept asking myself was, what work do we get to ask the model to do now that the model is this good. Now, my question is, who's going to be allowed to ask that? Nate B Jones, 7:25

If your workflow depends on one model, one lab, one country's regulatory mode, and one access contract, you do not have a stable operating plan, you've got a dependency. Nate B Jones, 8:15

I don't think it's fair or right for only large corporations to have access to frontier models like this. I think all of us deserve it. Nate B Jones, 9:35

Resources mentioned

Nate B Jones, the channel (AI News and Strategy Daily), where he files sober, non binary reads on AI markets, policy, and deployment.
Anthropic, the lab that took its most advanced model offline to comply with the order. The video calls the models Fable 5 and Mythos 5.
Jailbreak (computer science), the kind of attack pathway reporting connected to the freeze.
Export Administration Regulations, the US export control regime whose language the order borrows.
US export controls on AI, administered by the Bureau of Industry and Security, the backdrop for treating frontier models as controlled assets.
The Mythos and Project Glossing program, described as giving trusted cyber defenders and infrastructure providers early access to dangerous capability to harden the wider internet, cited as the template for negotiated access.
Related concept, recursive national security review of AI, the broader move to scrutinize frontier models as strategic assets.

Where it stands

This is a fast take on a breaking story, filmed mid travel, and it is worth reading as one. A few honest footnotes. The public record Jones works from is thin by his own admission: the government laid out no technical finding, and the jailbreak detail is reported rather than confirmed, so the safety layer rests on secondhand reporting. The model names Fable 5 and Mythos 5, and the Project Glossing program, are the framing the video uses; treat the specifics as the video's account rather than independently established fact. His strongest and most durable point is structural and holds up well regardless of how this particular episode resolves: that frontier model access is becoming a policy surface, that a narrow legal phrase can act as a total shutdown for a globally deployed company, and that depending on a single model, lab, and jurisdiction is a fragile way to build. His prediction that the model returns soon is a reasoned guess grounded in real incentives, not a certainty, and he frames it that way. The one place to keep a skeptical eye is the symmetry of his read on the government: he criticizes the process hard while still expecting a clean, cooperative resolution, and those two can sit in tension if the precedent he warns about is the one that actually sticks.

Full transcript

I'm filming this from a plane because this is unprecedented. Anthropic just took Fable 5 offline after a US government order and they did not want to wait until it was back on the ground. The headline version is pretty simple. The US government just moved to block foreign access to Anthropic's most advanced models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5. The order reportedly covers foreign governments, foreign companies, foreign individuals, and even foreign nationals inside the United States. That last part is what turns this from a normal export control story into something much stranger, because if Anthropic has foreign national employees or contractors or customers, an infrastructure exposure, the practical way to comply is really to shut off the models for everyone. And that is what Anthropic says it has to do. So the first point I want to make in the middle of what is an unprecedented moment is this. We should not view this as normal or expected. I think it's very important that we don't. I think this is the first real test of what happens when frontier models are treated less like software products and more like controlled national security assets. And I think there are at least three layers here. First, obviously, the safety layer. Second, there's a legal fig leaf that's going on. And third, there's a business reality, which is why I don't think this lasts. On the safety layer, I want to be careful. The public record is still quite thin. The government has not laid out a technical finding in public. I'm sure they will not. Reporting says the concern may involve a jailbreak pathway connected to Fable and to Mythos. Anthropic appears to be arguing that this is very narrow, that this is not universal, and that this does not justify the shape of the intervention in any way whatsoever. My read is slightly different. I actually think Anthropic may be directionally right that a jailbreak path against one frontier model is not just about that one model. If a method works against Fable, the default assumption should probably be that it will work against any other advanced system until proven otherwise. That does not mean that every model is equally vulnerable. It means the burden ought to shift. In frontier AI, you don't get to say this only worked on one model and then stop. These systems are trained differently and wrapped differently and filtered differently and deployed differently. But they also share enough structure that a real attack pattern is evidence about the class of model, not just the instance. So I am not at all dismissing the safety concern here. But I think the stronger critique is probably about the process. A verbal report or a vague claim or a narrow jailbreak pathway is simply not enough to justify this kind of sweeping order without a real technical process. And Anthropic is arguing that. And I think they're right. If the government is going to intervene at this level in a private company's affairs, there needs to be a transparent statutory path, a clear technical standard, and some way for the company to respond to the actual evidence. Otherwise, this precedent gets very ugly very fast. Because then any frontier model can be frozen on the basis of a claim the public cannot inspect, from a process no one can audit, under a standard that no one can apply consistently. And that's not safety governance. That's simply the exercise of discretionary power. The second layer is the foreign national piece. And this is where I think the order starts to look a little bit like a fig leaf. The phrase foreign nationals sounds narrow. It sounds like the government is saying we're not trying to ban the product. We're just trying to control who has access to it under existing US law. But for a modern AI company, that line is almost impossible to draw in practice. Anthropic doesn't run like a sealed US only lab from the 1940s, right? It sells globally. It employs globally. It has enterprise customers with global workforces. It runs through cloud infrastructure and support systems and compliance systems, APIs, teams, vendors, and review processes that are all at least in part international. So if the order says no foreign nationals can touch the model, including inside the US, that's not a surgical restriction. It's a shutdown button with export control language wrapped around it. And I suspect everybody involved knows that. Anthropic is going to have to pull broad access back, which is what they did, because the operational risk of accidental non-compliance is extremely high. You cannot casually promise that no foreign national anywhere inside your customer base can access the model if you are distributing the model to hundreds of millions of people. Not on a Friday night, not with civil and possibly criminal penalties hanging over you, and not for a live frontier model. So the rule may sound like a targeted national security restriction, but in practice it's effectively a forced pause on the strongest frontier model we have in the world right now. And that is why I think the foreign national language is effective. It gives the government a way to say it didn't ban Fable for everybody. But the way Anthropic deploys these systems means not for foreign nationals is effectively not for everyone. The third piece here is why I think this probably gets resolved very quickly. Anthropic and the US government have had their disagreements in the past, but they've also shown they can work together. The Mythos and Project Glossing story was explicitly about giving trusted cyber defenders and infrastructure providers access to dangerous capability before the wider public, in order to shore up the defenses of the wider internet. That means the underlying relationship is not simply that Anthropic refuses and the government bowls them over. It's actually a template for negotiated access. There's a story here around running trusted programs together. There's already a template for saying the capability is real, the risk is real, and the answer is not necessarily a permanent public break. Even Anthropic's posture seems to be temporary. They're saying they're working to restore access. The company is not acting like Fable is dead. It's acting like the access regime broke, which is certainly true. And that's probably the right way to understand this. As frustrating as it is to me personally, because I love Fable. I've been using Fable. It's incredible. This is not really a story though about whether Fable is good. I'll cover that another day. Fable, by the way, is extremely good. I have a full review coming and I pulled it for now because the access story changed right under our feet as I was getting ready for the road. But my underlying view of the model hasn't changed. I think Fable is probably the best model in the world right now. And the reason I was excited about it was not just that it answered harder questions. It was that it could carry longer work. It could take messy source material and build real artifacts and preserve context and get work to a reviewable state in a way that felt meaningfully different, a big step forward. And that's still true. And the ban complicates that story. A model this capable is now no longer just a product launch. And we probably won't ever view it that way again after this moment. The model launches from here on out are going to become deployment questions. Who can use it? Under what wrapper, with what safeguards, with what audit trail, with what fallback behavior, and who decides when the risk is too high. I've been saying, and others have been saying, that models are going to be coming under national security scrutiny. This is what that looks like. And that's the real Fable story for me. A few days ago, as I was looking at Fable, the question I kept asking myself was, what work do we get to ask the model to do now that the model is this good? How do we expand our imaginations? Now, my question is, who's going to be allowed to ask that? I think both questions matter, but for today, my advice is pretty simple. Take a breath. Don't overreact and declare that Fable was gone. Don't underreact and pretend that this was nothing and this was just another policy hiccup. It was much more than that. It's the first time a frontier model has been rolled back. It's a big deal. I think the right read is frontier model access is becoming, whether we like it or not, a policy surface. If your workflow depends on one model, one lab, one country's regulatory mode, and one access contract, you do not have a stable operating plan, you've got a dependency. And that doesn't mean to stop using the best model out there. It means know what that model is for, keep your alternatives warm, and don't build critical work on the assumption that the frontier tier will always be available on yesterday's terms. Look, my guess is that Fable does come back, and I think it comes back soon, probably with more process around trusted access, probably with more explicit compliance language, maybe some modified guardrails behind the scenes, some reporting obligations that Anthropic has commercial reasons to figure out so that they can get this model back online. Customers have real reasons to want it back, too. And these are large enterprise customers that have been using Fable. And the government has reasons not to look like it just kneecapped an American frontier AI lab when the United States has been very vocal about wanting to lead here. So I do think this gets resolved. But the warning shot for today matters a lot to all of us. The next era of AI is not just going to be about model quality. We have to stop thinking one-dimensionally. We have to think about access quality and governance quality as well. We have to ask ourselves from now on whether a lab can ship a model that is powerful enough to be on the frontier, tightly governed enough to be allowed by the state, and useful enough for customers to really benefit from. This is the line Fable is sitting on right now, and I am really counting the days until we get this figured out and we can get Fable back into everyone's hands. It's a powerful model and I'm excited to reveal it with you. I think this model matters. I think the fight to ensure intelligence access for all of us matters a lot. If the future is the intelligence economy, we all need access to these models. It's a big, big deal and we should be asking for that access. We should be demanding that access. I don't think it's fair or right for only large corporations to have access to frontier models like this. I think all of us deserve it. And I do think despite all of the hiccups and the headaches today, despite the fact that Fable 5 is offline right now, this is a temporary thing. I think the government and Anthropic are going to get this figured out. And I'm excited to post that Fable 5 review when the time comes. In the meantime, keep an eye on your model dependencies. Make sure that you understand how to deploy alternate models for your workflows, and subscribe here for more updates. I will literally film from the plane to bring this to you. Cheers. And I hope I don't have to film more from the plane today. We will see.