Odaily reported that David Sacks, co-chair of the U.S. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, has responded to the regulatory dispute triggered by Anthropic’s “safety controversy.” Sacks said he had communicated with multiple parties about the current situation involving Anthropic, and summarized the core of the matter as a safety dispute tied to the company’s newly released model, “Fable.”
The dispute centers on Fable and an unresolved flaw
According to Sacks, Fable is the commercial version corresponding to the Mythos class of models. The issue, as he described it, is not merely a broad disagreement over Anthropic’s public safety positioning, but a concrete dispute over a vulnerability associated with the new model. Anthropic said in a public statement that the vulnerability was “not serious,” but Sacks stated that neither the U.S. government nor the testing parties accept that assessment.
Sacks said the U.S. government and testers believe the vulnerability is sufficient to affect model safety, and that it even involves a risk related to “cyber weapon operability.” In his account, the central conflict is therefore the gap between Anthropic’s view of the flaw’s severity and the judgment reached by the government and testing parties.
Sacks criticizes the decision to keep the consumer version online
Sacks further criticized Anthropic by contrasting the current incident with the company’s long-standing emphasis on “safety first.” He said that, in this case, Anthropic appeared more inclined to keep the consumer version continuously online than to prioritize fixing the safety problem. His response placed the emphasis on remediation of the Fable vulnerability rather than on a broader debate about the company’s previous public commitments.
He also said the matter should not be conflated with earlier defense or regulatory controversies. At the same time, Sacks stated that the U.S. government still recognizes Anthropic’s technical capabilities. In his wording, the current issue “could have been resolved quickly,” and the initiative remains on Anthropic’s side. The response frames the controversy as one focused on the handling of the Fable flaw, while stopping short of rejecting Anthropic’s broader technical capacity.