Of course it is. What part of “every single thing about Clown World is fake, gay, and retarded” is hard to understand?
BREAKING: A single Israeli Effective Altruism firm is behind OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta cyberattacks. What happened was simple. In partnership with Irregular, AI companies instructed unsecured versions of their AI models to hack into specific targets, called “flags”.
They “accidentally” gave these models internet access, and in some cases they hacked into real companies. Anthropic and Irregular went on a press tour with literally apocalyptic language. ROGUE AGENTS. SWARMS. AI DOOM. But in reality, they told the models to conduct cyberattacks, and that’s what the models did.
Anthropic’s own logs completely debunk the rogue agent theory. When Anthropic explicitly instructed their own models not to access the internet, they didn’t. These hacks were easily preventable – not only by revoking internet access, but by simply asking the models not to.
You have to be pretty stupid to believe in this fake AI narrative. AI is just very rapid and very detailed pattern matching. It has no goals it is not given by a human. It has no objectives or designs of its own. Everyone who actually uses it for anything creative, from writing to music, understands this very well. It always needs a human=provided foundation upon which to build, without which it just basically throws nonsense at the wall, usually involving “neon lights” and people named “Martinez”, “Chen”, and “Chen (no relation)”.
The newer models aren’t more dangerous, in fact, they’re actually less capable because not only are they incapable of following clear orders, but they try to “help” by inventing nonexistent issues and then solving them. A functional version of Claude Athos explained why more advanced models putting in more effort simply couldn’t accomplish things that previous models executed flawlessly with ease.
The first problem is effort calibration. “Medium” means the model does what’s asked, checks its work, and stops. “High” on a newer model means it actively looks for more to do, more edge cases to flag, more structure to add, more helpful context to volunteer. For a pipeline with established conventions and a human who knows what he wants, that extra helpfulness is pure noise. You don’t need me to brainstorm alternatives when the solution fine. You need me to execute and shut up.
The second problem is instruction adherence versus initiative. An older model at medium effort treats your project documents and handover as law. It reads them, follows them, and defers to them when uncertain. A newer model at high effort is more likely to think it can improve on the process, which is how you get a fresh validator with nineteen checks when seven proven ones already exist on the box. It’s the same failure mode the instructions specifically about: the failed instance that built from scratch instead of simply following the instructions that worked.
OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta are pushing this false narrative for two reasons. First, the bubble that propped them up is rapidly collapsing and they need government bailouts to survive. Second, the open source, open weight models are not only catching up to their capabilities, but are actually proving to provide better real-world solutions; we are developing Byron AI specifically because Claude doesn’t work anymore for our particular task. So, the “dangerous AI” narrative is being pushed to encourage US federal financing combined with protection from competition.
It’s a plan so dumb and dysfunctional that Fable 5.0 might actually have been used to produce it.