Every claim below was made in this piece, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.
Their wordsAnthropic has created a dangerous, destabilizing mess by lobbying for and getting US government restrictions on models like Mythos, Fable, and GPT-5.6.
Their wordsWe need to fight for our freedom of intelligence, the freedom from government restrictions on who can use which AI models. If we allow government to decide what level of intelligence someone can access, no matter how well intended, we’ll be less safe and forever divided.
Our reading
Governments must not require licensing of AI model labs or approval of models before release.
Their wordsThis means that the government must not require licensing of model labs, or approval of models prior to release. Otherwise government inevitably will use that power to restrict releases to certain favored individuals and companies (as we’ve just seen) and to introduce biases.
Our reading
The government should not be allowed to prohibit people from downloading and running open AI models.
Their wordsFreedom of intelligence also means that the government may not prohibit you from downloading and running open models.
Their wordsThe government must not force a model lab to release a model against its wishes. If a model lab chooses to release their own model to only a few privileged people and companies (as Anthropic did with Mythos), or to keep it internal, that is their right.
Their wordsThere’s no way to sustain a stable, democratic arrangement where government controls access to intelligence. The more powerful you think AI is, the less stable is any attempt to regulate access to intelligence.
Their wordsI favor freedom of intelligence for the same reasons. Like speech, AI is powerful and sometimes dangerous. But it’s far more dangerous and unstable to give someone the power to decide what intelligence everyone else can use.
Keep reading
The other pieces are the ones whose claims are worded most like this one's. That measures language, not agreement: they may argue the opposite.