An AI Lab Says Slow Down? Watch Their Feet.
Amodei Wants Everyone To Stop Developing AI?
Anthropic published a proposal arguing the world should have the option to slow or pause frontier AI development if systems start improving themselves too fast, citing its own code now being mostly written by Claude. The post landed days after Anthropic filed confidentially for an IPO at a valuation near a trillion dollars.
This image represents their worldview, with the orange indicating where they think we are today.
Reading between the lines, they want to have their cake and eat it too.
Think incentive, would any AI lab want a pause? No, they don’t actually want a pause; they want to (and will) keep rushing ahead, but with the ‘security first’ facade. My bet is that they’ll say: but we have to… because of China! We do it for America!
OpenAI files for IPO
OpenAI confirmed it confidentially submitted a draft S-1 to the SEC, a week after Anthropic made a similar filing. But OpenAI said it has not yet determined the timing of any future filing or public offering.
→ OpenAI
Unlike Anthropic, they are likely to IPO only next year.
My read is that they are watching SpaceX (if they reach the target and it doesn’t destroy the AI sentiment) and want to stay private while they sort out the messy bits. More importantly, looking for ways to make their numbers look better under sunlight or only in pitch decks.
Anthropic’s Latest Model!
Anthropic released Claude Fable 5, basically a consumer-tier Mythos.
From the benchmark, it does look like a significant improvement.
But it’s also the kind of launch with footnotes… Here are some concerns raised and why they might be relevant to you:
Hidden restrictions = the model may quietly give worse answers in some areas while you’ll still pay double compared to Opus.
Trust and transparency = if the company is steering answers underneath, as it would, you need to start worrying what else is being filtered.
Benchmark-to-real-world gap (as I mentioned in the Stanford report article) = a model can crush tests and still be expensive, awkward, or unreliable in daily use.
A German Court Says Google Owns Its AI's Mistakes!
A Munich court ruled Google can be held directly liable for false claims in its AI Overviews, rejecting the argument that they're just search results users should verify themselves.
→ Heise
AI search just got more expensive!
If firms are directly liable for hallucinated accusations, they will need heavier review systems or, simply, more refusals.
That is bad news not just for Google, but for every AI product that wants the authority of an answer without the liability of a publisher.
Apple’s new Siri
At WWDC, Apple unveiled a rebuilt Siri.
→ CNBC
As I mentioned previously, Apple is one of the few that gets AI right.
I doubled down on what I said. Apple is doing one thing they are best at: productizing AI.
Yes, if you watched the demo, you won’t be impressed, but if you think about how it works underneath, you’d realize it all made sense for Apple and what they’ve been building: a stable product that solves the real problem, and ties everything to their ecosystem.
McDonald's Gets Its Drive-Thru AI Back!
Two years after killing an earlier IBM version over order-accuracy complaints. Franchisee posts claim it has handled over a million transactions with about 90% needing no human help.
→ Independent
McDonald’s is back with AI drive-thrus, which is bold considering the last version became famous for inventing orders no human had asked for.
This time, skip the polished demo and hand it to the CEO — the one who somehow made his own burger look unconvincing (if you aren’t sure what I’m saying, search McDonald's CEO vs. Burger King's CEO burger test standoff)
The AI Boom’s Quiet Winner
Trustpilot reported a 2025 operating profit of $16 million, up 320% year over year, while click-throughs from AI search rose about 1,490% as chatbots increasingly cited its reviews. Reasons?
It ranked as the fifth most cited domain globally on ChatGPT in January 2026, tailing after Wikipedia and Reddit.
This isn’t the latest (March, to be exact), but I didn’t write about it, and I thought it was a good thing to be aware of.
The winners in AI search may be the platforms sitting on large stores of human-generated criticisms. Even though AI models can remix opinions, they still need a supply of real people having real experiences to cite.