The struggles of human fables and myths create AI winners and losers

A problem for one company can be an opportunity for another.

The White House’s restrictions on access to Anthropic’s new AI models have created winners and losers across the AI ​​industry.

On Friday, U.S. authorities restricted access to Anthropic’s cybersecurity-focused models, Mythos 5 and Fable 5, after concluding that safeguards designed to prevent Fable 5 from being exploited could be circumvented. This restriction prevents foreign nationals from accessing the system. In response, Anthropic cut off access for everyone.

This move was a direct blow to Anthropic. But it could also strengthen the position of AI companies that offer more open models that customers can deploy and control themselves.

Here are the biggest winners and losers.

Mistral

Verdict: winner.

why: The French startup has spent more than a year arguing that Europe should not rely on American AI providers.

Unlike Anthropic, which accesses the latest models through company-managed systems, Mistral favors an open weight model that customers can deploy on their own infrastructure and customize with their own data.

The humanitarian restrictions gave company CEO Arthur Mensch an illustration of the risks he had been warning about.

In a post on X on Tuesday, Mensch doubled down on Mistral’s sovereignty claims, saying the company’s next model will be a non-discriminatory weight because users will need to be able to “own, inspect, audit, and improve” the AI ​​systems they use.

The timing couldn’t have been better for Mistral.

France announced this week that its intelligence agency would replace Palantir’s AI data tools with those from the French provider, with Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu warning of “strategic dependence” on foreign technology.

deep seek

Verdict: winner.

why: Similar to Mistral, Deep Seek’s open weight approach may suddenly seem more appealing.

Unlike Anthropic’s Mythos 5 and Fable 5 models, which the company maintains, DeepSeek’s models can be downloaded, modified, and deployed by customers themselves.

As such, DeepSeek stands to benefit as governments and businesses begin to prioritize control and sovereignty over access to modern, closed models.

The episode also gives China an opportunity to argue that reliance on U.S. AI providers comes with geopolitical risks, adding to the increasingly narrow AI race. At last month’s Anthropic event, company CEO Dario Amodei said China’s AI models are roughly six to 12 months behind the leading U.S. AI systems.

human

Verdict: loser.

why: Anthropic is a company directly affected by this restriction.

Export regulations block access to Mythos 5 and Fable 5 by foreign nationals, including Anthropic employees, and limit the company’s ability to distribute some of its most advanced systems internationally.

More importantly, this episode highlights the potential weaknesses of closed AI models. Because Anthropic controls access to its systems, governments can have more influence over who can use them.

The episode is also the latest headache for Anthropic in a months-long dispute with the White House after the AI ​​company said its technology should not be used for domestic mass surveillance or fully autonomous weapons systems.

In response, the U.S. government designated Anthropic as a supply chain risk, and Anthropic challenged the move in court.

US AI companies use closed models

Verdict: Winners in the short term, losers in the long term.

why: The restrictions may give Anthropic’s U.S. rivals a short-term boost, but they also create unpleasant problems for them in the future.

Companies such as OpenAI, Google, and xAI distribute cutting-edge models primarily through platforms and services they control.

Meta is a partial exception. While some models in the Llama family are open weight, the company is increasingly moving toward closed models that offer tighter control, such as the Muse Spark.

For governments and businesses, the “Humanity” episode serves as a reminder that access to AI may ultimately depend on the decisions of providers and the governments that oversee it.

This dynamic could increase the attractiveness of sovereign and open weight alternatives in Europe and elsewhere.