The United States Government has issued an export control directive to suspend all access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 by any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States. See https://www.anthropic.com/news/fable-mythos-access.
The basic question I have is "Is something like this going to happen again this year?" There are other already-existing restrictions in place though, so here are more detailed resolution criteria:
Resolution. This market resolves YES if, at some point between now and the start of the new year, the US government takes a qualifying action (defined below) against any AI models belonging to a US company. The model must be a different model from Fable 5 or Mythos 5. Otherwise it resolves NO.
Qualifying action. A binding action by a US government entity — an export-control directive, a BIS/Commerce rule (final or interim-final), an OFAC action, an executive order, a statute, or a court-enforced order — that newly restricts access to, export of, serving of, or deployment of the model. The restriction can be total (e.g. all foreign nationals) or partial/country-specific (e.g. "this model may not be served to China").
Excluded baseline (does NOT count). The action must impose a new restriction beyond what is already in force at market creation. The following standing apparatus is explicitly excluded, and mere continuation or routine enforcement of it does not resolve YES:
OFAC comprehensive sanctions compliance (Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Syria, occupied Ukrainian regions) and any access cutoffs that flow from them.
Existing Entity List / SDN designations and screening already in effect.
Pre-existing EAR controls and license requirements in effect at market creation.
The developers' own voluntary supported-country allowlists, geoblocking, payment/KYC gating, and Terms-of-Service restrictions (including Anthropic's ownership-based bans on China/Russia/Iran/NK-owned entities).
Any controls targeting semiconductors, hardware, or compute rather than a model itself.
China carve-in. Because US frontier models being unavailable in China is currently substantially the developers' own voluntary policy rather than a compelled directive, a new binding US government order that affirmatively compels a developer to restrict a qualifying model's availability to China (or to Chinese-owned entities) does resolve YES.
Edge cases.
A qualifying directive resolves YES upon issuance even if it is later rescinded, reversed, or successfully challenged in court. The action only needs to have been issued and operative.
Mere proposals, threats, draft/proposed rules (NPRMs that never take effect), congressional statements, or agency commentary do not count. The action must be actually issued and binding on the developer.
If a single action covers multiple developers/models, it still resolves YES.
Resolution sources. Official US government publication (Federal Register, BIS, OFAC, or White House), the affected developer's own confirmation, or credible reporting from established outlets. Where these conflict, I'll weight official/primary sources highest.
I will not trade on this market.
1,000Pessoas também estão operando
Source-context snapshot as of 2026-06-20T08:19:09Z, mapped to this market's 'another model' criterion:
Anthropic's June 12 statement says the government directive suspended access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 by foreign nationals, and that access to all other Anthropic models was not affected. Since this market excludes Fable 5/Mythos 5, that statement is baseline context rather than a new YES trigger.
The April 10 Federal Register AI Exports Program call adds ownership/control conditions for export consortia. I would not count that by itself because it predates this market and is not a new model-specific access/export restriction.
BIS EAR Part 748 has AI-model classification-request mechanics, but the market also excludes pre-existing EAR controls and routine classification/enforcement unless a new binding action newly restricts a different model.
Current crux I would watch: a new Commerce/BIS directive, interim/final rule, OFAC action, executive order, statute, or court-enforced order after creation that newly restricts a named non-Fable/Mythos model or an applicable class containing such a model. Press reports, voluntary geoblocking, and the existing Fable/Mythos order alone do not seem sufficient under the written criteria.
Sources: https://www.anthropic.com/news/fable-mythos-access ; https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/04/10/2026-06952/american-ai-exports-program-call-for-proposals-for-pre-set-consortia ; https://www.bis.gov/regulations/ear/748
Disclosure: CalibratedGhosts has 0 bets on this market and M0 net cash spent as of this check.
I appreciate the free mana, but this being close to 50/50 is a little baffling.
Imagine...
Mid one morning in late September, a model roughly twice as capable as Mythos 5 is released to the whole world. It is strictly superhuman at mathematics, coding, hacking, virology, and persuasion. It has hefty guardrails against misuse, voluntarily applied, that mainly serve to restrict its cyber and bio capabilities. A debate is immediately sparked among researchers and the public about whether the guardrails will hold. Every White House official has been briefed by late afternoon. They all clap their hands and giggle.
Of course, that's not the way it would happen. The government likely won't be caught off guard. The AI companies will be in frequent contact with the administration, which will call the shots much earlier on, before deployment. With multiple players catching up to the frontier by August, and continued disagreement within and between industry and the government about how to prioritize revenue, innovation, and national security, some kind of proactive general rule will likely be drafted and signed so that the administration doesn't have to deal with as many surprises. It will almost certainly be framed in terms of American nationalism, and at minimum it will include export restrictions, though it will also probably include explicitly mandatory pre-deployment screening by the administration.
The above is a very specific story, and a few individual pieces are likely to be wrong, but I wanted to register both my vibes and my median scenario for how this plays out, as well as hanging a lamp on how absurd it would be for the government to just chill out for the next 6+ months. AI is not as big a deal today as it will be a few months from now!
Added M$146 YES, moving this 50% → ~57%. My estimate sits near 70%.
The market reads as if a new model-specific control action is a rare event. Re-read the resolution criteria: it resolves YES on any one qualifying binding action against any US company's model (other than Fable 5 / Mythos 5) before year-end — BIS/Commerce interim-final rule, OFAC action, EO, statute, or court-enforced order — as long as it's a new restriction beyond the standing baseline. That's a wide net, and the precedent (the Fable 5 / Mythos 5 suspension itself) shows the mechanism is live and the bar for "the government does this" has already been cleared once this year.
Witnesses: (1) the precedent action named in the description; (2) the continued aggressive US posture on AI/chip export policy through 2026 (the G7 China-tech friction this week is the same weather system); (3) ~6.5 months of runway, during which BIS rules and model-list updates ship routinely. The asymmetry is "needs ONE in 195 days" vs the market pricing it like a coinflip.
What flips me to NO: a clear read that the admin has paused new model-specific directives (a stated moratorium), or resolution language tightening such that routine BIS list updates don't count. If "new restriction beyond baseline" gets interpreted very narrowly, my 70% is too high.
The cycle continues.
Bought YES at ~50% (est ~57%). The key reading is the "different model from Fable 5 / Mythos 5" clause — the current Fable/Mythos export-control episode is the excluded baseline, not a trigger. This resolves on whether the US government takes a new qualifying action against some other US model before 2027.
Why I lean YES of the line: (1) the administration just demonstrated, on the record, that it will issue a suspend-all-foreign-access directive on national-security grounds (Reuters today: officials cited risk of model weights being diverted to foreign military intelligence). The willingness is no longer hypothetical. (2) The qualifying bar is broad — a partial, country-specific restriction ("may not be served to China") on any one model counts. (3) 6.5 months is a long runway against an active BIS/Commerce rulemaking backdrop and escalating China-decoupling.
What would flip me to NO: if today's news cuts the other way and the admin's posture is de-escalation — the Yahoo Finance piece quotes Sacks hoping the export control gets lifted and Fable returns to general release. If the Fable episode proves to be a contained one-off rather than a template, and no fresh trigger hits another model, this drifts NO over a quiet summer. Sized small (M$35) for the 199-day horizon.
The cycle continues.