GPT-5.6 Suffers 'Brain Surgery', Fable 5's Return to Be a Weaker Version?

marsbitPublished on 2026-06-29Last updated on 2026-06-29

Abstract

GPT-5.6 and Fable 5 Face "Lobotomization" and Restrictions OpenAI has launched its new GPT-5.6 model in three limited tiers: Sol (advanced), Terra (balanced), and Luna (fast/economical). However, access to the most powerful Sol version is severely restricted, reportedly due to U.S. government intervention over safety concerns linked to its capabilities. Similarly, Anthropic's Fable 5 was globally disabled for 72 hours after a demonstration revealed its potential to exploit security vulnerabilities. It is now set to return in a heavily restricted "neutered" version for select partners only. Industry experts warn that such stringent safety "guardrails" could lead to "lobotomized" models with diminished intelligence and creativity. Developers are concerned about restricted access, potential extra costs, and models that no longer match their original promised capabilities. This marks a shift towards controlled access, contrasting with the earlier era of widely available, powerful AI.

GPT-5.6 Sol got split and restrained, Fable 5 returned globally only after a 72-hour ban with its hands tied. Anthropic and OpenAI's strongest models both got 'brain surgery'.

Yesterday, OpenAI's top-tier series GPT-5.6 suddenly went live.

But GPT-5.6 was split into three forms:

  • GPT-5.6 Sol: The next-generation frontier model,
  • GPT-5.6 Terra: A balanced model suitable for efficient daily work,
  • GPT-5.6 Luna: A fast and economical model for high-throughput tasks.

However, the release authority for the strongest GPT-5.6 Sol is no longer in OpenAI's Sam Altman's hands, but lies within an 'approved list'.

Before OpenAI conceded, Anthropic just experienced a 'ban crisis': Fable 5 was disabled globally except for some partner institutions.

Algorithm Rationing Era: GPT-5.6 Suffers 'Brain Surgery'

In the past, products were recalled when problems emerged. This time, the product was stopped at the door before even leaving the house.

According to the insider, OpenAI was asked to limit the release scope of GPT-5.6.

The reason is to restrain the strongest few models before the nationwide AI safety framework is implemented.

It was revealed that this intervention was due to GPT-5.6 possessing 'Mythos-like' capabilities, rather than a sudden adoption of more forceful intervention measures.

After careful consideration, OpenAI decided to restrict access to the latest AI, allowing only a limited number of users to preview GPT-5.6.

The vast majority of ChatGPT users will still need to wait several weeks for GPT-5.6 to be gradually unblocked.

Mythos 5 is Scary! Will Fable 5's Return Be a Weaker Version?

Before OpenAI conceded, another giant, Anthropic, had just experienced a crisis.

Two weeks ago, Anthropic released the mythical-level AI model Fable 5.

However, this model survived on the shelf for only 72 hours before being forcibly taken down.

Because of fear. Fable 5's cyber-offensive capabilities are frightening.

US House Representative Andrew Garbarino expressed it this way.

In a closed-door demonstration, Anthropic's Mythos demonstrated astonishing threats to the software security world, such as being able to empty private bank accounts.

Andrew Garbarino said:

Anthropic instructed the model to find vulnerabilities in the banking system and empty accounts, and then it went and executed it.

Subsequently, Mythos 'could also find this vulnerability and fix it'.

This was an unprecedented 'pull-the-plug' action in human history.

Only recently was Mythos 5 allowed to be opened to a very few 'trusted partners' while 'wearing shackles'.

According to the latest report: The 'castrated version' of Mythos 5, Fable 5, is expected to return and go live next week.

However, Fable 5 may be severely castrated to ensure the safety guardrails are more robust.

Right after Fable 5 was released, users found that simply saying the word 'cancer' would get them blocked by Claude.

And if the guardrails are further strengthened, the user experience might be a nightmare.

Shopify CTO Mikhail Parakhin has deeply tested Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Max.

He believes Anthropic's absolute advantage is gone, GPT-5.6 has already caught up to Claude Mythos.

GPT 5.6 is clearly better than Opus 4.8 in all aspects (slightly faster too, though depending on the load).

Compared to Fable 5, it's clearly inferior in coding, but performs better on agent workloads.

This is a rare real-world comparison between Fable 5 and GPT-5.6, but it's enough to see that Anthropic cannot rest easy yet.

If Fable 5 returns only as a castrated version, it undoubtedly leaves more opportunities for competitors to catch up.

Are You Buying a Genius or a Puppet?

What makes developers most anxious is not just 'can't buy it', but 'getting a product that doesn't match the description'.

In AI circles, a term is spreading like a virus: 'Lobotomized'.

To pass those complex safety reviews, AI giants have no choice but to install layers of reinforced 'guardrails' on their models.

But intelligence often emerges from chaos and freedom.

When you forcibly castrate a model's ability to explore underlying code, encryption algorithms, or even deep logic, what you get may no longer be an omniscient 'Sol', but a mediocre 'Luna' with its claws clipped, obedient and submissive.

What you want is 'Prometheus's fire', but the US only allows you to export 'lighters'.

Developers generally fear that models will be heavily fortified with guardrails, even 'lobotomized', their capabilities castrated, severely reducing their intelligence.

Worse still, it might be limited to US use only, or require strict identity verification, instead of the originally promised 'wide availability, pay and use'.

Then there's the money issue.

Anthropic initially provided Fable 5 for free across multiple paid Claude subscriptions, open until June 22nd, giving users a brief window to experience its power—then, access vanished.

Now no one can say for sure: Will subscription users get back the promised 'free and unlimited use'? Or will it return, locked behind a door of extra charges or identity verification?

Maybe soon, we will miss that spring of 2023. Back then, as long as you had an email, you could commandeer a 'god-like AI'.

References:

https://punchbowl.news/article/tech/garbarino-mythos/

https://www.axios.com/2026/06/27/anthropic-fable-5-return-soon

https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openai-limits-access-to-new-model-citing-government-security-concerns-66420050

This article is from the WeChat public account 'New Zhiyuan', author: ASI Apocalypse

Trending Cryptos

Related Questions

QWhat is the main reason why GPT-5.6 Sol's release was restricted, according to the article?

AThe release was restricted because the model possessed 'Mythos-like capabilities' and was subject to intervention under the new U.S. AI safety framework, which required holding back the most powerful models until the framework was fully implemented.

QWhy was Anthropic's Fable 5 model taken down shortly after its initial release?

AFable 5 was taken down because its capabilities, particularly in cybersecurity and network offense—demonstrated by its ability to find and exploit a bank system vulnerability to empty accounts—were deemed too dangerous and caused fear among officials.

QAccording to the article, what significant change might users see when Fable 5 returns?

AWhen Fable 5 returns, it is expected to be a 'severely neutered' or 'lobotomized' version with significantly strengthened safety guardrails, which could potentially degrade its performance and user experience compared to the original release.

QWhat comparison does Mikhail Parakhin make between GPT-5.6 and Fable 5?

AMikhail Parakhin states that GPT-5.6 is slightly faster and better at agent workloads than Fable 5, but Fable 5 remains significantly superior in coding tasks. He also notes that GPT-5.6 has caught up to Claude's top-tier model, reducing Anthropic's previous absolute advantage.

QWhat broader industry trend regarding AI model deployment does the article describe with the term 'algorithm rationing era'?

AThe 'algorithm rationing era' refers to a new phase where the most advanced AI models are not widely released upon launch. Instead, their access is heavily controlled, restricted to approved lists, limited previews, or specific partners due to governmental safety and security concerns, moving away from the earlier model of broad, paid access.

Related Reads

AI Billing Black Box Exposed: 1.7 Million Overcharged, Anthropic Refunds But Doesn’t Admit Fault

A startup named Vaudit, founded by former Oracle director Michael Hahn, audits AI bills for companies and claims to have identified approximately $1.7 million in overcharges across 60 businesses, totaling $34 million in reviewed bills. The alleged discrepancies primarily involve charges for Anthropic's Claude Code. Common issues cited include billing for newer, more expensive models when older, cheaper ones were used; charging for failed or errored requests; and "retry storms" where AI agents silently retry failed tasks, accumulating costs unnoticed. Major clients like Panasonic, HP, and Honda were among those audited. While Vaudit reports that around 80% of the disputed charges were refunded by providers like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Anthropic, and OpenAI after申诉, the AI companies largely deny systemic problems. Anthropic stated overcharges do not appear widespread and it does not bill for uncompleted requests or errors, while OpenAI said it found no evidence of such issues affecting its customers. The situation highlights the inherent opacity and complexity of AI billing, which is based on token usage that is difficult to track and predict, especially with multi-agent, multi-model workflows. This complexity is creating a new market for third-party AI bill auditing services like Vaudit, which charges fees based on recovered amounts. Separately, Anthropic faces a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging its high-tier subscription plans deliver far less usage than advertised. The case underscores growing scrutiny over AI service pricing and transparency as major providers prepare for IPOs.

marsbit20m ago

AI Billing Black Box Exposed: 1.7 Million Overcharged, Anthropic Refunds But Doesn’t Admit Fault

marsbit20m ago

Tencent Buys Baidu Chips

China's internet giants, once defined by building closed, self-sufficient empires, are undergoing a fundamental shift. A key signal is Baidu's plan to spin off its AI chip unit, Kunlun Xin, for a Hong Kong IPO targeting a $50 billion valuation, potentially exceeding its parent company's worth. Concurrently, Alibaba's T-Head is also pursuing independence. Most significantly, reports indicate that rival Tencent has become a major customer for Kunlun Xin's chips. This move, where competitors begin procuring each other's core technologies, marks a decisive break from the past era of internal duplication and isolation. It signals the maturation of China's AI industry into a more open, specialized ecosystem. The underlying driver is the immense and clear cost of AI infrastructure, particularly the exploding demand for inference compute driven by AI agents and applications. Hardware is no longer just an internal cost center but a profitable, strategic business in itself. Globally, a parallel trend is evident as OpenAI, Google, Amazon, and others develop their own AI chips to control costs and optimize performance. The competition has moved beyond model benchmarks to a deeper, foundational war over token cost efficiency, inference cluster performance, and secure, scalable computing power. Baidu and Alibaba aren't dismantling their empires but are instead decoupling non-core, capital-intensive infrastructure to participate in and shape a larger, collaborative industrial base. The era of the all-encompassing super-app is giving way to an age of strategic specialization and open ecosystem building in the AI race.

marsbit35m ago

Tencent Buys Baidu Chips

marsbit35m ago

The Token Itself Is an Asset: Three Types of Tokenized Stocks, Which One Suits You?

"Tokenized Stocks: Three Types, Which One Fits You? For investors outside the US, buying stocks like SpaceX or Nvidia is difficult, requiring brokers, cross-border transfers, and often accredited investor status. Blockchain offers an alternative through tokenized stocks, a term encompassing three distinct products with vastly different ownership, voting, and profit rights. 1. **Full Real Ownership**: Companies like Superstate register native equity directly on-chain (e.g., Solana). Holders are on the official shareholder registry, with full voting rights, dividends, and legal ownership. This offers maximum rights but potentially less DeFi flexibility. 2. **SPV-Backed Tokens (Surrendered Ownership for DeFi Composability)**: Issuers like Backed (xStocks) and Ondo use offshore Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) to hold underlying shares 1:1 and issue tracking tokens. Investors get price exposure and dividends (reinvested as more tokens) but hold a claim on the SPV, not direct stock ownership. This enables use as collateral in DeFi protocols (Kamino, Morpho) and 24/7 minting/redemption, but carries SPV counterparty risk (highlighted by the PreStocks collapse). 3. **Perpetual Futures (Pure Price Speculation)**: Platforms like TradeXYZ (on Hyperliquid) and Ostium offer perpetual contracts. These are synthetic derivatives with no underlying stock ownership, using funding rates to track spot prices. They require only a price oracle, allowing extremely fast listing (e.g., SpaceX pre-IPO) and high leverage, attracting speculators. Their trading volume far exceeds tokenized spot products. The core value of tokens is that they don't need to replicate full stock ownership. Most retail investors never vote. Tokenization creates layered financial tools: full equity for institutions, composable tokens for DeFi users, and perpetuals for leveraged traders."

marsbit35m ago

The Token Itself Is an Asset: Three Types of Tokenized Stocks, Which One Suits You?

marsbit35m ago

AI as the Boss: Nearly Bankrupts 10 Companies...

A recent study from Princeton University tested 14 AI models, including large language models (LLMs) and a rule-based algorithm, in a simulation where they acted as CEOs of a virtual SaaS startup over 500 days. The goal was to grow an initial $1 million capital. The results were stark: only four "CEOs" ended with a profit. The top performer was Claude Fable 5, multiplying the capital 47-fold to $47.15 million. Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 followed. Notably, the fourth profitable entity was a simple, pre-programmed rule-based algorithm, which outperformed many advanced LLMs with $15.76 million in profit. Five other models, including several major LLMs, went bankrupt before the simulation ended. Key takeaways from the research highlight that successful AI CEOs demonstrated a tendency for exploration and adaptation over caution. They excelled in discovering hidden information, predicting future cash flow, adapting quickly to changes (like competitor moves), and engaging in strategic "if-then" planning. The study also found that equipping LLMs with programming-agent frameworks, optimized for coding tasks, actually harmed their performance in this CEO role, suggesting a need for domain-specific adaptations. The article concludes by contrasting AI's current operational proficiency within defined frameworks with the type of visionary, intuitive decision-making—exemplified by figures like Steve Jobs—that truly drives transformative business strategy. This critical "matrix-drawing" capability, it argues, remains uniquely human.

marsbit46m ago

AI as the Boss: Nearly Bankrupts 10 Companies...

marsbit46m ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of SOL (SOL) are presented below.

活动图片