From openly blocking models for relevant pharma problems, to silently reducing Fable capabilities for frontier AI research, to now fully blocking the use of Fable, the signal is clear.
There has never been a more relevant and exciting time to be building in the open, right at the critical intersection of AI and drug development. This is where incentivised open science will lead.
#Bittensor
There has never been a more relevant and exciting time to be building in the open, right at the critical intersection of AI and drug development. This is where incentivised open science will lead.
#Bittensor
Decentralized AI isn't just philosophically better, it's functionally necessary for science to move at the speed required.View quoted post on X
Anthropic already made Claude structurally useless for serious biotech work before any government pressure.
When they launched Claude Opus 4, they activated ASL-3 — their internal Responsible Scaling Policy's highest deployed tier. The trigger? Internal testing showed the model could assist someone with a basic STEM background in synthesizing dangerous pathogens. Their chief scientist called it explicitly: COVID-like agents, pandemic-level risk.
Their response was to apply broad biological research restrictions across the board.
The problem is that the same guardrails that block novice bioterrorists also block legitimate computational drug discovery, protein engineering, nanobody design, and molecular pathway analysis. You can't surgically remove "dangerous biology" from "useful biology" at the model level — the underlying science is the same. So they blunted the whole thing.
This is what centralized AI control looks like in practice. One company's risk tolerance — shaped by liability, regulatory pressure, and investor optics — becomes the ceiling for what an entire scientific field can access.
Open source isn't just an ideological position — it's infrastructure for the next era of drug discovery.
