内容来源：https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/951703/anthropic-shutdown-export-controls

内容总结：

美政府突发出口管制令，Anthropic被迫下架最新AI模型

本周，美国人工智能公司Anthropic陷入一场突如其来的风波。特朗普政府未作公开解释，便依据“国家安全”权力，下令该公司切断包括美国本土用户及自家员工在内的所有外国公民对其最新AI模型“Fable 5”和“Mythos 5”的访问权限。Anthropic随即被迫全面封锁这两个模型。

这一前所未有的举动引发业内强烈震动。专家指出，美国出口管制传统上针对可跨境运输的实物（如武器、硬件），后来扩展至软件、源代码等无形物，但从未像这次一样直接用于限制他人通过云端服务（如聊天机器人）使用AI模型。此次命令中，模型本身仍存于Anthropic服务器，用户并未获得模型权重或源代码，所谓“出口”的究竟是模型输出的特定信息，还是访问权限本身，均不清晰。

“据我所知，这是美国首次以出口管制方式控制对AI模型的访问。”乔治城大学安全与新兴技术中心高级研究员汉娜·多门表示。加州大学伯克利分校教授安德鲁·雷迪则认为，这一事件暴露了现行治理体系的混乱——“如果说出口管制规则制定领域尚不成熟，那都是轻描淡写。”

业界陷入两难：若因模型能力特殊而被针对，未来OpenAI、谷歌、Meta等公司的下一代模型将面临同样风险；若因安全防护漏洞被罚，政府需明确合格标准；若只因与特朗普政府关系紧张，则令更难理解。雷迪警告：“这一事件表明，现有治理模式不可持续。如果让模型‘绝对无法越狱’成为美国事实标准，那最终美国将没有AI可用。”

舆论担忧，这种临时、不透明的干预不仅加剧了行业不确定性，还可能促使外国政府和企业对美国AI服务产生戒心。专家呼吁，华盛顿若想控制强大AI系统的使用对象，必须明确规则，并给企业留出合规时间，而非靠“心血来潮”的指令来参与这场全球竞争。

中文翻译：

Anthropic本周大部分时间都在努力让其最新AI模型重新上线，此前特朗普政府突然下令该公司切断所有外国公民的访问权限，包括美国境内用户及其自身员工，迫使Anthropic封锁所有人对Fable 5和Mythos 5的访问。

Anthropic遭受无人能懂的出口规则冲击
专家警告：通过不透明、临时性的干预措施来治理AI是不可持续的。
专家警告：通过不透明、临时性的干预措施来治理AI是不可持续的。

“据我所知，这是美国首次以这种方式动用出口管制来限制对AI模型的访问。”
特朗普政府尚未公开解释该命令的法律依据，但Anthropic在其网站上发表声明称，政府援引“国家安全授权”来证明对这些模型实施“出口管制指令”的合理性。（Anthropic还声称，政府担忧与中国有关联的组织可能利用“越狱”手段访问其模型——但这种手段并不会让用户绕过该公司所有的安全防护措施。）

但政府为何要用出口管制规则来解决这一问题？专家表示，这一事件似乎前所未有，暴露出AI治理领域的不确定和不稳定阶段。而Anthropic究竟在“出口”什么？（该公司未回应The Verge的置评请求。）
传统上，出口管制适用于可以跨境运输的物品：武器、硬件、工具等。随着时间的推移，该框架已扩展至涵盖不那么有形的商品，如软件、源代码、技术数据，甚至3D打印的枪支文件。这些仍然是可复制、下载、发布或以其他方式移交和获取的独立物品，而非仅仅通过聊天机器人等远程服务来使用。在AI领域，时任总统乔·拜登曾试图以这种方式控制AI模型权重——即让模型运行并可被复制到别处运行的核心数据；而特朗普在第二任期迅速放弃了这一思路。

针对Anthropic的命令并不完全符合这一框架。这里并没有发生明显的转移：Mythos和Fable模型仍然托管在Anthropic的服务器上，用户不会收到源代码、模型权重或模型副本，而是获得聊天机器人对其查询的回应。出口的可能是一些由模型生成的具体信息，但尚不清楚为何需要禁用整个系统的访问权限，而非仅限制其中一部分。也可能是访问权限本身——尽管对云服务的远程访问是当前出口管制制度中一个已知的漏洞，而美国国会正试图通过目前正在参议院审议的立法来弥补这一漏洞。

乔治城大学安全与新兴技术中心高级研究分析师汉娜·多曼告诉The Verge，在未看到该命令背后精确措辞的情况下，该命令是否超出了现有规则的范围“是一个悬而未决的问题”。“无论如何，这一监管举措非常引人注目，因为据我所知，这是美国首次以这种方式动用出口管制来控制对AI模型的访问。”

加州大学伯克利分校高曼公共政策学院教授安德鲁·雷迪表示：“说这是出口管制规则制定的一个未定领域还算是轻描淡写。”他说，出口管制规则和武器法规等其他制度赋予了政府“广泛的自由裁量权”来限制对某些商品的访问。但他表示，“历届政府在模型开发者应承担何种责任问题上的含糊其辞”，使得企业难以理解对其的期望是什么。

这让行业陷入了困境。如果Anthropic成为打击对象是因为Mythos和Fable具有独特的能力，那么这一命令显然会对OpenAI、谷歌、Meta、xAI以及任何其他前沿实验室的下一代模型提出疑问。如果是因为具体的防护措施问题，那么政府需要说明何种防护措施才被认为是充分的。而如果Anthropic被单独针对是因为其与特朗普政府关系紧张，那么这一命令就更加令人费解了。

“这一事件清楚地表明，现有的治理体系是不可持续的。”
无论如何，专家表示，这并非管理前沿AI的可持续方式，尤其是如果美国想要保持其全球领先地位。这一事件已经为这样的论点添油加火：美国以外的政府和企业在依赖美国公司获取战略性重要系统的访问权限时应保持警惕。

雷迪也有类似的担忧。“从某种程度上说，我认为这一事件清楚地表明，现有的治理体系是不可持续的，”他说。如果政府更担心的是用户能否越狱模型并绕过其防护措施，那么情况尤其如此。“如果制造无法被越狱的模型成为美国的事实标准，那么它将不会拥有任何AI模型。”

所有这一切都指向同一个问题：特朗普政府在AI问题上想要两全其美。它一再表示希望采取不干预的方式并支持美国科技，却通过一个至今尚未公开解释的命令，迫使一家国内领军企业不体面地撤出其前沿模型。如果华盛顿想要控制谁能访问强大的AI系统，它需要说明如何控制，并在模型发布前给企业一个切实的合规机会。看似心血来潮的临时干预措施从长远来看是不可持续的——而且它们恰恰是确保美国在AI竞赛中落后的好办法。

英文来源：

Anthropic has spent much of this week fighting to get its newest AI models back online after the Trump administration abruptly ordered the company to cut access for all foreign nationals, including users inside the US and its own employees, forcing Anthropic to block access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for everyone.
Anthropic got hit by export rules nobody understands
Governing AI through opaque, ad hoc interventions is unsustainable, experts warn.
Governing AI through opaque, ad hoc interventions is unsustainable, experts warn.
“To my knowledge, this is the first time US export controls have been used to control access to an AI model in this way.”
The Trump administration has not publicly explained the legal basis for the order, but in a statement on its website, Anthropic said the government cited “national security authorities” to justify “an export control directive” on the models. (Anthropic also claimed that the government’s concerns about a “jailbreak” potentially used by groups linked to China to access its models did not allow users to circumvent all of the company’s safeguards.)
But why did the administration use export control rules to address this? Experts say the episode appears to be unprecedented, exposing an uncertain and unstable stage in AI governance. And what, exactly, is Anthropic supposed to be exporting? (The company did not respond to The Verge’s request for comment.)
Export controls have traditionally applied to things that can be shipped across borders: weapons, hardware, tools, that kind of thing. Over time, the framework has expanded to cover less tangible goods, such as software, source code, technical data, and even 3D-printed gun files. These are still discrete things that can be copied, downloaded, published, or otherwise handed over and taken, not simply used through a remote service like a chatbot. In the context of AI, President Joe Biden moved to control AI model weights — the core data that makes a model work that can be copied and run elsewhere — in this manner; this idea was swiftly abandoned by the Trump administration in the second term.
The Anthropic order does not fit neatly into this framework. There is no obvious transfer taking place: Mythos and Fable remain hosted on Anthropic’s servers, and users do not receive source code, model weights, or a copy of the model themselves, instead getting the chatbot’s responses to their queries. The export could be some specific information produced by the models, but it’s not clear why that would require disabling access to the entire system rather than just restricting part of it. It could also be access itself — though remote access to cloud services is a known gap in current export control regimes, one that Congress is already trying to close through legislation now moving through the Senate.
Hanna Dohmen, a senior research analyst at Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology, told The Verge it is “an open question” as to whether the order strains existing rules without seeing the precise language behind it. “In any case, this regulation is quite notable because, to my knowledge, this is the first time US export controls have been used to control access to an AI model in this way.”
“To say that this is an unsettled area of export control rule-making would be an understatement,” said Andrew Reddie, a professor at UC Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy. He said that export control rules and other regimes like arms regulations give the government “wide latitude” to restrict access to certain goods. But “the equivocation by successive administrations regarding what the responsibilities of model developers are” has made it hard for firms to understand what is expected of them, he said.
That leaves the industry in a bind. If Anthropic was targeted because Mythos and Fable are uniquely capable, the order raises obvious questions for the next generation of models from OpenAI, Google, Meta, xAI, and any other frontier lab. If they were targeted because of specific safeguard issues, the government needs to outline what protection it considers sufficient. And if Anthropic was singled out because of its testy relationship with the Trump administration, the order becomes even harder to make sense of.
“This episode makes clear the unsustainability of the existing governance regime.”
Either way, experts say this is not a sustainable way to manage frontier AI, especially if the US wants to maintain its lead globally. The incident has already added fuel to arguments that governments and companies outside the US should be wary about relying on American firms for access to strategically important systems.
Reddie had similar concerns. “In some ways, I think this episode makes clear the unsustainability of the existing governance regime,” he said. That is especially true if the government was more concerned about whether users could jailbreak models and bypass their safeguards. “If creating models that are impossible to jailbreak becomes the de facto standard for the United States, then it will have no AI models.”
All of this points to the same problem: The Trump administration wants it both ways on AI. It has repeatedly said it wants to take a hands-off approach and champion American technology, yet forced a domestic champion to unceremoniously yank its frontier models through an order it has still not publicly explained. If Washington wants to control who can access powerful AI systems, it needs to say how, and give companies an actual chance of complying before launch. Ad hoc interventions seemingly delivered on a whim are not sustainable in the long run — and they are a good way to make sure the US falls behind in the AI race.