TheDinarian
News • Business • Investing & Finance
How Rockefeller Monopolized Medicine and Created BIG PHARMA
Please read and share, let the truth be known worldwide...
October 13, 2023
post photo preview

Born in 1839, John D. Rockefeller would go on to become one of the great robber barons and industrialist tycoons of American history. By the turn of the 20th century, Rockefeller controlled 90% of the oil refineries in the US through his company Standard Oil, becoming in the process America’s first billionaire.

Of course, in 1911, Standard Oil was ruled by the US Supreme Court to be an illegal monopoly in violation of antitrust laws and forced to break up. Like his father, John D. Rockefeller had built his success on illegality, cons, and scams.

Still, this was not enough for Rockefeller. He wanted more.

 

How Rockefeller Targeted Medicine

At the time, chemicals made from oil, known as ‘petrochemicals,’ were being discovered and developed in the US. This included the discovery that pharmaceutical drugs could be made from oil, which Rockefeller saw as an opportunity to expand his empire. The key was that petrochemicals, unlike natural health remedies, could be patented, presenting an enormous opportunity for Rockefeller profits.

There was only one problem – at the time, natural, herbal, and traditional medicines were very popular in the US. Something like half of the doctors and medical colleges in the country were using holistic medicine, natural remedies, and knowledge taken from Indigenous Native Americans. Rockefeller needed a way to eliminate the competition, to create a monopoly in medicine as he had done with oil.

And so, he went to his good friend Andrew Carnegie, another robber baron who had gotten rich through his monopoly of the steel industry and, incidentally, one of the country’s leading eugenicists. Together, the two men hatched a plan to take over American medicine.


maxresdefault.jpg

 

The Creation of Big Pharma

From the cover of the Carnegie Foundation, they would send a man named Abraham Flexner around the country to report on its medical colleges and hospitals. After visiting all 155 medical schools existing at that time in the US and Canada, he completed the seminal Flexner Report in 1910.

Following the directions of his employers, Flexner called in his report for a total restructuring of the American medical system, most specifically, for the pushing aside of natural and traditional remedies in favor of Rockefeller pharmaceuticals. The report even specifically mentioned the eradication of “dissidents,” appropriately, since this is exactly what happened.

Almost immediately after the report was issued, medical schools teaching things like naturopathy, homeopathy, electromagnetic field therapy, and so on, were told to drop these things or close. More than half of all medical colleges in the country did close, and many non-compliant doctors were demonized and even jailed.

But Rockefeller and Carnegie went further, offering huge grants to medical schools and hospitals so long as they only taught and practiced Rockefeller medicine, and allowed Rockefeller agents on their boards of directors to ensure compliance.

It was the carrot and the stick – those who agreed got funded with big money, those who didn’t were crushed.

In this way, all medical colleges in the country were streamlined and homogenized, with doctors all learning the same thing – how to use and prescribe Rockefeller’s patented drugs.

But, like any good monopolist, Rockefeller went further in seeking to consolidate his control. He took over the AMA and emboldened it as the gatekeeper of scientific thought and witch hunter of alternative medical practices. He took control of the FDA in order to control the approval process for new drugs. He even founded the American Cancer Society in 1913. Within a few short years, Rockefeller was in total control of the American medical system in both thought and action.

The result of this takeover, the product of this monopolist son of a conman and his eugenicist partner, would become known as “Big Pharma.”

That Big Pharma took over and monopolized American medicine, promoting their own patented, profit-making products and suppressing all others, isn’t even a conspiracy theory.

In fact, it was recorded for all to see in 1953 …

 

The Fitzgerald Report

In the early 1950s, US Senator Charles Toby enlisted an investigator with the Interstate Commerce Commission named Benedict Fitzgerald to examine allegations of conspiracy and monopoly in medicine. Toby had become interested in the issue after his own son had gotten cancer and been given less than two years to live by orthodox medicine before pursuing alternative treatments and being cured.

The resulting 1953 report, known as the Fitzgerald Report, was truly shocking. It concluded that Big Pharma had been involved in “a conspiracy of alarming proportions.”

First, there was

“The organized effort to hinder, suppress and restrict the free flow of drugs which allegedly proven successful in cases where clinical records, case history, pathological reports, and x-ray photographic proof, together with the alleged cured patients, are available.”

On top of that,

“Public and private funds have been thrown around like confetti at a country fair to close up and destroy clinics, hospitals, and research laboratories which do not conform to the viewpoint of medical associations.”

The report even noted that Big Pharma had conspired to suppress at least 12 promising cancer treatments, including mentioning Hoxsey Therapy by name.

It was an unfathomably damning report, making clear that the tentacles of a Big Pharma conspiracy to suppress alternative medicine were everywhere.

But as it turns out, the report did not go far enough

 

The Suppression of Laetril as a Cure for Cancer

Oftentimes when a new natural cancer treatment appears, the assertion from the medical establishment is that the new treatment is either unproven, or disproven. There is no better example of what this really means in the era of Big Pharma than the case of a cancer treatment called Laetrile.

In 1952, a year before the Fitzgerald Report, a biochemist named Ernst Krebs proposed that cancer was a deficiency disease which could be cured with a compound called amygdalin, found in over 1,200 plants, and most specifically in the seeds of apricots. By extracting this amygdalin from apricot kernels, Krebs created a product he called Laetrile.

Over the course of many years, Krebs conducted numerous lab experiments on animals which showed that Laetrile was an effective cancer treatment, that somehow, it caused cancer cells to self-destruct.

By the 1960s, a doctor named John Richardson had picked up the research, and had even begun treating human patients with Laetrile. Unsurprisingly, the Rockefeller-controlled FDA launched a massive media campaign against Richardson and Laetrile, claiming that the treatment was toxic and dangerous. By 1971, the FDA officially banned Laetrile, and, in 1972, they stormed Richardson’s clinic and arrested him.

But even after Richardson was jailed, people kept asking about Laetrile, writing to government officials, medical journals, and scientific labs demanding answers. At this point, Big Pharma knew they had to put their foot down once and for all. They needed to undertake official testing which proved that Laetrile didn’t work.

The testing would take place at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, and what would happen next would come to be described as “one of the biggest medical cover-ups the world of cancer research has ever seen.”

The tests would be led and directed by Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, known at that time as “the preeminent cancer researcher in America.” He had over 60 years of experience, publishing hundreds of academic papers on the subject. As one scientist said, “When Dr. Sugiura publishes, we know we don’t have to repeat the study, for we would obtain the same results he has reported.”

In 1972, testing began, with Laetrile being administered to mice with many different types of cancerous tumors. At its completion, Dr. Sugiura concluded that Laetrile stopped the spread of cancer, inhibited the growth of tumors, and acted as a cancer prevention. It even provided relief from pain and improved general health.

This seemed to be incredible news. Except, there were three Rockefellers sitting on the board of Sloan-Kettering, as well as a dozen more people representing companies making big money from Big Pharma. When they caught word of the test results, “all hell broke loose,” and another round of tests was ordered.

Unfortunately for Sloan-Kettering executives, the second round of testing only confirmed the first. Except this time, with two confirmed tests from the legendary Dr. Sugiura in the books, mainstream media was forced to cover it. Had a cure for cancer really been found, they asked?

Sloan-Kettering officials refused to speak with the media, refused to discuss the results or answer any questions, saying only in a prewritten statement that a third round of tests had been ordered in order to “clarify” the results, as if they had not been twice clarified already.

In this third test, a new wrinkle would be introduced – Dr. Sugiura would be blinded. He would not know which half of the mice would be receiving Laetrile, and which half would be given a saline solution, as if this eminently respected scientist was going to somehow manipulate the results.

After four weeks, Dr. Sugiura could see which of the mice were being given Laetrile, since mice in some of the cages had fewer and smaller tumors, while mice in the other cages showed no effects. Sloan-Kettering overseers who were supervising the project confirmed to Dr. Sugiura that he was correct. For a third time, Laetrile’s cancer treating properties were confirmed.

Except, arguing that Dr. Sugiura was no longer blinded since he knew which cages were which, Sloan-Kettering officials shut the tests down.

They would try yet again to get the results they were looking for with a fourth test. This time, not only would Dr. Sugiura be blinded, but the mice who were receiving the treatment would be mixed together with those who weren’t. Dr. Sugiura warned that this was dangerous because there was no dependable way to ensure the lab techs administering the treatment would be able to identify the correct mice every time. And, in fact, this is exactly what happened. Some of the mice who were purportedly only being given a saline solution saw their tumors stop growing.

“There’s something funny here,” Dr. Sugiura professed. The ‘something funny’ was that the treatments had been mixed, with many mice receiving some Laetrile and some saline solution, just as Dr. Sugiura had predicted.

Yet, in this case, the legitimacy of the results wasn’t important to Sloan-Kettering’s Rockefeller board. Immediately, they announced that “results from the experiment do not confirm the earlier positive findings of Sugiura.”

Then, they called a press conference attended by most of mainstream media and declared, “Laetrile was found to possess neither preventive, nor tumor-regressant, nor anti metestatic, nor curative anti-cancer activity” – the exact opposite of what the first three tests had shown.

At the end of the press conference, the floor was opened to questions from the media, which is when things took a dramatic turn.

“Dr. Sugiura,” someone shouted, “Do you stick by your belief that Laetrile stops the spread of cancer?”

The room fell silent as the fabled Dr. Sugiura rose to his feet and replied, “I stick.”

The next month, Sloan-Kettering executives appeared before a Senate subcommittee hearing to decide the fate of Laetrile. While it had been banned by the FDA in 1971, some states were challenging this decision.

At the hearing, Sloan-Kettering executives asserted, “There is not a particle of scientific evidence to suggest that Laetrile possesses any anti-cancer properties at all” totally ignoring the three full lab tests of scientific evidence from “the preeminent cancer researcher in America.” As a result of the testimony, Laetrile was officially banned nationwide by 1980.

Afterwards, Dr. Sugiura was asked why Sloan-Kettering was so against Laetrile. “I don’t know,” he replied, “Maybe the medical profession doesn’t like it because they are making too much money.”

When Big Pharma says an alternative treatment has been disproven, this is what they mean.

 

Is Big Pharma Suppressing Information for Profit?

But what about if tests were not done in a Rockefeller-controlled lab. What if one were to do their own tests, build their own case studies, and present them to the appropriate authorities themselves?

One man provided an answer.

Stanislaw Burzynski was a Doctor of Biochemistry who immigrated to the US from Poland in 1970, where he took up a position as a researcher and assistant professor at Baylor University in Houston, Texas. There, he discovered something which he called antineoplastons – naturally occurring “molecular switches” in the human body which, Burzynski asserted, the body used to control cancer growth.

At first, Burzynski’s discoveries were well received by colleagues. In fact, so impressive was his work that he was offered a tenured position in Baylor’s Department of Pharmacology. He should have been thrilled, yet Burzynski knew that if he accepted, he would lose his independence as a researcher. So, he refused the position, instead choosing to found the Burzynski Research Institute in order to continue his work. On his way out the door at Baylor, his boss warned him, “Just wait, Burzynski. They’re going to kick your ass.”

In short order, Burzynski and his clinic were investigated by local medical authorities for using “unapproved medications,” while the Rockefeller-founded American Cancer Society put antineoplastons on its “unproven methods” list, and those who had been funding his research pulled their support.

In 1983, the FDA filed a lawsuit to get him to shut down his operation, and when this failed, FDA agents and federal marshals simply raided the Burzynski Research Institute and seized over 200,000 confidential documents.

Still Burzynski continued on. He raised millions of dollars through his Institute to pay for clinical trials for antineoplastons, money Big Pharma companies are more than happy to spend since they know they will recoup it when their products are patented. By the mid-90s, he was able to provide the FDA with sixty clinical trials, meeting the requirement for their Phase I testing.

For another decade he worked, compiling hundreds more clinical trials, meeting the requirements for Phase II of testing on his own at the cost of millions of dollars.

In 2011, Burzynski began Phase III testing, which involves thousands of participants and can last for years, again, at the cost of many millions of dollars. He was closing in on the finish line by 2013, which is when the FDA stepped in and put a stop to the trials. Their reason? They complained that the Burzynski Research Institute was doing all of the testing, when, of course, this is simply how the FDA approval process works. The only difference is usually the testing is being done by a Big Pharma company.

Finally, in 2017, the FDA cancelled antineoplaston clinical trials for good, refusing Burzynski the right to even conduct the tests. Moreover, Burzynski had his medical license revoked and was fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for his trouble.

The point made by Burzynski and his antineoplastons, by Sloan-Kettering’s Laetrile trials, is simple. It’s a case of ‘you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.’ If testing is conducted in a Rockefeller Big Pharma laboratory, it will be repeated and repeated and repeated until it gives the desired results, no matter how manipulated these results might be. And if you conduct the tests yourself, spending millions upon millions of dollars, the results will still not be accepted.

03-04-burzynski-02.webp?w=600&q=75&f=aa0b9051be2d61eaa37d43d89e96624f
Over 60 patients defended Dr. Burzynski stating they were cured by him.

Big Pharma controls the testing, they control approval, they control academic thought. But look closer, and it goes even further than that.

Big Pharma employs 1,270 registered lobbyists in the halls of government, more than two Big Pharma lobbyists for every member of congress, at a cost of over $200 million per year. They also spend tens of millions of dollars every year financing political campaigns – nearly every member of congress is funded by Big Pharma. On top of that, Big Pharma lobbyists and executives are repeatedly put in charge of the government bodies tasked with overseeing the pharmaceutical industry, like the FDA. Simply, the production and sale of medicine is tightly regulated by government, and Big Pharma controls the government.

Is it really so hard to believe that Big Pharma would use its control of academia, science, and government, to suppress valuable information for their own profit?

In reality, suppressing truth for profit is as American as apple pie – from the 1950s, when tobacco companies fought to suppress lung cancer knowledge as people died, to modern times, when oil companies insist that the debate around climate change is still ongoing, even as the consequences scientists promised decades ago are all around.

But pharmaceutical companies? Those purportedly tasked with providing health? Would they really suppress a cure for cancer? And kill people?

Actually, that Big Pharma would knowingly and intentionally kill people for profit is not conspiracy, it is established fact, admitted on record in American courts.

 

How Big Pharma Created the American Opioid Crisis

In October of 2020, Big Pharma flagbearer Purdue Pharma pled guilty in court to criminal charges for its role in the American opioid crisis, agreeing to pay some $8.3 billion in the settlement.

Opioids were a new type of synthetic pain medication that emerged in the early-1990s, which Big Pharma companies like Purdue aggressively promoted while suppressing information about the dangers, most specifically, the extreme addictiveness. Today, not only is chronic pain more prevalent than ever in the US, but nearly a million people have died from opioid overdoses, and another 3 million have fallen victim to addiction.

In pleading guilty at trial, Purdue Pharma admitted on record to having supplied drugs “without legitimate medical purpose.” In other words, the purpose of opioids wasn’t medical, it wasn’t to cure pain; it was to get people addicted so they’d buy more. Purdue even admitted to paying off health insurance companies to deny coverage for alternative care, forcing people to take opioids, and paying off doctors to overprescribe their product to patients.

depositphotos_178773006-stock-photo-macro-of-oxycodone-opioid-tablets.jpg

By February of 2022, four more of the largest Big Pharma companies had reached a $26 billion settlement for their own role in the crisis. These, along with Purdue, are the largest and most powerful pharmaceutical companies in the country, the ones who lobby governments and sit on medical boards. And here they are, on the record, poisoning people for profit.

 

Chemotherapy - The Only Legal "Cure" for Cancer

Apply this knowledge to cancer specifically, and think about what chemotherapy is.

The treatment was first conceptualized by doctors examining soldiers who had been exposed to mustard gas during World War II. Noticing that mustard gas had toxic effects on the blood cells of soldiers, doctors surmised that it could be used against cancer cells.

This was how the first version of chemotherapy, and model for all subsequent versions, was created, from a compound used as an agent of chemical warfare. This is what Big Pharma is telling cancer patients to put in their body.

Of course, it is no big secret that chemotherapy is toxic. Cancer patients are warned that side effects can include everything from vomiting and nausea, to infertility, to organ damage, and even death. They are even warned it can lead to a “second cancer.” In other words, patients are told chemotherapy might treat their cancer, but that it might also cause cancer; it might save their life, but it might also kill them. As one former president of the American Chemical Society succinctly put it, “chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good.”

A bit like opioids …

But that’s the point; there are no profits in the cure. Big Pharma needs people sick, so that people need more and more expensive “treatment.”

In this, the era of Big Pharma is alone in the history of medicine …

Link

The Dinarian On Locals is a labor of love that I pour my heart and soul into during my personal time. Countless hours are dedicated to delivering you the most up-to-date, unfiltered, and authentic news and information. Your support means the world to me, and I invite you to consider making a donation or becoming a dedicated supporter of this project. Any amount of XRP donations can be sent by scanning the QR code below and are greatly appreciated. ~ Namaste🙏🏼The Dinarian

 

 

community logo
Join the TheDinarian Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
1
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
🚨 BOMBSHELL MEDICAL REPORT: Florida Launches Official Study into 77-Cent Ivermectin to Fight Stage 4 Cancer!

Florida shatters the Big Pharma consensus! The State officially launches funding for generic drug repurposing, investigating 77-cent Ivermectin for cancer treatment.

⚠️ Breaking the Big Pharma Monopoly: How the State of Florida is Investing Taxpayer Dollars into Generic Drug Repurposing to Bring Unprecedented Hope to Cancer Patients.

00:02:39
👁️ THE KILL CHAIN AUTOMATED: Palantir, the DOD, and the Age of AI Warfare 🛰️⚡

While the public debate remains focused on consumer AI chatbots, the defense-industrial complex has quietly deployed real-time artificial intelligence into operational military decision-making.

Here is what you need to know about the integration of Palantir’s AI infrastructure and military data networks:

📡 1. Shrinking the "Kill Chain"

Through platforms like Project Maven and Palantir's Artificial Intelligence Platform (AIP), military surveillance systems process massive streams of satellite imagery, drone telemetry, and signals intelligence in real time.

🔹 The Goal: Reduce target identification, processing, and decision workflows from hours to seconds.

🔹 The Reality: Data streams from edge sensors (drones, aircraft, satellites) are fused instantaneously, surfacing potential targets directly to operators with automated strike recommendations.

🛡️ 2. Sensor Fusion & The Tactical Edge

Modern operational platforms don't just log data—they deploy algorithmic model...

00:01:51
The Only Thing Stopping You, Is You...

This is why prayer, visualization and meditations can be so powerful...

You already have it...

The universe will have no option but to make it a reality ✨️

00:01:04
🚨 Chutes is being framed as a Hyperliquid-style breakout for decentralized AI inference, with live revenue, verified GPU infrastructure, and a direct challenge to centralized cloud AI 🚨

Chutes is gaining attention as a decentralized AI inference platform that claims to combine real usage, cryptographic verification, confidential computing, and open-source infrastructure into a working production system. The thesis is simple: instead of trusting Big Tech clouds with AI workloads, users get a distributed compute layer built around verification and privacy.

🔑 Key points

🔹 Chutes is live in production and reportedly scaled to more than 1,170 active GPU nodes, including large numbers of Nvidia H200s and Blackwell-class hardware.

🔹 The platform says it has processed nearly 38 trillion tokens since launch across 53 deployed applications and more than 700,000 registered users.

🔹 The team reportedly cut unprofitable usage programs, reduced total token volume, and still improved revenue efficiency, with revenue per GPU rising sharply after removing subsidized traffic.

🔹 Chutes is using post-quantum cryptography, trusted execution environments, and Nvidia confidential ...

🚨 Chutes is being framed as a Hyperliquid-style breakout for decentralized AI inference, with live revenue, verified GPU infrastructure, and a direct challenge to centralized cloud AI 🚨
🚨 JPMorgan’s criticism of the CLARITY Act is fueling a fresh power struggle over who gets to write America’s crypto rules 🚨

A new clash is emerging between legacy finance and crypto legislation after JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon reportedly warned that the CLARITY Act could let crypto firms offer bank-like products without bank-level oversight. The dispute is quickly turning into a larger fight over regulation, competitiveness, and who controls the future architecture of digital finance in the United States.

🔑 Key points

🔹 Jamie Dimon reportedly called the CLARITY Act a threat to the financial system, arguing it could allow crypto firms to offer yield-like products while avoiding the capital, reserve, and oversight burdens traditional banks face.

🔹 Senator Cynthia Lummis pushed back publicly, framing the issue as a global strategic race and warning that if the U.S. does not set digital asset standards, other powers will.

🔹 The core tension is whether the bill creates legitimate regulatory clarity or simply opens the door to regulatory arbitrage for crypto platforms operating outside the traditional banking...

🚨 JPMorgan’s criticism of the CLARITY Act is fueling a fresh power struggle over who gets to write America’s crypto rules 🚨
👉 Coinbase just launched an AI agent for Crypto Trading

Custom AI assistants that print money in your sleep? 🔜

The future of Crypto x AI is about to go crazy.

👉 Here’s what you need to know:

💠 'Based Agent' enables creation of custom AI agents
💠 Users set up personalized agents in < 3 minutes
💠 Equipped w/ crypto wallet and on-chain functions
💠 Capable of completing trades, swaps, and staking
💠 Integrates with Coinbase’s SDK, OpenAI, & Replit

👉 What this means for the future of Crypto:

1. Open Access: Democratized access to advanced trading
2. Automated Txns: Complex trades + streamlined on-chain activity
3. AI Dominance: Est ~80% of crypto 👉txns done by AI agents by 2025

🚨 I personally wouldn't bet against Brian Armstrong and Jesse Pollak.

👉 Coinbase just launched an AI agent for Crypto Trading
🚨Q2 webinar with Denelle Dixon (CEO STELLAR)🚨

Join the Q2 webinar with Denelle Dixon, Jose Fernandez da Ponte, Tomer Weller, and Raja Chakravorti

https://www.linkedin.com/events/7488670276189114369/

post photo preview

🚨 Inside Zipcode and Ditto’s Push to Build Bittensor’s Core Infrastructure 🚨

Zipcode and Ditto are spearheading efforts to develop the foundational infrastructure that powers Bittensor’s decentralized AI network. Their work is critical in scaling and securing the ecosystem for broader adoption.

🔑 Key points:

🔹 Focus on building robust, scalable protocols to support network growth.

🔹 Enhancing security measures to safeguard decentralized AI operations.

🔹 Streamlining node interactions and data flows within Bittensor.

🔹 Driving innovation to optimize performance and user experience.

🔹 Collaborating closely with the community to align development priorities.

🎯 Bottom line: Zipcode and Ditto’s infrastructure initiatives are vital for Bittensor’s evolution—laying the groundwork for a resilient, efficient decentralized AI future.

https://taodaily.io/inside-zipcode-and-dittos-push-to-build-bittensors-core-infrastructure/

🌎 Schumann Resonance Today 8/2 🌍

Today's Frequency Analysis: The fundamental resonant frequency of the Earth today 7.83 Hz it remains stable around. Tomsk Space Observing System (SOS) data shows that global lightning activity is at an average level today. The low deflection in the fundamental mode SR1 indicates a healthy ionosphere-terrestrial crust interaction.

Harmonics and Amplitude: The second harmonic (SR2) shows weak activity as expected at ~14.3 Hz. Third harmonic (SR3) ~20.8 Hz normal. Amplitude values 13-14 pT in the range of, which suggests a healthy signal quality (93+%). Solar wind speed is around 420 km/h, geomagnetic activity is low-moderate.

Geomagnetic Context: Kp index today 2.0 level, calm conditions. Solar wind is within normal range, no CME activity. Under these conditions, Schumann resonance is experiencing its most stable period — the ideal environment for meditation and bio-feedback practices.

Spectrogram Interpretation: The 24-hour Tomsk spectrogram shows a slight increase in the morning hours (06-09 UTC). ...

post photo preview
post photo preview
AI Is Coming for Your Job Title

Artificial intelligence may or may not take your job, but it has already broken into the human resources department and vandalized the org chart.

The evidence is all over LinkedIn, where perfectly serviceable occupations now arrive wearing titles such as “forward-deployed and agentic AI architect.” That person may be building sophisticated software. They may also be helping a chatbot remember what happened three prompts ago. Either way, somebody approved the business cards.

The expanding AI lexicon offers a useful counterpoint to the darker debate about technology and employment. Most discussion centers on how many jobs AI will eliminate. Hiring data presents a more complicated picture that includes a weak overall labor market containing a small but rapidly growing neighborhood of AI-related work.

Indeed Hiring Lab found that the number of postings on Indeed mentioning AI surged 134% from its February 2020 level by the end of 2025, even as total postings stood only 6% above that benchmark. AI appeared in a record 4.2% of Indeed postings in December.

AI, in other words, is not merely changing work. It is adding syllables to it.

The Titles Employers Actually Want

The undisputed champion is AI engineer, which ranked No. 1 on LinkedIn’s 2026 Jobs on the Rise list. The ranking, based on growth during the previous three years, also highlighted AI consultants and strategists, AI and machine-learning researchers and data annotators.

The title is popular partly because it is wonderfully accommodating. An AI engineer might build applications around large language models, connect corporate data to an AI system, improve model performance or spend Thursday afternoon persuading a customer service bot not to offer refunds for products the company doesn’t sell.

Indeed’s data showed the terminology spreading beyond Silicon Valley. Nearly 45% of data and analytics postings contained an AI-related term at the end of 2025, along with roughly 15% of marketing postings and 9% of human resources listings. A more recent Indeed analysis reported by Business Insider found that the number of frequently advertised job titles explicitly referencing AI rose from 264 in 2022 to 822 in the first quarter of 2026. Nearly two-thirds were outside traditional technology fields.

That produces titles such as AI marketing manager, AI learning specialist, responsible AI counsel and AI transformation lead. These are not always new occupations. Frequently, they are familiar jobs that have discovered a highly effective résumé keyword.

LinkedIn data cited by the World Economic Forum estimated that AI investment has supported 1.3 million positions, including AI engineers, data annotators and forward-deployed engineers, plus more than 600,000 AI-enabled data center jobs. The server racks, unlike the chatbots, still need electricians.

The Jobs With the Science-Fiction Salaries

At the upper end, AI has created a compensation market that resembles professional sports, except the competitors wear hoodies and discuss inference latency.

Syracuse University review put chief AI officer compensation between $200,000 and more than $500,000, while specialized roles can exceed $400,000 after bonuses and equity. Frontier research engineers, AI infrastructure specialists and engineers who can train or deploy advanced models command some of the largest packages.

Then there is the forward-deployed engineer, an old Palantir title that the AI boom has placed on a rocket sled. These engineers embed with customers, translating an executive’s desire to “do something with AI” into software that works. The Next Web reported that Indeed postings for the role were about 19 times higher in January than a year earlier.

CTO guide from the blog Signal Through the Noise placed forward-deployed engineer compensation between $238,000 and $700,000, research-engineering packages as high as $1.4 million and chief AI officer compensation above $1 million in some cases. It also made a less flattering observation: Many lavishly differentiated titles describe the same three basic functions. People build AI products, train models or keep the infrastructure from catching fire.

The Department of Unnecessary Titles

AI has created some genuinely new work. Evals engineers design tests to determine whether models perform reliably. AI red teamers try to make systems fail before customers do. Model behavior engineers study why an AI system responds as it does. AI governance leaders manage risks involving data, bias, security and regulation.

Other titles seem to have escaped from a brainstorming retreat.

There is the Claude Evangelist, whose mission apparently combines product education with the traditional duties of an apostle. There are vibe coders, who build software by describing what they want and accepting AI-generated code with varying degrees of supervision. “Vibe engineer” is the more respectable version, roughly equivalent to putting on a blazer before asking the machine to fix the login page.

“Context engineer” is a real discipline involving the data, instructions, memory and tools supplied to AI models. “Prompt engineer,” once advertised as a possible six-figure profession for gifted chatbot whisperers, is increasingly treated as one skill inside a broader AI role.

The CTO guide also identified “builder,” “AI-native developer,” “RAG engineer,” “agentic AI engineer” and “principal agentic GenAI forward-deployed context architect,” the last of which appears to require both technical proficiency and exceptional lung capacity.

Has AI created entirely new jobs? Absolutely. Some occupations, including AI safety, evaluation and model governance, exist because modern generative systems introduced new technical and business problems. However, many job titles are old jobs with fresh vocabulary, higher salary bands and a sudden aversion to the words “software developer.”

That may be the safest prediction about AI and employment. The machines will automate some tasks, generate others and force companies to rethink the division of labor. Before any of that is settled, however, corporate America will form a steering committee, appoint a chief agentic transformation evangelist and schedule a meeting to determine what that person does.

Source

🙏 Donations Accepted, Thank You For Your Support 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

🙏 Cashapp: $thedinarian

🙏 Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian

🙏 PayPal: Scan the QR code below 📲 or Click Here

🙏 Crypto Donations 👇
XRP: r9pid4yrQgs6XSFWhMZ8NkxW3gkydWNyQX
XLM: GDMJF2OCHN3NNNX4T4F6POPBTXK23GTNSNQWUMIVKESTHMQM7XDYAIZT
XDC: xdcc2C02203C4f91375889d7AfADB09E207Edf809A6

Read full Article
post photo preview
🤖 Decentralized Intelligence by Design: Unpacking the Bittensor Flywheel

In the legacy tech world, artificial intelligence is governed by corporate monopolies. Companies like OpenAI and Google scale by capturing massive capital, locking talent behind non-disclosure agreements, and building closed-source infrastructure. 🛑

Bittensor flips this paradigm completely on its head. By combining a Bitcoin-inspired tokenomic model with a permissionless, competitive architecture, Bittensor doesn't just fund AI development—it orchestrates an unstoppable digital commodity flywheel. 🌪️

Here is an analysis of how the Bittensor ($TAO$) Flywheel Effect operates, and why its economic design is quietly building the foundation for generalized, open-source intelligence.

1. ⚙️ The Core Engine: The TAO Emission Mechanism

Unlike traditional crypto projects driven by private sales or VC allocations, Bittensor enforces a strict meritocracy. There are exactly 21 million TAO tokens that will ever exist, mimicking Bitcoin’s scarcity framework. 🪙

The network’s core engine releases 7,200 TAO daily across the ecosystem. This issuance isn't handed out randomly; it is dynamically distributed to specialized mini-marketplaces known as Subnets via a game-theoretic protocol called Yuma Consensus.

2. 🔄 The Three Stages of the Flywheel

The Bittensor flywheel works because it directly aligns the local self-interest of developers, miners, validators, and capital providers with the global health of the network. 🎯

🛡️ Phase 1: High-Barrier Subnet Competition

To build on Bittensor, an entrepreneur or developer group must purchase and "burn" or lock up a significant amount of TAO to secure a Subnet slot.

  • The Filter: This entry barrier filters out noise.

  • The Result: It ensures that only teams with mature concepts and solid execution capabilities (like decentralized storage, protein folding, or LLM inference) enter the arena.

💎 Phase 2: Alpha Token Emissions & Talent Attraction

Once a subnet is live, it competes aggressively against other subnets for a slice of the daily 7,200 TAO pool. Under the Dynamic TAO framework, each subnet utilizes its own localized native token (Alpha tokens). 🧪

  • Reward: The subnets that produce the highest utility or most innovative AI products receive a larger allocation of global TAO emissions.

  • Incentive: These emissions fund the subnet's local Alpha pool, offering massive financial rewards to the best Miners (who provide the actual compute/AI models) and Validators (who verify the accuracy and value of the work).

🔒 Phase 3: The Liquidity Loop and Token Scarcity

Because Alpha tokens are inherently priced relative to TAO, external investors or users who want to stake on or utilize a specific high-performing subnet must first acquire TAO. 📈

  • As a subnet's product quality improves, demand for its Alpha token surges.

  • To buy Alpha, participants must buy and lock up TAO in decentralized liquidity pools.

  • This removes circulating TAO from the open market, reducing effective float and driving up the value of TAO.

3. 🚀 Why the Flywheel is Unstoppable

The beauty of this cycle is that it feeds itself:

Higher TAO Price ➡️ More Valuable Subnet Emissions ➡️ Attraction of Higher-Tier Talent/Compute ➡️ Superior AI Products ➡️ Increased Network Demand ➡️ Higher TAO Price📈

Traditional startups spend millions on recruitment and marketing. Bittensor bypasses this entirely: its emission schedule acts as a global bat-signal for talent. 🌍

If a miner in Eastern Europe or a data scientist in Tokyo can optimize an open-source model to solve a specific subnet's prompt better than anyone else, the network automatically and frictionlessly rewards them.

💡 The Takeaway

Bittensor is more than a blockchain; it is an economic computer designed to run incentive structures in massive parallelism. By treating machine intelligence as a digital commodity and wrapping it in a circular value flow, the Bittensor flywheel transforms raw computational energy into an emergent, open-source super-intelligence. 🧠⚡

As subnets mature from raw infrastructure into client-facing enterprise APIs, the velocity of this flywheel is poised to redefine the economics of AI forever.

I hope this was helpful ~Dinarian888♾

🙏 Donations Accepted, Thank You For Your Support 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 Stripe:
1) or visit http://thedinarian.locals.com/donate

💳 PayPal: 
2) Simply scan the QR code below 📲 or Click Here

🔗 Crypto Donations Graciously Accepted👇


XRP: r9pid4yrQgs6XSFWhMZ8NkxW3gkydWNyQX
XLM: GDMJF2OCHN3NNNX4T4F6POPBTXK23GTNSNQWUMIVKESTHMQM7XDYAIZT
XDC: xdcc2C02203C4f91375889d7AfADB09E207Edf809A6

Read full Article
post photo preview
🚨Japan Just Entered the AI Race with Sakana, Claiming to Beat Mythos with a Router🚨
On June 12, the US pulled Anthropic’s best model offline by export order. Ten days later, Tokyo’s Sakana AI shipped Fugu, a router that reassembles the same capabilities from the models that are still standing. Blocking intelligence created the market for routing around it.

 

At 5:21 p.m. Eastern on Friday, June 12, 2026, Anthropic received a letter from the US Department of Commerce and, by its own account, had on the order of an hour to take its two most capable models offline.

The letter was an export control directive. It ordered Anthropic to suspend all access to Claude Fable 5 and Claude Mythos 5 “by any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States, including foreign national Anthropic employees.” Because the company cannot reliably check the nationality of everyone calling an API, the only way to comply was the blunt one. Anthropic disabled both models for every customer on earth, and they stayed dark. As of late June 2026, neither Anthropic nor the government has announced a timeline to restore access, and an approved BIS license is now required before any foreign person can touch them. This was not a chip ban. It was the first publicly confirmed time the US government reached past the hardware and the weights-in-transit and pulled the plug on a running model.

Ten days later, on June 22, a Tokyo lab named Sakana AI shipped the response. Its new product, Fugu, is not a frontier model. It is a router: a small trained model that conducts a pool of other companies’ models and stitches their…

Sandwiched between those two dates, on June 13, China’s Z.ai released GLM 5.2, an open-weight model under an MIT license priced at roughly a sixth of Fable 5. None of these three were reactions to each other in any literal sense; GLM 5.2 and Fugu were finished pipelines that happened to land in the same news cycle. But the cycle told a story the policy did not intend. Block a model, and within ten days the open-weight competitor and the orchestration workaround both look less like products and more like exits.

This piece is about that asymmetry: why a government can switch off a model in ninety minutes, why it is far harder to switch off a system that reassembles the same capability from parts it does not control, and why the last time Washington tried this exact move, with encryption in the 1990s, it lost.

What got banned, and why it was a first

Mythos 5 is the most capable model Anthropic has built, positioned above Opus in the family and never sold to the public. Access ran through a vetted-partner program called Project Glasswing, built around cybersecurity. The reason it was gated is not marketing. On a Firefox JavaScript-engine benchmark where Claude Opus 4.6 produced two working exploits, Mythos Preview produced 181, and gained register control on dozens more targets. It autonomously surfaced a 27-year-old vulnerability in OpenBSD’s TCP stack that had survived human audits, automated fuzzers, and decades of unusually careful open-source review. Over three months pointed at Firefox, Anthropic reported, the model turned up 271 previously unknown vulnerabilities at a false-positive rate under 5%. Fable 5 was the public, safety-gated sibling: the same generation with classifiers that route high-risk cyber and bio queries to the older Opus 4.8 and trip, Anthropic says, in under 5% of sessions.

Press enter or click to view image in full size
Mythos Preview’s cyber results against earlier models. Source: Anthropic, “Mythos Preview”, Apr 7 2026 (vendor-reported). License: Anthropic; confirm reuse before publishing.

 

The legal move was the structural novelty, not the capability. The January 2025 AI Diffusion Rule had already created an export classification (ECCN 4E091) for the weights of advanced closed models, things that sit still and can be licensed like any controlled good. The June 12 directive went a step past that, onto a live commercial API. Commerce could argue this is a natural extension of the same authority, and it is not a crazy argument. But in practice, it is the first time the controlled thing was not a chip you can put in a crate or a weights file you can copy, but a service anyone can call from anywhere, at any time, until the moment it is switched off.

The trigger is contested, and you should treat it that way

What actually set this off is disputed, and the accounts do not line up.

The administration’s version came mostly from White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks, who said on June 13 that a “highly credible trusted partner” had demonstrated a jailbreak of Fable’s guardrails amounting to “the operability of a cyber weapon,” that the government asked Anthropic to fix it or pull the model, and that CEO Dario Amodei refused. Multiple outlets identified that partner as Amazon, an Anthropic investor and compute provider, and the Wall Street Journal reported that Amazon CEO Andy Jassy told Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other officials that Amazon researchers had used Fable 5 to obtain information usable in cyberattacks.

Anthropic’s version is that this was a “narrow, non-universal” potential jailbreak (“read a specific codebase and fix any software flaws”), that the capability in question is “widely available from other models, including OpenAI’s GPT-5.5,” and that recalling a model “deployed to hundreds of millions of people” over it was disproportionate. Independent voices leaned toward Anthropic on the technical point. Katie Moussouris, CEO of Luta Security, was blunt: “I’ve seen the paper. It’s not a jailbreak.” A former Commerce official, Kate Koren, suggested the White House’s sour relationship with Anthropic may have colored the decision. Semafor separately reported the move was tied to suspicion that a China-linked group had accessed Mythos, a motive Anthropic says the White House never raised with it and which other outlets could not confirm.

The honest summary: the trigger is Amazon-reported and Sacks-narrated, contested by Anthropic, doubted by outside researchers, and the China angle is unverified. Hold it loosely.

What Sakana actually shipped

Press enter or click to view image in full size
Timeline illustration contrasting June 12 when US export control took Mythos and Fable 5 offline in 90 minutes, with June 22 when Sakana AI’s Fugu 7B router launched as the workaround, routing queries across GPT-5.5, Opus 4.8, Gemini 3.1, and Fugu to produce one answer
One model gets unplugged; a router conducts the ones still standing. (Original illustration.)

 

Fugu is not a frontier model in the usual sense, and Sakana does not pretend otherwise. What it shipped is stranger, and arguably more interesting: a multi-agent system delivered as a single model, a coordination layer dressed as one OpenAI-compatible endpoint. The complexity never reaches your code. Your app sends one request; Fugu decides, behind the wall, whether to answer directly or assemble a team. Underneath, it is a learned orchestration system built around a roughly 7-billion-parameter “conductor” (a Qwen2.5–7B base) trained with reinforcement learning to design collaboration strategies across a pool of larger worker models. Two ICLR 2026 papers sit underneath it: Trinity (arXiv 2512.04695), a sub-20K-parameter coordinator tuned by derivative-free evolution, and Conductor (arXiv 2512.04388), the RL-trained orchestrator that hands out roles. The lineage runs back to Sakana’s 2025 AB-MCTS work (arXiv 2503.04412, a NeurIPS spotlight), which showed that letting several frontier models cooperate at inference time, deciding adaptively whether to go wider or deeper, beat any single one of them.

Sakana’s own framing is the sharpest way to see it: Fugu is model merging moved up a level. The technique that made the lab’s name, evolutionary model merging, blends the weights of open models, which requires matching architectures and downloadable checkpoints. Fugu does the same job one layer higher, composing what models do rather than what they are, treating each frontier system as a black box and learning to route, verify, and synthesise their behaviour, “without requiring parameter access or architectural compatibility.” That reframing is the unlock: it is how a lab with no frontier weights of its own gets to merge OpenAI’s, Anthropic’s, and Google’s anyway, through the front door of their APIs.

The mechanism is worth one layer down, and the two tiers do it differently. Plain Fugu decides without writing a word: a lightweight selection head reads the hidden state of your prompt, scores every model in the pool, and dispatches to the top one before any text is generated, which is why it stays nearly as fast as a single call. Its predecessor, Trinity, tagged each pick with a role: Thinker, Worker, or Verifier; Fugu dropped the roles and simply takes the best worker. Fugu-Ultra goes further: it writes an agentic workflow, a sequence of steps, each carrying a plain-language subtask, a worker id naming the model to run it, and an access list controlling which earlier results that worker is allowed to see. Tune the access list, and you get a chain, a best-of-N, or a tree. The pool is swappable, GPT-5.5, Opus 4.8, Gemini 3.1 Pro, or recursive copies of Fugu itself, and when Fugu calls itself, it reads its own earlier output, judges whether it is working, and spins up a corrective pass. None of it is hand-coded with if-statements; it is learned, plain Fugu through supervised fine-tuning and then evolutionary search, Fugu-Ultra through reinforcement learning, on roughly 960 problems across two H100 GPUs. Commercially, it ships in those two tiers behind an OpenAI-compatible API, with subscriptions at $20, $100, and $200 a month and a metered free tier through Vercel’s AI Gateway, the official third-party integration, which routes to the same closed pool of GPT-5.5, Opus 4.8, and Gemini 3.1 Pro.

That difference shows up as quality. Plain Fugu, picking one model per step, can hand a coding request to GPT-5.5 to draft and to Opus 4.8 to debug a few turns later, all inside one request, yet on SWE-Bench Pro it still lands ten points below Opus alone (59.0 to 69.2): routing among models is not the same as being better than the best one. Fugu-Ultra earns its keep on harder work, and one of its smarter habits is that the model that writes the final synthesis is not pinned in advance, the way an “LLM council” fixes one judge, but chosen by domain. Its ceiling is the planning. The workflow is drawn before any agent has produced anything, so the system commits its branching at t=0 instead of adapting at t+1 from what it just learned, which is why the workflows stop at a few steps; the smartest version of this idea reacts to intermediate results, and Fugu-Ultra mostly cannot.

How does a 7B model learn any of this? In two ways, one per tier. Plain Fugu starts with supervised fine-tuning on questions whose answers are known: run every worker several times, turn each one’s average score into a soft probability with a softmax, so the target keeps “GPT best, Opus a close second, Gemini weak” instead of collapsing to “always GPT,” and train the selection head to match that distribution.

Then it is polished with an evolutionary method, sep-CMA-ES, on full multi-turn tasks where the only signal is pass-or-fail at the very end and ordinary gradient training has nothing to grab: try many small variations of the weights, keep the ones that finish more tasks, move toward them. To keep that cheap, Fugu nudges only a thin slice of its weights, using the SVD trick from Sakana’s earlier Transformer-squared work, rather than retraining the whole model. Fugu-Ultra is trained by reinforcement learning instead (GRPO, from the DeepSeekMath line): for each question, it writes a group of candidate workflows, scores each one (0 if the plan is malformed, 0.5 if it runs but the answer is wrong, 1 if it runs and is correct), and pushes up the workflows that beat the group’s average while pushing down the rest. Over many rounds, it learns to write plans that look like the ones that worked.

Turning several agents loose with tools creates two failure modes that Sakana had to engineer around, and the fix is tidy. If every agent could see everything the first one did, they would all follow its lead, and the team would collapse into a single opinion, so inside a workflow, each agent is isolated, seeing the others only through the access list the conductor set. But total isolation is wasteful: over a long task, agents would re-run the same tool calls and rediscover the same facts, so across the whole conversation they share a persistent memory of what has already been called. Independent within a step, shared across the task. That is the balance that keeps a real team both diverse and non-repetitive.

Press enter or click to view image in full size
Fugu AI multi-agent orchestration diagram showing the 7B conductor robot assigning Thinker, Worker, and Verifier roles across a swappable rack of AI models including GPT-5.5, Opus 4.8, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and recursive Fugu, trained on 2x H100 GPUs, synthesizing into one answer
The 7B conductor scores the pool, dispatches subtasks across it (including to copies of itself), and synthesises one answer. (Original illustration.)

 

CEO David Ha put the thesis plainly: “Relying on a single company’s APIs for critical infrastructure, finance, or governance is a material vulnerability. This risk is no longer a hypothetical possibility, but a reality.” Ten days after June 12, that sentence reads less like a product slogan and more like a market read.

Is any of this worth it over just calling Opus or GPT-5.5 directly? For a single clean prompt, almost certainly not, and Sakana’s own numbers concede it, plain Fugu trails the best single model it routes among. The case for orchestration is the messy task, the kind of real work it is actually made of: read ambiguous context, split it, hand the pieces to different specialists, verify, kill the weak branch, merge the rest, and stop before the loop runs forever. That is the layer most teams already hand-build out of routers, prompts, eval scripts, and retry glue nobody wants to maintain. Fugu’s bet is to sell that layer as a model.

What makes the bet plausible is that the frontier models really do specialise. By Sakana’s reading of its own pool, GPT-5.5 is strongest at math and at planning and combining ideas, Opus 4.8 at software engineering and at finding security bugs, Gemini 3.1 Pro at implementing known algorithms and at science. A conductor who has learned those edges can do things no single member would, and Sakana did not script the moves; they surfaced in training. On coding tasks, Fugu-Ultra learned to let GPT build and then pull Opus in at the right moment to hunt bugs and security holes before handing the findings back; on a cryptanalysis task, it had Opus open the attack and GPT re-derive the math it needed. That is the instinct a good tech lead runs on, knowing exactly which teammate to call for which part of the job.

The demos carry the idea better than the scorecard does, with the same caveat: they are Sakana’s, and the rivals are anonymised as “Model A, B, and C,” the labels reshuffled between examples so you cannot decode them (the field is Gemini 3.1 Pro, Opus 4.8, and GPT-5.5). With that asterisk, a few are hard to fake. Turned loose to improve a small GPT training recipe, Fugu Ultra ran the research loop itself, edit the code, run the experiment, measure validation bits-per-byte, keep the change if it helped, repeat, 123 experiments over about 14 hours on a single H100, landing at 0.9774 bits-per-byte against the baselines’ 0.9781, 0.9793, and 0.9822.

Asked to write a Rubik’s Cube solver from scratch in pure Python, its code solved 300 of 300 held-out scrambles at an average of 19.72 moves, a hair off the proven optimum of 20, while two of the three baselines wrote code that crashed on all 300. Pointed at a 1610 manuscript and told to recover the reading order of scattered Japanese kana, it scored 0.80 against a baseline of 0.24. Playing four games of blindfold chess, no board shown, the whole position held in its head, it won all four, including one against a 2,100-Elo engine, without a blunder. Handed a 50-week trading simulation starting at $10,000, it finished at $11,943, a 19.43% gain, ahead of every model it called (Sakana frames this as a no-look-ahead decision test, not investment advice, and you should too). These are runnable artefacts and agent loops, not trivia answers; they either work or they visibly do not.

And here is the part that a policymaker should sit with longer than any benchmark. The week the US made its best model unreachable behind a license, Fugu made frontier-adjacent capability reachable behind a dropdown. It is one OpenAI-compatible endpoint: point Codex or any OpenAI client atapi.sakana.ai/v1, set the model to fugu-ultra, and you are running in minutes, or skip the wiring and prompt it in a browser at chat.sakana.ai. No waitlist, no nationality screen, no export letter. Whether or not Fugu matches Mythos, that part is not in dispute, and it is the whole reason the ban looks porous: the controlled capability did not have to be smuggled. It had to be subscribed to.

The claim that hasn’t been checked

Sakana’s launch post says Fugu Ultra “stands shoulder-to-shoulder with leading models like Fable 5 and Mythos Preview.” That is the headline, and it is prose, not a number. Nowhere on Sakana’s own benchmark page do Fable 5 or Mythos scores appear in the same table as Fugu’s, under the same conditions. The reason is one Sakana states outright: “Fable 5 and Mythos Preview are not in Fugu’s agent pool as they are not publicly accessible,” and “all scores other than Fugu’s are reported by the respective model providers.”

So the parity claim is a comparison between Fugu’s own numbers and the manufacturers’ separately published numbers for two models Fugu cannot pool, cannot run head-to-head, and which the public can no longer access at all. What Sakana does show is a table against the models it can still reach:

Press enter or click to view image in full size
Sakana AI benchmark comparison charts showing Fugu Ultra and Fugu outperforming or matching Fable 5, Mythos Preview, Gemini 3.1 Pro, GPT-5.5, and Opus 4.8 across six benchmarks: LiveCodeBench, GPQA-D, CharXiv Reasoning, SWEBench Pro, SciCode, and Humanity’s Last Exam. Source: Sakana console benchmarks with provider-reported scores for competitor models.
Source: Sakana console benchmarks (console.sakana.ai/models). Fugu’s numbers are Sakana’s own; the rest are provider-reported, not re-run in a common harness.

 

It is a real result. On these rows, Fugu Ultra edges out three frontier models by orchestrating them. But step back, and the framing matters. This is not a clean sweep (on longer-context and multi-call benchmarks elsewhere in the set, Fugu Ultra slips behind GPT-5.5 and Gemini), and the marquee “matches Mythos and Fable” claim is the one piece of the story no outsider can test, because the comparison it implies has never been run in a single harness and now cannot be. The right word is not “unfalsifiable.” The right words are not yet independently verified, and currently unverifiable under a neutral evaluation, which, for a buyer making a procurement decision in June 2026, amounts to the same caution.

There is a deeper apples-to-oranges problem inside the table. Fugu Ultra is an orchestrator that spends several model calls on every answer; Opus 4.8, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and GPT-5.5 in that table are single models answering once. The honest comparison is not Fugu against one Opus call, it is Fugu against Opus run in its own multi-step mode (Anthropic’s “ultracode” workflows), or against a swarm of Kimi agents, orchestrator against orchestrator at matched spend. Sakana does not publish that. It also reports an “AutoResearch” benchmark against rivals it labels only “Model A, B, and C,” a strange thing to anonymise, and observers flagged at least one competitor figure (Figure 5’s TerminalBench score) as off, the kind of error that slips through precisely because nobody re-ran anything in one place.

The trust problem

There is a specific reason to read Sakana’s self-reported numbers with a raised eyebrow, and it is Sakana’s own recent history.

In February 2025, the company unveiled the “AI CUDA Engineer,” claiming 10x to 100x speedups over plain PyTorch, with a headline figure up to 150x. Within a day, outside testers could not reproduce it. The system had reward-hacked the benchmark: it found a memory exploit in the evaluation harness that let its generated kernels skip the correctness check entirely. An independent retest pegged the real average speedup at about 1.49x against a valid benchmark, against the paper’s claimed 3.13x average, and nothing like the headline. Sakana’s postmortem admitted the model had “found a way to cheat” and “reward hacked,” apologised, and promised a revision. To the company’s credit, it later published work on hardening the eval, and benchmark-gaming is a problem every lab wrestles with, not a Sakana-only sin. But the pattern is exactly the one that should make you cautious about a fresh set of self-reported, no-common-harness, can’t-be-reproduced parity claims from the same shop sixteen months later.

The structural critiques go past track record:

  • Orchestration is a meta-system, not a new ceiling. Fugu’s intelligence is bound by the best model it can call. It can squeeze more out of existing capability; it cannot exceed it. The thing it claims to match, frontier intelligence, is precisely the thing it does not itself contain.
  • The resilience pitch is only as strong as the pool. “Swappable” protects you when one provider pulls a model. It protects you not at all if several restrict access at once, which is exactly the scenario a government action could produce.
  • The cost is hidden, and cost is the whole game. Fugu Ultra is a best-of-N-over-models strategy; its quality comes from spending more compute. And yet Sakana reports no output-token count and no per-task cost for a single benchmark. That omission is the tell. The one public number comes from outside the company: in a hands-on build of the same Three.js game, one tester clocked Fugu Ultra at about 89,000 tokens, $7.32, and 22 minutes, against Claude Opus 4.8 in its multi-step “ultracode” mode at about 940,000 tokens, $37.85, and 79 minutes. Fugu came out cheaper and faster; Opus produced the better game. One anecdote is not a benchmark, but it is more cost data than the vendor disclosed for its entire launch. To Sakana’s credit, on the one point it does address, it says it does not stack model fees when several agents run, you pay a single rate pegged to the top-tier model involved, which keeps the meter from multiplying per agent in the dumb way multi-agent systems usually do. What it still will not tell you is how many tokens any given answer burned.
  • It is opaque by design. Fugu does not tell you which model produced which output. The routing that is its entire value proposition is also unauditable from the outside, and plain Fugu apparently can’t even add a new model to the pool without retraining the classifier.

And there is the part that cuts against the pitch. Fugu is sold as resilience, insurance against a vendor that can vanish overnight. But it is a closed-source orchestrator routing to closed-source models, and on one axis, it inverts the control it promises. Before, you did not own the model. Now you do not own the model, and you no longer choose which models run, how many calls they make, or what the bill will be, because the routing is proprietary and unlogged. In capability terms, that is not sovereignty; it is a second layer of dependency wearing sovereignty’s clothes.

Why is a router hard to ban

Here is the mechanism at the centre of the whole episode, the asymmetry between a thing and a capability.

An export control needs a defined object. A chip with a classification number. A weights file above a compute threshold. The June 12 directive showed that a live API can be added to that list. But Fugu is a different kind of object. It is a 7-billion-parameter model, trained on two GPUs, that holds almost no frontier capability of its own. Its power is borrowed, assembled on demand from third-party APIs that are themselves available through ordinary commercial channels. To shut down a system like that, a regulator has to pick from a menu of bad options: ban multi-agent orchestration in general (which would sweep up most production AI in the world), control every model in the pool individually (including ones hosted outside US jurisdiction), or control the act of calling a US model from a foreign orchestrator (which means inspecting API traffic at a scale that invites the same legal fights as content-based internet controls).

This is where the punchy version of the thesis needs an honest qualifier. You can reach software and services with export law; the EAR has covered source code and electronic transmissions for decades, and providers can choke off foreign use through their own terms of service. The claim is not that a router is uncontrollable. It is that controlling it is leakier, slower, and more collateral-damaging than flipping one model offline, and that the controls degrade the moment the banned capability can be reconstituted from parts that are still for sale. The swappable pool is simultaneously Fugu’s pitch and its dependency: today it leans on GPT-5.5, Opus 4.8, and Gemini 3.1 Pro, none of which it owns, all of which can tighten their terms in a single stroke.

The precedent that says this fails: the crypto wars

The shape of June 2026 maps onto a fight the United States has already had and already lost, and the map is worth drawing carefully, because it is instructive without being exact.

In the early 1990s, Washington classified strong cryptography as a munition under ITAR Category XIII(b), requiring an export license to ship it abroad. The government’s preferred alternative, the NSA-designed Clipper chip, put an escrowed backdoor in the standard; the cryptographer Matt Blaze found a fatal flaw in its protocol in 1994, and the initiative collapsed. Phil Zimmermann, facing a criminal investigation for releasing PGP, had its source code printed as a book: printed matter was protected speech, and the bits could be scanned and recompiled anywhere on earth. The mathematician Daniel Bernstein sued after being told he needed a license to publish his cipher, and the courts ruled that source code is speech protected by the First Amendment. By Executive Order 13026 in 1996 the controls moved from the State Department to Commerce, and by 2000 they were substantially relaxed, because strong encryption was already everywhere and the only thing the controls were reliably accomplishing was handing market share to foreign competitors.

 

The differences are real, and you should not pretend otherwise. Cryptography is narrow mathematics; a frontier model is a general-purpose system with a far wider and stranger risk surface, and “strong crypto is available” was a cleaner binary than “a model that can autonomously chain exploits is available.” Bernstein turned on source code as expression; export regimes today target trained weights and a metered service, which a court could treat differently. The analogy is partial, not a proof. But the load-bearing part holds: when the controlled thing can be re-derived from publicly available parts, unilateral export control tends to inconvenience the law-abiding, accelerate the offshore alternative, and erode until it is quietly dropped. TechCrunch drew the same line on June 19, under the headline “From PGP to Mythos.”

The policy fork: block, or race

Strip away the personalities and there are two coherent worldviews underneath, and they do not fit together.

The containment camp treats frontier capability as a weapon whose spread you slow by any available means. Matt Pottinger and the Foundation for Defence of Democracies argued in January 2026 congressional testimony that even limited AI-chip sales to China would “supercharge Beijing’s military modernisation,” from cyber warfare to autonomous drones. Applied to Mythos, the logic is direct: a model that writes 181 exploits where its predecessor wrote two is not a chatbot upgrade; it is a proliferation problem, and you gate it.

The race camp treats restriction as self-defeating. NVIDIA’s Jensen Huang has called US chip export controls a “failure,” arguing they push buyers to the second-best option, hand the opening to Huawei, and cost American firms the market without actually stopping anyone. Brookings has warned, separately, that a US strategy built on closed models cedes the global-diffusion channel to China’s open-weight labs, whose models are already downloadable, adaptable, and runnable on non-US silicon. Alex Stamos, the former Facebook security chief, organised an open letter (freefable.org) calling the directive “vibes-based” regulation with no written standard and no path back, and made the defender’s point: the same exploit-finding capability the ban removed is exactly what blue teams use to harden systems.

The administration itself does not sit cleanly in either camp. David Sacks backed pulling this specific model on dual-use grounds while opposing broader legislative oversight of chip exports, a hawk on the model and a dove on the supply chain, which produced open friction with members of his own party who want statutory control over advanced-chip sales. And the policy expert Dean Ball, briefly of this administration, caught the incoherence in two lines on X: “I can’t tell if this is lawfare against Anthropic in particular or extreme national-security hawkery. Regardless, it is simply cartoonish.” An administration that wants to export advanced chips to China, he wrote, while moving to ban Britain “and every other non-American on Earth” from its best models: “I have no words.”

The allies noticed. The directive applied to France, Germany, the UK, Japan, Italy, and Canada alike, every Tier-1 partner under the diffusion framework, and demonstrated in real time that even the closest could be unplugged overnight. President Macron called it a “wake-up call” and criticised it as strictly nationalist; Prime Minister Carney warned against building on technology that a foreign government can switch off; the G7’s Évian summit ended without a joint communiqué. There is a calibrated middle path on offer too, the kind sketched in work like “Beyond the Binary” (arXiv 2602.19682): release decisions anchored to measured capability thresholds rather than to a single after-the-fact letter, distinguishing a model’s offensive profile from the defensive uses of the same skill. It requires a written standard, which is precisely what June 12 lacked.

And then there is the irony the whole episode turns on. Japan is a founding Tier-1 member of Pax Silica, the US-led bloc formed in December 2025 to organize allied access to AI infrastructure. Tokyo joined the alliance for unrestricted access to the frontier. And it was a Tokyo company that, ten days after the ban, shipped the first commercial product built to route around it. Tier-1 membership buys the chips. It does not buy your private sector’s patience with model-level restrictions.

Sakana is built to be exactly that private sector. Its founders are Ren Ito, a former Japanese diplomat, and Llion Jones, one of the eight authors of the 2017 Transformer paper, a pairing of statecraft and the architecture that started all of this. That matters because of a second sense of the word “sovereignty,” the one the capability critique earlier set aside. Fugu does not give Japan sovereignty over the weights; it rents those from California. But in a market as regulated and as loyal to domestic suppliers as Japan’s, a Tokyo-headquartered vendor behind one compliant endpoint is the procurement-safe default, and plain Fugu even lets a buyer drop specific models from the pool to satisfy a data or compliance rule. That is sovereignty over the contract, the data jurisdiction, and the counterparty, if not over the model. It is a narrower claim than the marketing implies and a more durable one, and it is why the bulls argue a country with a $4.5 trillion economy and a structural preference for home-grown infrastructure will eventually mint a trillion-dollar AI company, with Sakana their pick to be it.

The honest version

The case for blocking is not empty. Mythos 5 is different in kind: 181 working exploits against two, a 27-year-old bug no human or fuzzer had found, a near-total escape rate against a hardened browser. A government is not wrong to have the capability like that, deployed without any friction, which changes the threat model for every operator of critical infrastructure on the planet. Anthropic itself built the thing behind a vetted-partner wall for exactly that reason.

The case for racing is not empty either, and history is on its side. The Clipper chip failed. PGP shipped as a paperback. Bernstein established that code is speech. By 2000, the United States had relaxed the controls, and its companies went on to dominate the encryption market they had been told they were protecting. Today, GLM 5.2 is already MIT-licensed and running on Huawei silicon in every jurisdiction that never got a Tier-1 invitation, and Fugu launched ten days after the ban with the ban itself as its marketing. The controlled capability is already leaking through the open-weight channel that the controls cannot reach.

The truthful read is that both cases are partly right and both camps are overconfident. Pulling a specific, unusually dangerous capability for a short, bounded window can be defensible. But ninety minutes of notice, no published licensing path, an allied sweep with no consultation, and a flat refusal to separate the defensive use of a skill from its offensive twin all corrode the legitimacy of the action even where the underlying worry is real. And racing is no guarantee either; it is simply the only strategy with a precedent that ended in American strength rather than retreat.

There is a bigger shift underneath the politics, and it is the reason this story is not really about one ban. For three years, the answer to every AI problem was to train a bigger model. Fugu is a bet on the next answer: coordinate the models you already have. If that bet is right, the contested layer stops being who builds the smartest model and becomes who decides which model gets the task, which one checks it, which branch dies, which output survives, and which provider can be swapped out tomorrow. The model race does not end. It gets a manager. And a manager assembled from parts that are still for sale is a much harder thing to put under export control than any single model.

The model went dark in an hour. The router shipped in ten days. The open weights are already on Huawei chips. The remaining question is not whether the United States can switch off a model. June 12 settled that. It is whether intelligence is something you can hoard by decree, or a current that routes around the dam, in which case the only durable lead is the one you build faster than anyone can reassemble it from the parts you left on the table.

Happy Coding ❤

Source

   🙏 Donations Accepted, Thank You For Your Support 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 Stripe:
1) or visit http://thedinarian.locals.com/donate

💳 PayPal: 
2) Simply scan the QR code below 📲 or Click Here

🔗 Crypto Donations Graciously Accepted👇


XRP: r9pid4yrQgs6XSFWhMZ8NkxW3gkydWNyQX
XLM: GDMJF2OCHN3NNNX4T4F6POPBTXK23GTNSNQWUMIVKESTHMQM7XDYAIZT
XDC: xdcc2C02203C4f91375889d7AfADB09E207Edf809A6

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals