American silence regarding the “Open AI” model that competes with “Anthropic” and accusations of “double standards”

The company “OpenAI” launched an advanced model in the field of cybersecurity that rivals in its capabilities the famous “Methos” model, but this launch passed without much noise or political opposition of the kind that its competitor, “Anthropic”, faced.

Axios explained that this calm and orderly launch of the model raises fundamental questions about the real reasons that prompted the Trump administration to express serious concerns about the “Fable 5” and “Methos 5” models of Anthropic, while turning a blind eye to the “Open AI” model.

OpenAI announced an update to the GPT-5.5-Cyber ​​model, as part of a package of announcements aimed at deepening its work with cybersecurity companies and researchers.

The new model, “GPT-5.5 – Cyber,” achieved a score of 85.6% in the internal “CyberGame” index (a metric that measures the extent to which an artificial intelligence agent is able to reproduce known software vulnerabilities).

In contrast, the competing Mythos 5 model scored 83.8% in the same evaluation, which means that the Open AI model is technically superior.

Political questions and personal disagreements

It remains unclear how OpenAI was able to proceed with the launch and scale of its use, while Anthropic faces strict export restrictions that prevent it from allowing foreign nationals to use its models. Both the White House and OpenAI remained silent and declined to respond to requests for comment.

In a related context, OpenAI announced the expansion of its partnerships to include organizations in several countries, most notably: (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Poland, South Korea, and the European Union). This comes at a time when negotiating access to the “Methos” model was a major focus of discussion at the Group of Seven (G7) summit.

What to watch for in the future

Reports indicate that the imposition of strict restrictions and export directives against Anthropic was not purely technical, but may have been driven by “personal differences” between company officials and the Trump administration.