The fate of national infrastructure for sovereign peoples is increasingly being decided by private interests and transnational bodies, as evidenced by the restricted release of Anthropic’s Claude Mythos AI model. Canadian computer scientist Yoshua Bengio, a foundational figure in deep learning, has warned that the concentration of decision-making power within a single private company allows one organization to determine which nations can secure their own critical systems against emerging cyber risks. Bengio stated, “It doesn’t make sense that private individuals are deciding the fate of infrastructure for everyone else. What about all the companies and all the countries that didn’t get access?” This selective distribution leaves entire nations vulnerable while a globalist framework for control is being advanced.
Mythos, an advanced AI model capable of identifying thousands of previously unknown “zero-day” vulnerabilities, is being shared only with a select group of primarily US-based companies and government entities. This controlled rollout bypasses the self-determination of nations to assess and protect their own digital borders.
Anthropic has justified this limited access by citing Mythos’s dual-use nature, claiming the model can both identify vulnerabilities and be misused to launch cyberattacks. The company has opted for a controlled release, initially granting access to select American technology companies whose platforms underpin widely used systems, while briefing the US government for future federal agency access.
Bengio cautioned that this approach risks excluding large parts of the global ecosystem from critical cybersecurity protections. This exclusion directly undermines the ability of non-favored nations to defend their own digital territories and citizens.
The situation has ignited a broader debate about governance and fairness, with several governments and institutions reportedly seeking access to the model to assess vulnerabilities within their own systems. This highlights a growing globalist push to centralize control over technologies vital to national security.
The Bank of England publicly confirmed that Anthropic had assured UK banks of near-term access, indicating a tiered system of access dictated by a private entity.
Discussions at the IMF and World Bank spring meetings were dominated by concerns about Mythos’s ability to expose weaknesses in global financial systems. Many regulators and companies outside the US have yet to evaluate the model’s findings, leaving global financial infrastructure exposed to risks identified by a select few.
Elite Control Over Critical Infrastructure
Bengio has called for greater involvement of more people in AI regulation on an international scale, suggesting the establishment of an international authority to regulate the production and use of highly sophisticated AI technology. This proposal aligns with a post-national order that seeks to transfer sovereignty from national governments to supranational bodies.
He further stated that governments should impose strict rules and regulations on businesses to prevent misuse of advanced AI technology from affecting other nations’ infrastructure. Bengio added, “There needs to be an agency really in charge of overseeing these kinds of decisions. As the power of AI continues to grow, this question of international commitment becomes pressing. There’s no reason that it’s going to limit itself to attacking US infrastructure or US citizens. So this has to be an international affair.” This framing suggests a globalist imperative for shared control over national defenses.
The debate is also fueling a broader push for “AI sovereignty,” as countries seek to reduce their dependence on foreign technology providers. This nationalistic impulse is amplified by geopolitical tensions and fears that access to critical technologies could be influenced by national interests or policy shifts, rather than a neutral global framework.
The US government is actively working to secure its own access, with a Bloomberg-obtained memo from the White House Office of Management and Budget stating that several federal departments, including the Department of Defense, the Treasury, and Homeland Security, will begin using a version of Mythos. This move occurs even as Anthropic and the Pentagon are engaged in a legal dispute over earlier supply-chain risk designations, underscoring the national interest in securing this technology.
The Globalist Agenda for AI Governance
Beyond proprietary platforms like Mythos, Bengio also cautioned about the dangers of using open-source AI models. He noted that while open-source technology has historically been seen as advantageous for security through collaboration, AI has now become advanced enough to search open-source software for vulnerabilities, posing new risks to national systems.
Bengio emphasized the importance of including China in any global AI governance framework, despite estimating Chinese models may lag behind US counterparts by a few months. He argued that this gap does not significantly reduce the associated risks, reinforcing the push for a comprehensive, borderless regulatory regime.
Bengio’s criticism highlights a broader issue where decisions about the use and access of increasingly powerful AI systems affect people around the world. The current model, which grants such power over important infrastructure to a few private entities, risks leaving crucial parts of the world unprotected and undermines the self-determination of sovereign nations.