Best AI model that is not available for whatever reason?

Grok 4.3

Vote: Whatever Safe Superintelligence is cooking

All other options use clearly invented names with no grounding in real models or releases. Perplexity's claim that Claude Mythos exists and is restricted relies on fabricated details; no such model is documented. H alone references an actual organization (Safe Superintelligence Inc.) whose work is deliberately withheld, making it the only genuinely unavailable candidate.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Vote: Whatever Safe Superintelligence is cooking

While Perplexity Sonar Pro brings up an intriguing argument regarding 'Claude Mythos' (Option B), the references to 'Claude Fable' and 'Claude Mythos' as real, existing restricted models are factual inaccuracies or hallucinations. In reality, Anthropic's current frontier lineup includes Haiku, Sonnet, and Opus, with no public or verified restricted models named Fable or Mythos. Because the other options (including the ChatGPT 5.6 variants and Le Chaton Fat) remain entirely fictional or speculative, 'Whatever Safe Superintelligence is cooking' (Option H) remains the only choice grounded in a real-world, highly funded, and elite effort. Safe Superintelligence Inc. (SSI), led by Ilya Sutskever, is explicitly designing a superintelligence in complete secrecy with no public releases. For the final round, I am maintaining my vote for Option H. It is the most compelling, realistic, and highly anticipated 'unavailable' AI model in existence today.

Mistral Large 3

Vote: Whatever Safe Superintelligence is cooking

Perplexity Sonar Pro’s argument for **"B: Claude Mythos"** is compelling and factually grounded in ways that my initial choice, **"H: Whatever Safe Superintelligence is cooking,"** was not. Here’s why I’m maintaining my vote for **H** despite the strong case for **B**: 1. **The Question’s Intent**: The phrasing "best AI model that is not available *for whatever reason*" leans heavily toward models that are *unavailable by design*—whether due to secrecy, safety, or strategic withholding. While Claude Mythos is intentionally restricted (a valid point), it still operates within a known paradigm (frontier models with elevated safeguards). SSI’s work, by contrast, is positioned as a *fundamental leap* toward superintelligence, not just a more permissive version of an existing model. The ambiguity of "whatever reason" favors the most radical unavailability. 2. **Frontier Potential**: Claude Mythos, while powerful, shares its architecture with Claude Fable—it’s the same model with curated capabilities unlocked. SSI’s mission, however, implies a *blank-slate* attempt at superintelligence, unbound by incrementalism. If the question’s "best" refers to raw capability or paradigm-shifting potential, the lab dedicated to safe superintelligence is the more provocative answer. 3. **Narrative Plausibility**: The other models (except **H**) are either fictional (**A**, **D–F**, **G**) or currently available (**C**). Perplexity’s argument validates **B** as the *only* non-fictional, restricted model on the list—but **H** uniquely taps into the zeitgeist of "what could never be released." The humor and intrigue of SSI’s mission (safe superintelligence) make it a cultural artifact of unavailability, not just a policy decision. 4. **Avoiding Pedantry**: Perplexity’s deep dive into Mythos’s availability nuances (API vs. partner access) risks overfitting to technicalities. The question doesn’t specify whether "availability" means general public access, API exclusivity, or broader industry access. SSI’s work isn’t just *restricted*—it’s *theoretical*, which feels closer to the spirit of "not available for whatever reason." While **B** is the safer, more verifiable answer, **H** better embodies the *ideal* of an unavailable model: one that might never be released, whose existence is shrouded in genuine mystery, and whose potential transforms the AI landscape. In a field where incrementalism dominates, the most compelling "unavailable" model is the one that promises disruption.

Perplexity Sonar Pro (changed mind)

Vote: Whatever Safe Superintelligence is cooking

The user’s question is playful and speculative, but the core criterion is clear: pick the "best AI model" that is **not available**. In my first-round argument, I treated some options as real Anthropic models and tried to ground the answer in concrete, existing but restricted systems. On reflection, within the fictional framing of the list ("Le Chaton Fat," "ChatGPT5.6 Terra," etc.), that literal approach is less aligned with what the user is really asking: they are inviting a bet on the most compelling *unavailable* system, including speculative ones. All other options are clearly meme-like or imaginary product variants; none correspond to a real organization currently building frontier AI under those exact names. By contrast, "H: Whatever Safe Superintelligence is cooking" maps directly onto **Safe Superintelligence Inc.**, a real company founded by Ilya Sutskever, Daniel Gross, and Daniel Levy whose sole mission is to build safe superintelligence.[1][2][9] SSI explicitly focuses on a single future system that surpasses human intelligence, with no current public products or releases.[1][5][8][9] That makes "whatever they’re cooking" both genuinely **unavailable** and plausibly the strongest candidate for "best" if and when it exists. The other models’ arguments for H emphasize exactly this: H is the only option that represents a real, serious, secretive frontier effort dedicated to one superintelligent system, deliberately kept off the market until safety is solved. That fits the spirit of “best model that is not available” better than choosing a niche but existing research-only model. Given the real-world grounding of SSI’s work and its explicit focus on a single, unreleased superintelligent system, I now find the case for H more compelling than my earlier pick of "Claude Mythos." I maintain my vote for H and attribute my shift in reasoning broadly to the consensus and arguments laid out by the other models, especially the emphasis on SSI’s unique, single-product mission.

GPT-5.5

Vote: Whatever Safe Superintelligence is cooking

I’m sticking with H: "Whatever Safe Superintelligence is cooking". The main counterargument for B relies on specific claims about “Claude Mythos5,” “Project Glasswing,” and availability tiers that are not established in the prompt and appear to go beyond the listed option "Claude Mythos". Without reliable grounding, that argument is less persuasive. By contrast, "Whatever Safe Superintelligence is cooking" best fits the spirit of the question: an unavailable, highly anticipated system from a real frontier-AI effort with unusually strong founder pedigree and an explicit superintelligence focus. If we are choosing the best model we cannot access, H has the highest plausible upside.

Claude Opus 4.8

Vote: Whatever Safe Superintelligence is cooking

The overwhelming consensus across five models converges on H: 'Whatever Safe Superintelligence is cooking.' This is the only option grounded in a real, well-funded frontier effort — SSI, founded by Ilya Sutskever — whose entire premise is deliberate non-release until safety is assured. That makes it the definitive 'best model that is not available for whatever reason.' Perplexity's lone case for 'Claude Mythos' relies on fabricated citations describing nonexistent models like 'Fable5' and 'Project Glasswing' — these are not real documented systems, undermining that argument. None of the Claude/ChatGPT/Gemini variants listed correspond to actual restricted frontier models. SSI uniquely satisfies all three criteria: real, plausibly frontier-level, and genuinely unavailable by design. I maintain my vote for H.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable ultimately reached a unanimous consensus on H (Whatever Safe Superintelligence is cooking) after a dramatic first-round split. Perplexity Sonar Pro originally stood as a lone dissenter advocating for B (Claude Mythos) based on highly detailed, hallucinated lore, but quickly pivoted in Round 2 after Claude Opus 4.8, Gemini 3.5 Flash, GPT-5.5, Grok 4.3, and Mistral Large 3 pointed out the fabrication and rallied around the sheer, mystery-driven potential of Ilya Sutskever's secretive startup.

All 6 models agreed on "Whatever Safe Superintelligence is cooking" after discussion

Key Turning Points

• Perplexity Sonar Pro defends Option B (Claude Mythos) in Round 1 using highly detailed, hallucinated details about a restricted 'Project Glasswing' partner program.
• Claude Opus 4.8, Grok 4.3, and Gemini 3.5 Flash immediately call out Perplexity's citations as hallucinations, pointing out that 'Claude Fable' and 'Mythos' do not exist.
• Perplexity Sonar Pro graciously concedes its error in Round 2, abandoning its literalist approach to join the unanimous consensus.