Anthropic

Public input is critical to ensuring that powerful AI serves humanity’s interests.

Frontier developers should engage at least one qualified independent evaluator to publish a review of their evaluations and risk reports.

We are not sure whether Claude is a moral patient, and if it is, what kind of weight its interests warrant. But we think the issue is live enough to warrant caution, which is reflected in our ongoing efforts on model welfare.

If it were possible to effectively slow the development of this technology to give ourselves more time to deal with its immense implications, we think that would likely be a good thing. But if a slowdown simply lets the least cautious actors catch up...

If you decide to turn off the model training setting, we will not use any new chats [...] for future model training.

Importantly, the law balances [...] whistleblower protections—[...]. [...] Protecting whistleblowers: It should be an explicit violation of law [...] punish employees who raise concerns [...].

ASL-2 refers to systems that show early signs of dangerous capabilities – [...] give instructions on how to build bioweapons – [...] e.g. a search engine couldn’t.

we propose that AI developers pre-register large training runs [...] within their home country’s government [...] plausible bar for now would be 10^26 FLOP or higher.