Understand this story
In October 2026, Anthropic CEO Dario published a long post on X responding to outside doubts about Anthropic's stance on safety. According to Phoenix Technology, he was responding to questions raised by AI safety investigator Nathan Calvin, and for the first time disclosed that the company had already trained a high-end model at the Mythos level as early as February this year; because its cybersecurity defense mechanisms were not yet complete, it was released only to a very small number of partners, and was not opened to the public until the safety guardrails were in place in June, a gap of about four months. He also listed the costs the company had voluntarily borne for safety, including a large number of false positives caused by biological risk filtering, pushing for legislation such as California SB 53, and a plan to contribute 5% of the company's shares to a public interest fund. Dario said this approach amounts to competing toward a higher standard, while Calvin questioned how much more safety can make the company concede in the race. Other reports said the long post was responding to a list of nine questions raised by outside safety researchers, who questioned that Anthropic had departed from its original safety mission and become a commercial machine sprinting toward a $2 trillion IPO.
AI-generated from public reports
Developments
1 confirmed developments
Dario publishes long article responding to Anthropic safety questions
Source:Phoenix Technology
Reports and discussion timeline
Browse reports and discussion by time. Their evidence levels remain distinct.
Oct 22
Phoenix Technology
Anthropic CEO Dario Responds to Safety Concerns in a Long Post, Reveals High-End Model Was Held Back for Four Months
Anthropic CEO Dario posted a long message on X responding to questions from AI safety investigator Nathan Calvin, disclosing for the first time that the company had already trained a high-end model at the Mythos level as early as February this year. Because its cybersecurity defense mechanisms were not yet complete, it was released only to a very small number of partners, and was not opened to the public until the safety guardrails were in place in June—about four months in total. He also listed the costs the company has proactively borne for safety, including a large number of false positives caused by biological risk filtering, pushing for legislation such as California SB 53, and a plan to commit 5% of the company's shares to a public interest fund. Dario said this approach amounts to competing toward a higher standard, while Calvin questioned how much more the company can concede in the race for the sake of safety.
Oct 21
AYi AI Notes
Anthropic CEO Dario's Long Article Responds to 9 Challenges from Safety Researchers
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei personally wrote a long article responding to a list of 9 charges raised by external safety researchers, which questioned that Anthropic has betrayed its original safety mission and become a commercial machine sprinting toward a $2 trillion IPO. The poster believes this is a top-tier Silicon Valley crisis PR case, and says it offers two layers of inspiration for people who lead teams, manage organizations, or do product risk control.
Ayi AI Notes
Anthropic CEO Dario's Long Post Responds to Nine Criticisms from an External Safety Researcher
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published a long post responding to nine criticisms from external safety researcher Nathan Calvin, acknowledging that some of the examples were Anthropic's mistakes but disagreeing with the main thrust of the entire critique. He said Anthropic's strategy is "race to the top," that is, demonstrating responsible technology building at the frontier in order to raise standards across the entire industry; and he listed safety measures from the past year that he considers to have had commercial costs, including SB53 legislation, biosecurity protections, delaying the release of Mythos-class models, chip export controls, restricting sales of AI services to China-related companies, and committing 5% of company equity to a public-interest fund. He also acknowledged that the communication around points 7, 8, and 9 could have been better, and that the point 5 RSP revision is the most substantive point of dispute.