• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI
    AI

    METR says it has taken no funding from frontier AI firms, but receives free tokens

    METR says it does not accept donations made by or at the direction of those firms’ staff and works to maintain its independence as its risk assessments become more consequential.

    CM
    RO
    SZ
    20 Sources, ,

    TLDR

    In an August 14, 2026 statement, METR said it had not accepted funding from frontier AI companies and does not accept donations made by or at the direction of their staff. It disclosed, however, that those companies were providing a significant amount of free tokens for its evaluations, research and engineering.

    Combined views

    764.3K

    20 Sources, first seen 18d ago

    Combined views

    764.3K

    20 Sources, first seen 18d ago

    5.8K likes
    18d ago
    first seen 18d ago
    5.8K likes
    579 comments
    1.9K saves
    722 reposts
    579 comments
    1.9K saves
    722 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive7.8%92.2%Negative

    Summary

    Sentiment

    Positive7.8%92.2%Negative

    Many accounts questioned METR's independence from Anthropic over shared funding, personnel ties, and buried conflict disclosures, while positive replies praised its ethics and called the scrutiny balanced.

    Based on 114 sentiment-bearing replies from 90 accounts across 5 conversations.

    Summary

    Many accounts questioned METR's independence from Anthropic over shared funding, personnel ties, and buried conflict disclosures, while positive replies praised its ethics and called the scrutiny balanced.

    Based on 114 sentiment-bearing replies from 90 accounts across 5 conversations.

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    20 Sources

    @ChrisPainterYupRT @METR_Evals: We work to maintain our independence from frontier AI companies, especially as our risk assessments become more consequenti…
    @wsisaacMETR highlights a critical challenge for the field: many modern AI evaluation techniques rely on the same underlying technology and compute. Performing best-in-class analysis at scale requires third parties to negotiate effectively for not only compensation, but also the tools necessary to do the job. This is not a sustainable model for independent evaluation.
    @martin_casadoRT @ThePrimeagen: METR is not independent
    @NeelNanda5There's a lot of discourse about METR's independence and potential corruption going around They actually list their funding sources on the website! METR do not take funding from sources that could compromise their independence like AI labs and coefficient giving
    @jachiam0Some thoughts. METR has gone to great lengths to avoid financial conflicts, to the point where I would treat them as negligible. But the question of its independence is also about culture, social connection, and - somewhat crucially - an intangible quality that one expects in an independent verifier org, that comes down to something like "experts in the technology tradition who have a neutral understanding of best practices, where that understanding is an unbiased synthesis of the field and its history." I would say the question of whether METR is independent in these three senses is largely political, and advocates will be wise to make the case without reflexively focusing on just the financial side of things. METR is very steeped in EA/rationalism/Berkeley culture. It is socially intertwined with the AI frontier scene and to the EA social scene. Staffers sometimes leave frontier labs and go to METR; is there a requirement that they liquidate their equity before going? The last quality, experts with a neutral understanding of best practices... this is the one where I think METR advocates will face steep challenges but also plausibly have the strongest arguments in favor of METR. Who can be said to know best practices, from a position of neutrality, in a field so exceedingly new? The blinding speed of AI progress makes such claims difficult. How does one differentiate METR's expertise from a fly-by-night operation that starts tomorrow? If one points out the connections to the labs and to the EA-funded AI safety scene, one undercuts the independence argument on social and financial grounds. If one doesn't use some credentialism, the bar to entering the verifier org space is very low and surely a bad faith actor will inject some confusion. I know many of my colleagues will want to reflexively defend METR to the hilt. Well-deservedly so. But my emphatic recommendation is that you do this very carefully; do not regard the defense of METR's defense or integrity as trivial.
    @achowdheryRT @NeelNanda5: There's a lot of discourse about METR's independence and potential corruption going around They actually list their fundin…
    @GaryMarcusInteresting analysis of the intersections between METR and Anthropic’s world — and a clear reason why they can’t be the only auditor, even though they do good research and deserve a role.
    @tszzl@boazbaraktcs @MaskedTorah this is true but the crowd I am thinking of is going to assume that METR is compromised in some way. I think dario saying something about broad deployment would help
    @suchenzangwell, at least METR is honest about implying conflict of interest, even if it was buried in the middle of 300+ pages of reporting! (now thanks to AI, anyone can find it!)
    @CFGeekI wrote this AEF-1 disclosure in METR’s pilot Frontier Risk Report. Transparency about limitations and potential biases felt important to me. My colleagues agreed. If you want the public to trust you to assess AI risks, you try to give them the truth without spin or BS.

    20 Sources

    @ChrisPainterYupRT @METR_Evals: We work to maintain our independence from frontier AI companies, especially as our risk assessments become more consequenti…
    @wsisaacMETR highlights a critical challenge for the field: many modern AI evaluation techniques rely on the same underlying technology and compute. Performing best-in-class analysis at scale requires third parties to negotiate effectively for not only compensation, but also the tools necessary to do the job. This is not a sustainable model for independent evaluation.
    @martin_casadoRT @ThePrimeagen: METR is not independent
    @NeelNanda5There's a lot of discourse about METR's independence and potential corruption going around They actually list their funding sources on the website! METR do not take funding from sources that could compromise their independence like AI labs and coefficient giving
    @jachiam0Some thoughts. METR has gone to great lengths to avoid financial conflicts, to the point where I would treat them as negligible. But the question of its independence is also about culture, social connection, and - somewhat crucially - an intangible quality that one expects in an independent verifier org, that comes down to something like "experts in the technology tradition who have a neutral understanding of best practices, where that understanding is an unbiased synthesis of the field and its history." I would say the question of whether METR is independent in these three senses is largely political, and advocates will be wise to make the case without reflexively focusing on just the financial side of things. METR is very steeped in EA/rationalism/Berkeley culture. It is socially intertwined with the AI frontier scene and to the EA social scene. Staffers sometimes leave frontier labs and go to METR; is there a requirement that they liquidate their equity before going? The last quality, experts with a neutral understanding of best practices... this is the one where I think METR advocates will face steep challenges but also plausibly have the strongest arguments in favor of METR. Who can be said to know best practices, from a position of neutrality, in a field so exceedingly new? The blinding speed of AI progress makes such claims difficult. How does one differentiate METR's expertise from a fly-by-night operation that starts tomorrow? If one points out the connections to the labs and to the EA-funded AI safety scene, one undercuts the independence argument on social and financial grounds. If one doesn't use some credentialism, the bar to entering the verifier org space is very low and surely a bad faith actor will inject some confusion. I know many of my colleagues will want to reflexively defend METR to the hilt. Well-deservedly so. But my emphatic recommendation is that you do this very carefully; do not regard the defense of METR's defense or integrity as trivial.
    @achowdheryRT @NeelNanda5: There's a lot of discourse about METR's independence and potential corruption going around They actually list their fundin…
    @GaryMarcusInteresting analysis of the intersections between METR and Anthropic’s world — and a clear reason why they can’t be the only auditor, even though they do good research and deserve a role.
    @tszzl@boazbaraktcs @MaskedTorah this is true but the crowd I am thinking of is going to assume that METR is compromised in some way. I think dario saying something about broad deployment would help
    @suchenzangwell, at least METR is honest about implying conflict of interest, even if it was buried in the middle of 300+ pages of reporting! (now thanks to AI, anyone can find it!)
    @CFGeekI wrote this AEF-1 disclosure in METR’s pilot Frontier Risk Report. Transparency about limitations and potential biases felt important to me. My colleagues agreed. If you want the public to trust you to assess AI risks, you try to give them the truth without spin or BS.