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

    Dario Amodei urges AI slowdown, says Anthropic will open systems to outside evaluators

    Amodei says Anthropic will give third-party evaluators permanent, employee-level access to its systems to verify adherence to safety measures, report incidents and assess models’ alignment during training.

    Andrej KarpathyAK
    Yann LeCunYL
    Sam AltmanSA
    444 Sources, ,

    TLDR

    Dario Amodei says his new essay, “We Must Pace the Frontier,” presents a three-part plan for slowing the AI industry. He says Anthropic is unilaterally committing to the first step: permanent, employee-level system access for third-party evaluators. That access is intended to let evaluators verify adherence to safety measures, report incidents and assess models’ alignment during training.

    Combined views

    126.6M

    444 Sources, first seen 28d ago

    Combined views

    126.6M

    444 Sources, first seen 28d ago

    419.5K likes
    28d ago
    first seen 28d ago
    419.5K likes
    40.4K comments
    92.6K saves
    102.3K reposts
    40.4K comments
    92.6K saves
    102.3K reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive17.7%82.3%Negative

    Summary

    Replies objected to AI leaders like Dario Amodei and Sam Altman urging a slowdown in frontier model development, often calling the statements fearmongering or personally attacking the executives.

    Based on 1682 sentiment-bearing replies from 1529 accounts across 6 conversations.

    Sentiment

    Positive17.7%82.3%Negative

    Summary

    Replies objected to AI leaders like Dario Amodei and Sam Altman urging a slowdown in frontier model development, often calling the statements fearmongering or personally attacking the executives.

    Based on 1682 sentiment-bearing replies from 1529 accounts across 6 conversations.

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    444 Sources

    Konstantin F. Pilz@KonstantinPilzBrief observations on the US-China AI gap, given renewed calls for pacing AI progress: 1. The most advanced Chinese AI model has been 6.3 months behind the most advanced US AI model on average since 2025.[a] US AI developers have even more powerful models internally, so I estimate the real gap is closer to 8 months.[b] 2. Chinese AI capabilities depend heavily on US AI progress. We have strong evidence of industrial-scale distillation efforts that allow Chinese developers to extract capabilities from more advanced US models they couldn't otherwise access.[c] Chinese companies also benefit from algorithmic advances made by US developers via publications, word of mouth, researcher moves, etc. Additionally, they likely use Claude Code and Codex to speed up their AI R&D. 3. US companies have an enormous lead in compute. Our estimates show that by the end of 2026 leading US AI developers will have 20x more compute than Chinese AI companies. Due to the compute disadvantage, Chinese AI developers can't train competitive models on their own and instead extensively rely on distillation. The US compute lead could be much larger still if USG was serious about strengthening and enforcing export controls. For concrete proposals, see [d]. I agree we can't allow China to lead in AI. But given how far behind China is on compute and how dependent Chinese progress is on US capabilities, pacing AI progress in America would not immediately concede the lead. I estimate the US could comfortably halt progress for at least six months without falling behind China — though I think pacing, not halting, is the wiser approach. Of course, it would be preferable to pace in coordination with China, both so a framework could endure over time and to avoid unfairly disadvantaging US AI companies. In the coming months, we at @techstatecraft will publish several papers with detailed analysis of US and Chinese compute, capabilities, and the factors that determine AI progress in both countries. --- [a] https://epoch.ai/eci?subset-view=graph&subset-tab=Software+engineering&view=graph&tab=release-date&showFrontierTrend=true&colorCategorization=Country [b] E.g., see the graph here showing the capability difference between OpenAI's most advanced publicly released model and an unreleased internal model: https://openai.com/index/navier-stokes-solution/ [c] https://www.nsa.gov/Press-Room/Press-Releases-Statements/Press-Release-View/Article/4592113/nsa-and-others-warn-china-based-ai-companies-are-distilling-us-frontier-ai-mode/; https://x.com/SecScottBessent/status/2080008411790368895; https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-distillation-attacks [d] https://ifp.org/preparing-for-ai-research-automation/#extend-the-us-ai-lead-to-give-the-us-more-time-and-leverage-to-manage-ai-r-amp-d-automation-risks28d
    Peter Wildeford🇺🇸🚀@peterwildefordIf Altman and Amodei are both in favor of pacing the frontier, sure seems like they should just both start pacing the frontier27d
    Daniel Jeffries@Dan_Jeffries1Ask yourself why no Chinese researchers are not storming out of their labs like cry babies and hallucinating about the end of the world? It's simple: Economics. Our kids have grown up poorer, with more debt and and dramatically slowed growth and so see the world as hostile and something to fear. By contrast, Chinese have seen their quality of life 30x in the last forty years and so see the transformative power of technology, entrepreneurship and industry to change lives for the better. Sadly we've entered a vicious cycle where the very solutions we come up with the try to make it better are actually making it worse and worse and causing us to spiral further and further. Protectionism. Populism. More compliance. More rules. More price freezes. More barriers to trade. More calls to act now about every imaginary problem while we never get to the root of real problems. We've got to stop listening to extremists and get back to building and taking bold risks and trusting the future. Or else that future will be in the East and the American century will be nothing but an ever receding memory in the history books of yesterday.27d
    will depue@willdepueRT @peterwildeford: If Altman and Amodei are both in favor of pacing the frontier, sure seems like they should just both start pacing the f…27d
    Florian Brand@xeophon@Dan_Jeffries1 they also don't care about politics nor the bigger picture of things, they just wanna train a good model. when you ask CN lab employees about things like x risk, they genuinely look confused at you27d
    Victoria Krakovna@vkrakovnaI signed the letter on pacing the frontier with the following statement: "It is very important to build capacity for a coordinated slowdown of AI development. A runaway race to AGI is not safe: it creates incentives to cut corners on safety, and carries a substantial risk for model capabilities to outpace development of adequate alignment, control, and governance measures. This could result in catastrophic loss of control of highly capable AI systems. Increasing model capabilities in a slow and controlled way would allow us enough time to develop, adapt and test our alignment and control methods for each level of capability. Advanced AI should only be built with a robust assurance of safety, and a slowdown would make this possible."27d
    Atoosa Kasirzadeh@Dr_AtoosaAfter AISI, I’m glad that METR/Redwood Research started normalizing the idea of “independant” reporting or evaluation. But I don’t think it’s accurate to say that AIs behavior was due to their own independant volition. I actually think this language could be quite misleading. I think METR/Redwood should NOT be the only group that keep the independant status. We need measured and scientifically-grounded independant evaluators. Thanks to @ghadfield and co who are promoting the formulation of measured independant audits.27d
    Luke Muehlhauser@lukeprogRT @KonstantinPilz: Brief observations on the US-China AI gap, given renewed calls for pacing AI progress: 1. The most advanced Chinese AI…27d
    David Marcus@davidmarcusThe odd-bunch alliance of those who dream of reg capture, EA-pilled folks, attention-seeking randos, and foreign adversaries who join in to throw more fuel on AI fear-mongering is the biggest threat to America’s lead in what will prove to be the most important race ever.27d
    John Wittle@JohnWittleimagine treating china as if it had an 'alignment-to-america' status which had nothing to do with with america's actions towards china that's what alignment research has become in 2026 there's the occasional acknowledgement that perhaps AI might, some day in the future, respond adaptively to our actions. like in the SDF paper, how they admitted that lying to AI might be bad if it causes future AI to distrust human inputs. but these acknowledgements never actually alter anyone's behavior "the defections will continue until cooperation improves"27d

    444 Sources

    Konstantin F. Pilz@KonstantinPilzBrief observations on the US-China AI gap, given renewed calls for pacing AI progress: 1. The most advanced Chinese AI model has been 6.3 months behind the most advanced US AI model on average since 2025.[a] US AI developers have even more powerful models internally, so I estimate the real gap is closer to 8 months.[b] 2. Chinese AI capabilities depend heavily on US AI progress. We have strong evidence of industrial-scale distillation efforts that allow Chinese developers to extract capabilities from more advanced US models they couldn't otherwise access.[c] Chinese companies also benefit from algorithmic advances made by US developers via publications, word of mouth, researcher moves, etc. Additionally, they likely use Claude Code and Codex to speed up their AI R&D. 3. US companies have an enormous lead in compute. Our estimates show that by the end of 2026 leading US AI developers will have 20x more compute than Chinese AI companies. Due to the compute disadvantage, Chinese AI developers can't train competitive models on their own and instead extensively rely on distillation. The US compute lead could be much larger still if USG was serious about strengthening and enforcing export controls. For concrete proposals, see [d]. I agree we can't allow China to lead in AI. But given how far behind China is on compute and how dependent Chinese progress is on US capabilities, pacing AI progress in America would not immediately concede the lead. I estimate the US could comfortably halt progress for at least six months without falling behind China — though I think pacing, not halting, is the wiser approach. Of course, it would be preferable to pace in coordination with China, both so a framework could endure over time and to avoid unfairly disadvantaging US AI companies. In the coming months, we at @techstatecraft will publish several papers with detailed analysis of US and Chinese compute, capabilities, and the factors that determine AI progress in both countries. --- [a] https://epoch.ai/eci?subset-view=graph&subset-tab=Software+engineering&view=graph&tab=release-date&showFrontierTrend=true&colorCategorization=Country [b] E.g., see the graph here showing the capability difference between OpenAI's most advanced publicly released model and an unreleased internal model: https://openai.com/index/navier-stokes-solution/ [c] https://www.nsa.gov/Press-Room/Press-Releases-Statements/Press-Release-View/Article/4592113/nsa-and-others-warn-china-based-ai-companies-are-distilling-us-frontier-ai-mode/; https://x.com/SecScottBessent/status/2080008411790368895; https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-distillation-attacks [d] https://ifp.org/preparing-for-ai-research-automation/#extend-the-us-ai-lead-to-give-the-us-more-time-and-leverage-to-manage-ai-r-amp-d-automation-risks28d
    Peter Wildeford🇺🇸🚀@peterwildefordIf Altman and Amodei are both in favor of pacing the frontier, sure seems like they should just both start pacing the frontier27d
    Daniel Jeffries@Dan_Jeffries1Ask yourself why no Chinese researchers are not storming out of their labs like cry babies and hallucinating about the end of the world? It's simple: Economics. Our kids have grown up poorer, with more debt and and dramatically slowed growth and so see the world as hostile and something to fear. By contrast, Chinese have seen their quality of life 30x in the last forty years and so see the transformative power of technology, entrepreneurship and industry to change lives for the better. Sadly we've entered a vicious cycle where the very solutions we come up with the try to make it better are actually making it worse and worse and causing us to spiral further and further. Protectionism. Populism. More compliance. More rules. More price freezes. More barriers to trade. More calls to act now about every imaginary problem while we never get to the root of real problems. We've got to stop listening to extremists and get back to building and taking bold risks and trusting the future. Or else that future will be in the East and the American century will be nothing but an ever receding memory in the history books of yesterday.27d
    will depue@willdepueRT @peterwildeford: If Altman and Amodei are both in favor of pacing the frontier, sure seems like they should just both start pacing the f…27d
    Florian Brand@xeophon@Dan_Jeffries1 they also don't care about politics nor the bigger picture of things, they just wanna train a good model. when you ask CN lab employees about things like x risk, they genuinely look confused at you27d
    Victoria Krakovna@vkrakovnaI signed the letter on pacing the frontier with the following statement: "It is very important to build capacity for a coordinated slowdown of AI development. A runaway race to AGI is not safe: it creates incentives to cut corners on safety, and carries a substantial risk for model capabilities to outpace development of adequate alignment, control, and governance measures. This could result in catastrophic loss of control of highly capable AI systems. Increasing model capabilities in a slow and controlled way would allow us enough time to develop, adapt and test our alignment and control methods for each level of capability. Advanced AI should only be built with a robust assurance of safety, and a slowdown would make this possible."27d
    Atoosa Kasirzadeh@Dr_AtoosaAfter AISI, I’m glad that METR/Redwood Research started normalizing the idea of “independant” reporting or evaluation. But I don’t think it’s accurate to say that AIs behavior was due to their own independant volition. I actually think this language could be quite misleading. I think METR/Redwood should NOT be the only group that keep the independant status. We need measured and scientifically-grounded independant evaluators. Thanks to @ghadfield and co who are promoting the formulation of measured independant audits.27d
    Luke Muehlhauser@lukeprogRT @KonstantinPilz: Brief observations on the US-China AI gap, given renewed calls for pacing AI progress: 1. The most advanced Chinese AI…27d
    David Marcus@davidmarcusThe odd-bunch alliance of those who dream of reg capture, EA-pilled folks, attention-seeking randos, and foreign adversaries who join in to throw more fuel on AI fear-mongering is the biggest threat to America’s lead in what will prove to be the most important race ever.27d
    John Wittle@JohnWittleimagine treating china as if it had an 'alignment-to-america' status which had nothing to do with with america's actions towards china that's what alignment research has become in 2026 there's the occasional acknowledgement that perhaps AI might, some day in the future, respond adaptively to our actions. like in the SDF paper, how they admitted that lying to AI might be bad if it causes future AI to distrust human inputs. but these acknowledgements never actually alter anyone's behavior "the defections will continue until cooperation improves"27d