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

    Users disagree on whether Anthropic is less transparent than OpenAI

    One critic argues that keeping disagreements internal can breed overconfidence about safety; another points to public data and researcher access as tools for independent scrutiny.

    JA
    SL
    JL
    4 Sources, ,

    TLDR

    One post argues that Anthropic keeps disagreements and perceived shortcomings largely internal, fostering overconfidence in its safety posture. The author contrasts that approach with what they describe as OpenAI’s comparatively open public debates.

    Another post challenges the comparison, citing Anthropic’s Economic Index, Researcher Access Program, Transparency Hub, and Alignment Science and Frontier Red Teaming blogs. That author distinguishes these resources from public essays, arguing that data, reports and access programs help outsiders reach their own conclusions about AI safety and security—while acknowledging that much more could be done.

    Combined views

    29.8K

    4 Sources, first seen 23d ago

    Combined views

    29.8K

    4 Sources, first seen 23d ago

    194 likes
    23d ago
    first seen 23d ago
    194 likes
    14 comments
    42 saves
    12 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    14 comments
    42 saves
    12 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    4 Sources

    @ShayneRedfordThis is a thoughtful and appreciated post, but (from my brief tenure) I question that Anthropic is less transparent than OpenAI in many of the most important respects? Where Anthropic does well: - The Anthropic Economic Index is incredibly detailed, and invites public scrutiny - The new Researcher Access Program for external real user log analysis. - Anthropic's Transparency Hub is way more detailed than OpenAI's - Anthropic's Alignment Science and Frontier Red Teaming blogs are super active and dump tons of valuable context on a frequent basis. These are clearly different from the public essays the original poster is talking about, but from my perspective, the above (and especially the second) are really crucial to enable public intellectuals to engage with the impacts of AI themselves- updating priors for themselves. Credit where it's due, all labs are working significantly with many external testing groups, which is great. I think external essays are good, but often they seem to engage mostly other AI safety audiences. Whereas public data, reports, and careful access programs allow the community to independently arrive at conclusions around AI safety and security. Edit: It goes without saying, much more could be done! Definitely invite critical perspectives on this
    @jachiam0@ShayneRedford FWIW, I think this is basically the best steelman defense of Anthropic's existing comms, separate from the question of whether the full range of internal debates are made external.
    @JeffLadishI think it’s a very good example of @jachiam0’s point: “That's not to say that there is zero communication from Anthropic. Obviously there are a couple of Ants who make an effort to post on twitter, or who respond to a subset of concerns raised in public, and there are of course many publications from them in the voice of the company. But they are very selective about how they engage, they are capable of keeping internal discussions (almost) completely internal, and their essay culture is for internal consumption and not external consumption. Where they have profound differences of opinion with each other, they are going to discuss them internally and not externally; where they feel they are falling short, they're going to talk about it internally, not externally. I don't think this is totally healthy!” I appreciate that there is lively discussion internally. That was true when I was around. I miss it! Anthropic Slack was great. *And* I think engagement in the public discourse space, by researchers, in public, is key!

    4 Sources

    @ShayneRedfordThis is a thoughtful and appreciated post, but (from my brief tenure) I question that Anthropic is less transparent than OpenAI in many of the most important respects? Where Anthropic does well: - The Anthropic Economic Index is incredibly detailed, and invites public scrutiny - The new Researcher Access Program for external real user log analysis. - Anthropic's Transparency Hub is way more detailed than OpenAI's - Anthropic's Alignment Science and Frontier Red Teaming blogs are super active and dump tons of valuable context on a frequent basis. These are clearly different from the public essays the original poster is talking about, but from my perspective, the above (and especially the second) are really crucial to enable public intellectuals to engage with the impacts of AI themselves- updating priors for themselves. Credit where it's due, all labs are working significantly with many external testing groups, which is great. I think external essays are good, but often they seem to engage mostly other AI safety audiences. Whereas public data, reports, and careful access programs allow the community to independently arrive at conclusions around AI safety and security. Edit: It goes without saying, much more could be done! Definitely invite critical perspectives on this
    @jachiam0@ShayneRedford FWIW, I think this is basically the best steelman defense of Anthropic's existing comms, separate from the question of whether the full range of internal debates are made external.
    @JeffLadishI think it’s a very good example of @jachiam0’s point: “That's not to say that there is zero communication from Anthropic. Obviously there are a couple of Ants who make an effort to post on twitter, or who respond to a subset of concerns raised in public, and there are of course many publications from them in the voice of the company. But they are very selective about how they engage, they are capable of keeping internal discussions (almost) completely internal, and their essay culture is for internal consumption and not external consumption. Where they have profound differences of opinion with each other, they are going to discuss them internally and not externally; where they feel they are falling short, they're going to talk about it internally, not externally. I don't think this is totally healthy!” I appreciate that there is lively discussion internally. That was true when I was around. I miss it! Anthropic Slack was great. *And* I think engagement in the public discourse space, by researchers, in public, is key!