METR shouldn't be the sole AI evaluator, experts list a whole ecosystem of alternatives
RebeccaBellan · x · 2026-09-13
Dean Ball argues METR is excellent but nowhere near sufficient on its own — the field needs a diverse, large ecosystem of technically skilled independent assessment bodies, and METR shouldn't be anointed the sole evaluator. A widely shared reply lists the existing ecosystem: Apollo Research/Redwood Research, FAR.AI, Palisade Research, SecureBio, SaferAI, plus the UK AI Security Institute, the U.S. Center for AI Standards and Innovation, and Japan's AI Safety Institute. Others respond positively to METR gaining more access but worry about an evaluator monoculture.
More from Safety
- RAND releases report on AI risk scenarios, flagged by Brad Carson — sethlazar · 2026-09-14
- Chinese Optical Transceiver Makers Dodge US Blacklist; Zhongji Innolight Jumps 4% — pstAsiatech · 2026-09-14
- Sentdex mocks labs picking former coworkers as new AI regulators — Sentdex · 2026-09-14
- Gary Marcus Amplifies Attack on METR: "Great, But Not the Answer" for AI Oversight — AlexTensor · 2026-09-14
- Dario Amodei says he'd hand Anthropic to 'the right combination of governments' — Polymarket · 2026-09-14
- Aaron Levie backs Dario Amodei's AI 'pacing' framework: safety goals are a necessity — scottleibrand · 2026-09-14