Researchers clash over Anthropic report: conclusions rest on subjective staff assessments
danielrock · x · 2026-11-06
Responding to Max Nadeau's claim that Anthropic redacted most supporting evidence, daveholtz argues the report itself flags some estimates as "guesses," details sensitivity to functional-form assumptions, and leans on subjective qualitative assessments by Anthropic staff. He contends the report's framing—and how it's tweeted about—hides how much uncertainty and researcher degrees of freedom are at play, even though nothing was actually redacted.
More from AGI Musings
- AI-2027 author Kokotajlo shares Ellsberg's 1968 warning on how secret clearances warp judgment — DKokotajlo · 2026-11-06
- Designer on why he doesn't fear AI: design is a process, not an artifact — floguo · 2026-11-06
- Stanford launches Collaborative Intelligence project on human-agent teamwork for future of work — Diyi_Yang · 2026-11-06
- METR data implies a second doubling in the rate of AI capability progress — peterwildeford · 2026-11-06
- When AI can manufacture trust, what happens to betrayal? — PierceLilholt · 2026-11-06
- All videos in this thread were code-generated by Opus 5.5, filming its own live memory graph — RileyRalmuto · 2026-11-06