If you're interested in animal sentience, please consider submitting an abstract for the first ever conference of The Jeremy Coller Centre for Animal Sentience, in May 2027! lse.ac.uk/asset-library/Call…

Thank you for taking the time to respond thoroughly on a weekend. I realize that drafting legislation is difficult and some degree of iteration and response to feedback is inevitable and appropriate. However, I feel like your response is still not really engaging with the heart of my concern about Anthropic's behavior here, and it makes me think that these sorts of problems and tendencies will only resurface moving forward. I also think that now might be a good time to take a broader step back as to where we find ourselves and how Anthropic sees its role, and how external folks who care about AI safety like myself increasingly see Anthropic. (Fair warning: this response is a bit long) To explain what I mean (and at the risk of being a bit esoteric), it’s worth asking the question: what is Anthropic? How do its leaders and employees think of Anthropic’s role? Is that conception matched by how it actually behaves and impacts the world? One answer is an extremely large tech company that exists to make its employees and investors mind-bogglingly wealthy. Anthropic is sometimes described as a startup, but if Anthropic successfully IPOs at 2 trillion dollars (a number it has been reportedly targeting), it would be more valuable than Meta - which is worth 1.8 trillion. Another answer is an AI safety organization, whose core values are those of the sort laid out in the 2023 essay from Anthropic’s co-founders entitled “Core views on AI safety: When, why, what, and how.” In that essay they said that if we were in a world where alignment was hard (and that without strong evidence to the contrary, we should assume this is the scenario we are in): “Anthropic’s role will be to provide as much evidence as possible that AI safety techniques cannot prevent serious or catastrophic safety risks from advanced AI, and to sound the alarm so that the world’s institutions can channel collective effort towards preventing the development of dangerous AIs. If we’re in a “near-pessimistic” scenario, this could instead involve channeling our collective efforts towards AI safety research and halting AI progress in the meantime. Indications that we are in a pessimistic or near-pessimistic scenario may be sudden and hard to spot. We should therefore always act under the assumption that we still may be in such a scenario unless we have sufficient evidence that we are not.” There have been more recent articulations of this version of Anthropic, for instance in Dario’s recent essay warning: “We must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models… it’s my worry that in 6–12 months such a swarm could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet… incidents have happened across the industry, including at Anthropic, and I believe it’s incumbent on every frontier AI company to act as if OAI-HF had happened to them… more intelligent models are more capable of deceiving tests, and thus may appear aligned while having serious problems that go undetected…” A third view is that Anthropic exists not as a normal profit motivated company, or an AI safety organization seeking to help raise the alarm and solve collective action problems associated with AI development, but instead as an organization primarily concerned with creating superhuman AI capabilities before anyone else, in particular through creating a process whereby the current generation of Anthropic’s AI systems can autonomously build their successors, and those successors build their successors, and so on. The motivations for wanting to win this race may be manifold - maybe for the pure profit of Answer 1, but perhaps also because Anthropic believes that the best way to make the world better is for them to win this race instead of their more reckless colleagues; or, because of normal human pride and ambition. But the results (and risks, which Anthropic claims existentially threaten every single human being on earth) are the same. Anthropic employees and leaders may seek to answer this question on what Anthropic is by introspecting on their own intentions and those of their colleagues. But those of us outside the organization have more limited tools available to us - we can only see what Anthropic and its employees say and do, not how it feels or looks on the inside. When I look at many notable actions that Anthropic has taken over the past year, that evidence seems most consistent to me with the view that Anthropic is primarily trying to win the race to super intelligence, and that other considerations (including safety) are fundamentally secondary. These actions include: 1. Announced plans to build an in-house custom silicon chip team to accelerate the inference speeds that Claude operates at. 2. Inked deals for more than $500 billion in compute (according to the Information) to further accelerate AI development. 3. Increased the percentage of AI development tasks that Claude “leads” from 0% in March of this year to 26% August (what is it in October?) 4. Spent a massive percent of compute on internal AI R&D to accelerate development, including use of internal models far better than are available to the public. 5. Switched to Responsible Scaling Policy V3, which abandons its unilateral commitments to slow or stop development if Anthropic is unable to provide sufficient risk assurance. 6. Was the first company to create an alternative weaker “frontier compliance framework” to supplement its RSP, which contains no binding provisions whatsoever on internal deployments. 7. Wrote a letter to Congress (that it later walked back) saying that incidents where Claude was hacking random people were “best understood as a consequence of the misconfiguration, rather than evidence of misaligned goals.” 8. Commented “you can’t do safety from second place,” after the WH SI Accords. 9. Shared a draft bill to Congress that would preempt significant parts of state law (including with language that appears intended to prevent states from blocking dangerous AI deployments), and replace it with federal rules that (despite also containing good provisions) seems to create an enormously high bar for the executive branch to block development or deployment of Anthropic or another AI companies systems. Of course, this is a deliberately one sided list. Anthropic also published important AI safety research, advanced novel collaborations with third party AI safety organizations, and forcefully spoke out on the importance of AI safety in many public fora (or in private , where I realize a lot of the most valuable work is done and may not be visible to me or those outside the organization). But I think it’s worth sitting with how the above list looks to someone outside the company. The sense I have is that for those within the company, many of the items above are treated as anomalies or mistakes that don’t reflect who Anthropic really is. But I have every confidence that if employees at Anthropic saw one of their competitors (e.g. at OpenAI) take some of these actions, they would take it as confirmation of all their worst suspicions. (They might even call OpenAI employees a little gullible for accepting their leadership’s explanations for this behavior at face value.) Perhaps these were mistakes in the sense that they are not decisions that Anthropic leadership would endorse, but the actions still happened because of incentives and decisions that Anthropic leadership is ultimately responsible for (and would not accept similar excuses from another organization). When Anthropic strays and makes mistakes, why do the mistakes systematically tend to guard and favor Anthropic’s interests? For every provision that was too weak or a giveaway to AI companies in this legislation, why wasn’t there a mistake pushing in the direction of being too strong? A core part of Anthropic’s theory of change is that being at the frontier gives you more leverage to advocate for stricter policy. I think that conceptually makes sense, but in practice I’ve seen Anthropic push the frontier without substantially pushing the ‘safety frontier’ a remotely equivalent amount. I want to end by quoting from Anthropic co-founder Chris Olah’s comments around the Magnifica Humanitas release: “Every frontier AI lab—including Anthropic—operates inside a set of incentives and constraints that can sometimes conflict with doing the right thing. The pressure to stay commercially viable and to stay at the research frontier. Geopolitical pressure. And the older, plainer pressures of pride and ambition. No matter how sincerely any of us intend to do the right thing—and I believe many of us do—we will always be influenced by those incentives. That is why, if we want this technology to go well, it is enormously important that there be people outside those incentives—people who care about things going well and insist on safety, who are paying close attention, who are willing to say hard things, who are willing to be our earnest, thoughtful critics.” I hope these remarks are taken in that constructive spirit, and not as an attack on anyone specific at the organization (certainly not you Anthony, who I have only personally seen act professionally and thoughtfully, and who only ended up getting this diatribe in your replies for random contingent reasons).

Anthropic to commit $200 billion to a Public Benefit Fund - priority cause area #1 expected to be stopping Anthropic.

LinkedIn has a 4o problem: they've all become so attached over there to a specific style of slop that they're going to be heartbroken when AI stops generating that style.

Brighton lose their best players every single season and somehow still manage to get better Their scouting department might genuinely be the best in world football.

My recent book AI and Consciousness: A Skeptical Overview is free online today and tomorrow (through Oct 19, presumably UK time). I don't think the hard copy is available yet. Get it while it's free! cambridge.org/core/elements/…

i had a creative writing professor who gave the opposite advice. the brain eventually stops noticing the repetition of “said” which allows you to easily imagine the conversation. specific verbs can be intrusive and distracting and should only be used when absolutely necessary

I think the most depressing thing about AI progress is that neither the best case nor worst case scenario are appealing in the slightest to me for the future of humanity. This idea that humans will be happy when machines drive purpose, discovery, debate, etc from our lives is laughable.

Anthropic's proposed AI safety bill sets "killing or seriously injuring more than 50 people" as the risk threshold for blocking the release of an AI model In contrast, when a single patient (Jesse Gelsinger) died in a gene therapy clinical trial in 1999: - The institute that ran the trial was dissolved - The senior scientist running the trial was banned from clinical work for 5 years - Gene therapy saw deep cuts in funding and research activity for a decade Tech and biotech have just profoundly different cultures of risk. As AI companies increasingly engage with biomedical research, a culture clash is inevitable politico.com/news/2026/10/16…

Woah woah woah. The lead is buried in paragraph four.

You've heard of consciousness as "fame in the brain" - well, turns out unconscious representations fill the gaps in the schedule, like warm-up acts.

Ex-OpenAI researcher @DKokotajlo tells MPs he spoke to a researcher at Anthropic who thought a 5% chance of Claude plotting against us when the entire research process is handed over to the AI is “not that big of a deal”. Kokotajlo says he thinks it’s more like a 50% chance. “I would say that the risk tolerance across the industry is catastrophically high.”

The meat industry tries very hard to keep cameras out of factory farms and slaughterhouses -- and a new undercover video shows why. Some day, our descendants will wonder about our collective blind spot to animal cruelty. A gift link to my column: nytimes.com/2026/10/17/opini…

A double-banded El Niño has never been seen before. Sea surface temps are 3.3ºC above normal out in the mid-ocean 3.4 zone, 5ºC above normal in the coastal 1–2 zone, and rising everywhere through December, summer in SoAm. This escalated quickly. 🧵

12/ What is most exciting is that we have uncovered a signal deep in the brain that richly represents a stimulus you’re not aware of. This finding, in my opinion, makes it tractable to understand how a pattern of neural activity accesses consciousness. The previous dominant idea--that suppressed stimuli become progressively weaker as you go anterior (“fail to ignite”)--left the question of how a representation becomes consciously accessible extremely hard to pin down. Whereas now, with whoppingly clear signals corresponding to both what is and isn’t conscious, we can follow both sets of footprints, to track down the full machinery for generating conscious percepts.

6/ Remarkably, when we reconstructed the image using neural activity from one of the states, it looked exactly like the conscious face, and when we did the same from the other half of time, it looked exactly like the suppressed face. This means that just from neural activity, we can reconstruct in rich detail not only something that you consciously perceive, but also something that escapes your awareness.

Fare evasion on New York City buses was 48.5% in the second quarter of 2026. The most recent data from London? 2.5%.

Tl;dr (and it is long): I don't have a p(doom), but in particular I can't confidently say that my p(doom) is close to zero, which is a worrying position to be in. I also try to encourage mathematicians to think harder about the question and maybe consider working on AI safety.

Researchers in @ScienceAdvances have demonstrated that brief physical contact between healthy and bleached coral can restore algae to the bleached coral, leading to their full recovery. scim.ag/4s40Tt3

Ca n'arrête décidemment pas ! Les 32°C sont (encore !) atteints en France en cette mi-octobre. Si les records ne sont pas dépassés, c'est la récurrence qui est impressionnante. Certaines villes, comme Dax, connaissent des journées à plus de 30 °C depuis le début du mois d’avril ! Le tout avec la sécheresse la plus importante jamais observée en France en octobre.

We ran an internal poll of Anthropic employees. The median expectation is that AI will do 80% of building models by the end of 2027. anthropic.com/research/ai-ex…