Anthropic 向评估机构 METR 开放类员工权限,模型风险评估结果将公开
An update on independent evaluators
- 1Anthropic 宣布已向评估机构 METR 开放类员工权限,METR 将公开发布对其模型风险的评估结果
- 26 名 METR 员工已入驻,获得公司硬件、办公空间及与内部风险评估团队相当的内部工具和系统权限
- 3Anthropic 无权否决 METR 发布,但可要求删改客户数据、律师特权信息和模型架构等预定义类别
- 4公司还与 SecureBio、Accenture 等合作,并建立三级评估者权限体系,SecureBio 目前处于第一级
Anthropic 将第三方安全评估从一次性审查推进为常驻嵌入式监督,参照银行驻场监管逻辑,为前沿模型的外部问责建立制度化安排。
- 影响:企业选用前沿模型时多了一层可引用的公开风险证据;评估报告附带预定义删改机制,解读需参考评估者对删改正当性的表态;厂商主动嵌入评估者,可能抬高行业安全透明度的比较基准。
- 参考:可考虑把独立评估者公开发布的风险报告纳入模型选型尽调清单;值得跟踪三级权限体系下各评估机构的发布内容与节奏,作为比较供应商安全透明度的参照。
- 依据:全部事实为 Anthropic 官方公告口径,6 名 METR 员工已入驻且发布不受否决,暂无独立方对其运作情况的验证。
Last month, we committed to stronger independent, third-party assessment of our models and safety practices. We also signed the White House Accord on Super Intelligence, in which companies pledged to partner with independent external auditors or evaluators. Today, we’re announcing that we’ve started to give employee-like access to a team from METR, a nonprofit that evaluates frontier AI models.
METR will publish the results of its risk assessments. Over the past year, we’ve worked with METR on several reviews of our Risk Reports. We’re also working with SecureBio and Accenture as evaluators, and are in early discussions with several other organizations, including Hugging Face.
Here, we explain our approach to working with evaluators.
Why we work with independent evaluators
As models have become more powerful, they’ve required stronger safeguards and more challenging risk assessments. We want to be publicly accountable for the decisions we’re making. But we can’t publicly share all the information relevant to our safety work. Some of it could be useful to malicious actors, or is commercially sensitive, like compute or training information. Instead, we’re giving third-party evaluators deep access to our information, and are having them share evidence and reasoned conclusions about the risks involved in building our models. We aim to close the gap between what evaluators understand about a frontier AI company’s systems and what the company itself understands.
To evaluate frontier models, evaluators need the following:
- Expertise in assessing the capabilities of frontier models, including understanding the way evaluations can go wrong, such as alignment faking.
- Independence: they shouldn’t hold equity in the company they’re evaluating, or be financially or operationally dependent on it.
- Enough access to meaningfully evaluate risks. Beyond access to the latest models, evaluators also need visibility into how those models were trained, about how our safeguards function, and more.
- Freedom to publish observations and assessments of a model or a process.
Although the analogy isn’t exact, bank supervision operates on similar logic. Banks know more about their own risk positions than outsiders do, so regulators assign resident examiners to work inside the largest banks. If a bank’s risk-taking could threaten the public, third parties try to see that in advance.
For the AI industry, this is a step toward robust safety oversight. We’re moving quickly with multiple evaluators and learning actively about what kinds of partnership work. We’re committed to sharing updates as we go.
What we mean by “employee-like access”
We’ve onboarded six METR employees with company hardware, office space, and access to internal tools and systems that are roughly on par with what our own risk assessment teams have access to. Outside a small number of clearly defined categories (e.g., data about customers, attorney-client-privileged information, or information about our model architectures), Anthropic employees are encouraged to share information with them just as they would with a fellow employee working on alignment risk.1
METR will publish its analysis of our risk levels, incidents, or practices. Anthropic can’t veto publication, but we can require them to redact information if it falls into narrow, pre-defined categories like the ones above. METR is free to characterize our redactions publicly, and say whether it believes the redactions were justified, as long as it does so without revealing the redacted information.
Our engagement with METR is limited to a small team operating under enforceable agreements. Other METR employees are siloed from that team’s work, including researchers who work with us on other projects. Embedded evaluation gives a few qualified people working under Anthropic’s security standards a close view of how we operate. It’s not a way for other organizations to obtain our information, or that of our customers and partners.
Our other evaluator partnerships
We’re working on several other partnerships. Because these other partnerships are still in early stages, we’re providing these evaluators with more limited information, and they have more limited publication rights. Our goal with these early engagements is to make sure that our partners protect confidential information and have the requisite resources and expertise to evaluate our models. As partnerships progress and we build trust, we hope to fully embed more independent evaluators.
We’re developing three tiers of access for evaluators. Over time, we hope to have several evaluators at the third tier, with each team publishing their own analysis of our risk posture and key decisions.
In the first tier, evaluators conduct narrowly scoped risk investigations. We decide what access to provide a first-tier evaluator, and evaluators can publish their findings with our approval.
In the second tier, evaluators can publish without our approval, and they have access to more information. We can still require removal of specific categories of information, though evaluators can publish their views on whether our redactions were justified.
The third tier is the arrangement we’ve described with METR, with employee-like access and publication rights similar to those of the second tier.
SecureBio is currently in the first tier. It’s in the process of reviewing the chemical and biological weapons chapter of our August Risk Report, after completing and publishing a pilot review of our previous risk report. After this review is complete, we will consider moving to projects with increased access and publication rights.
With Accenture and Faculty, we're working toward an ambitious partnership that includes evaluating and red-teaming models, conducting alignment assessments, testing model safeguards, and building capabilities across our organizations.
We’re embedding evaluators voluntarily, and we believe every frontier AI company should do the same.
Related content
Preparing for the 2026 US midterms
Earlier this year, we shared an update on our election safeguards. Here, we outline how we’ve continued to strengthen these safeguards ahead of this year’s US midterms.
Anthropic opens Singapore office and signs MOU with the Government of Singapore
Anthropic has opened an office in Singapore and signed an MOU with the country’s government to advance safe, responsible AI adoption.
2026 Usage Policy update
We’re publishing a new version of our Usage Policy. In this post, we summarize the changes we’ve made.
来源:Anthropic:Newsroom · anthropic.com