Finally, some sense. This is the only argument I have seen that genuinely engages with the problem and approaches it with humility, rather than charging ahead on the basis of assumptions and without a shred of evidence. OpenAI should have been the one making it.

“Questions like this should be answered empirically through rigorous pre-release testing, not assumed in advance.”

Exactly.

Nah they have always said this. People got psyoped by openai pr and bad actors like sacks and a16z bots.

> rather than charging ahead on the basis of assumptions and without a shred of evidence.

Anthropic's basis of assumption is the insinuation that LLMs can do things that we've never seen before, and that they can't tell us what it is. It sounds like you're also siding with an organization that has no evidence and relies on validating their own assumptions.