In 2023-2024, it seemed a very strong bias from the EA community and the core AI safety funders that Anthropic not to be argued against or funding diverted to anything that was critical of them (directly or indirectly).
I wonder how the community and funders have updated their beliefs and behaviours?
None of these are from “core AI safety funders”. Views in the EA community were all across the map, but I share James’s impression that big funders (especially CG) were too reluctant to fund anything that’s critical of AI companies.
As one datapoint, this is from 2024, and I saw no subsequent evidence from core AI safety funders (including CG) that it influenced their willingness to fund me (I’ve also been regularly critical of Anthropic, and the other companies, on twitter and elsewhere throughout this time). https://www.lcfi.ac.uk/news-events/blog/post/reflections-on-machines-of-loving-grace
Examples of fairly critical remarks about Anthropic’s actions. All more recent than your timeframe, because twitter’s search function is a pain and because my memory for twitter etc discussion is less good. https://x.com/S_OhEigeartaigh/status/2029475839654388069 (re: gullible bunch memo)
(I am followed by some prominent US policy people, including the outgoing white house AI adviser, so if there were a bias against people who criticise Anthropic, I would expect to be punished pretty harshly)
And while ongoing commentary on their safety/policy actions might not count for your criteria, this paper has been influential enough with policymakers that it probably counts (and goes against aspects of Anthropic’s stance on China that underlies a lot of their positions). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=5278644
In 2023-2024, it seemed a very strong bias from the EA community and the core AI safety funders that Anthropic not to be argued against or funding diverted to anything that was critical of them (directly or indirectly).
I wonder how the community and funders have updated their beliefs and behaviours?
(Not sure about (the phrasing of) your impression, e.g. I remember this and this, and the anthropic tag has this, this, and this among others?)
Those are all 2025, and most are late 2025. Also I’d suggest they are potentially informative to my argument, given one of them is literally about:
“Anthropic is not being consistently candid about their connection to EA”
None of these are from “core AI safety funders”. Views in the EA community were all across the map, but I share James’s impression that big funders (especially CG) were too reluctant to fund anything that’s critical of AI companies.
They’re from the EA community, no?
As one datapoint, this is from 2024, and I saw no subsequent evidence from core AI safety funders (including CG) that it influenced their willingness to fund me (I’ve also been regularly critical of Anthropic, and the other companies, on twitter and elsewhere throughout this time).
https://www.lcfi.ac.uk/news-events/blog/post/reflections-on-machines-of-loving-grace
Your essay was a good read but it is an incredibly low bar if we count it as “critical of Anthropic”.
My equivalent would be trying to get funding for serious advocacy or policy work that went against Anthropic’s position.
Examples of fairly critical remarks about Anthropic’s actions. All more recent than your timeframe, because twitter’s search function is a pain and because my memory for twitter etc discussion is less good.
https://x.com/S_OhEigeartaigh/status/2029475839654388069 (re: gullible bunch memo)
https://x.com/S_OhEigeartaigh/status/2026957849994108990 (re: walking back RSP commitments)
https://x.com/S_OhEigeartaigh/status/2019518744561873286 (re: safety evaluations)
(I am followed by some prominent US policy people, including the outgoing white house AI adviser, so if there were a bias against people who criticise Anthropic, I would expect to be punished pretty harshly)
And while ongoing commentary on their safety/policy actions might not count for your criteria, this paper has been influential enough with policymakers that it probably counts (and goes against aspects of Anthropic’s stance on China that underlies a lot of their positions). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=5278644