Menu
SUBSCRIBE
SUBSCRIBE
Menu

White House Accord on Super Intelligence

A blue star globe on graph paper beside black spirals on marbled paper, from Anthropic's post on METR's employee-like access

Anthropic Gives Outside AI Testers Employee-Like Access, With No Veto Over What They Publish

, , , , , , , , , , ,

METR, a nonprofit that tests AI models, will publish its analysis of Anthropic’s risks, and Anthropic can require the removal of only certain information.

 

Anthropic granted a team from METR, a nonprofit that tests the most powerful AI models, access to its internal tools and information close to what Anthropic employees have. The team is checking whether Anthropic’s AI models might try to bypass the company’s controls or take harmful actions, such as unauthorized cyberattacks. METR will publish its findings without needing Anthropic’s approval.

Anthropic said some safety information can’t be made public because it could help attackers or reveal business secrets, such as how the company trains its models. Instead, METR’s team is reviewing that information internally and will tell the public what it concludes about the risks.

METR’s team sees nearly what Anthropic’s own risk staff see

Six METR employees now have Anthropic equipment, office space, and access to internal tools and systems that Anthropic says are “roughly on par” with what its own risk assessment teams use. In September, Anthropic said testers placed inside the company can watch models being trained, follow decisions about how models are built and released, and talk directly to employees.

Anthropic tells its employees to share information with the six the way they would with a colleague. Some information is off limits, including customer data, legal advice protected by attorney-client privilege, and details of how Anthropic designs its models. Anthropic said the testers may also work with other companies, so design details could leak by accident, and those details usually matter little for judging risk.

METR can publish without Anthropic’s approval

METR will publish its analysis of how much risk Anthropic’s models pose, incidents at the company, and how the company operates. Anthropic cannot veto publication. METR says it does not accept payment for its risk assessments.

Anthropic can require METR to remove information that falls into categories the two agreed on in advance, such as anything that would reveal confidential intellectual property. Anthropic decides what falls into those categories. METR can still say publicly how much access and information it received.

Background: six AI companies promised the White House outside reviews

On Sept. 29, Google, Anthropic, Meta, OpenAI, xAI, and Nvidia signed a voluntary safety agreement with President Donald Trump, called the White House Accord on Super Intelligence. Among other commitments, the companies agreed to bring in an independent outside auditor or evaluator to check whether their safeguards work.

Anthropic said it is placing testers inside the company voluntarily, and that “every frontier AI company should do the same.”

Other testers get less access for now

Anthropic said it is setting up three levels of access for outside testers. At the first level, testers look into narrow questions, get only the access Anthropic chooses to give, and need its approval to publish. At the second, they see more and can publish without approval. Anthropic can still require some information to be removed, and testers can say publicly whether they think the removals were justified. METR’s arrangement is the third level: employee-like access, with publishing rights Anthropic describes as similar to the second level’s.

SecureBio, a research group that works to prevent pandemics, has a narrower role: it is reviewing only the chemical and biological weapons chapter of a risk report Anthropic published in August.

Anthropic is also working toward a partnership with Accenture, the consulting firm, and Faculty, Accenture’s AI business. The work would include testing the models, red-teaming them (trying to break their safeguards on purpose), and checking whether the models behave as Anthropic intends. When Anthropic announced the partnership on Sept. 18, it said it would pay Accenture directly for the work.

Anthropic said it is in early talks with other organizations. Over time, it hopes to have several testers at the third level, each publishing its own analysis of the risks from Anthropic’s models and the major decisions the company makes about them. It did not say when METR will publish.

AI-generated illustration of Donald Trump and Jay Clayton beside the U.S. Capitol, for the Super Intelligence Force story

Trump Names Four Officials to Lead Super Intelligence Force

, , , , , , , , , ,

The group, first announced in September as AI Force, will coordinate the federal government’s AI work and its dealings with companies, consumers, and critical infrastructure providers.

 

President Donald Trump named four senior officials to lead the Super Intelligence Force, the government body he first announced last month as AI Force. In an Oct. 4 Truth Social post, Trump said the force will coordinate the federal government’s work on AI and report to him and to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.

The post uses “Super Intelligence” for the technology Trump called AI when he announced AI Force.

The new wording follows an executive order Trump signed on Sept. 29. The order directs federal departments and agencies to use “Super Intelligence” and “SI” in place of “Artificial Intelligence” and “AI” in official correspondence, public statements, websites, reports, and policy documents. It says the most advanced systems now go far beyond what the term “artificial intelligence” was coined to describe.

The order says the new terms cover the same technologies that federal law already defines as artificial intelligence. It also gives the president’s science and technology adviser 60 days to propose legislation that would define “Super Intelligence” in federal law.

Four sitting officials will lead the force

Trump named these leaders:

  • Jay Clayton, the Director of National Intelligence, who oversees the U.S. intelligence agencies.
  • Andrew Ferguson, chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces consumer protection and competition law.
  • Emil Michael, the Under Secretary of War for Research and Engineering and Chief Technology Officer, who oversees military research and technology.
  • Scott Kupor, director of the Office of Personnel Management, which manages the federal civilian workforce.

The post does not say whether the four officials will give up any of their current duties, or whether the force will have its own staff or budget.

The force will coordinate federal AI work and contacts with companies and the public

Trump gave the force two jobs. The first is to coordinate the federal government’s effort “to ensure that America continues to lead the World in Super Intelligence.” Trump wrote that the effort “will protect the interests, and improve the lives, of all Americans.”

The second job is to coordinate the government’s dealings with five groups: consumers, public interest groups, religious organizations, AI companies, and critical infrastructure providers, the companies that run services such as power, water, and communications.

The post does not mention any power for the force to write rules, investigate companies, or enforce laws.

Trump’s post answers some of the questions he left open in September

When Trump announced AI Force on Sept. 19, he compared it to the Space Force created during his first term. He did not identify its members, explain what it would be empowered to do, or say whether it would operate through the White House or an existing federal agency.

The Oct. 4 post names the leaders and has them report to the White House. It does not say what the force is empowered to do.

Trump also said in September that he would soon announce an AI “czar.” The Oct. 4 post does not name one.

The force follows calls to slow AI development and a voluntary safety accord

Jacob Coxon, a former researcher at OpenAI and Anthropic, resigned from Anthropic on Sept. 8 and warned that companies were building increasingly powerful AI systems faster than they could understand or control them. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) responded by calling for greater government intervention.

Separately, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei proposed that leading developers slow improvements to their most powerful models so safety testing and monitoring could keep pace. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Elon Musk, and Google DeepMind’s Demis Hassabis publicly supported the proposal. Trump rejected it, arguing that a slowdown would weaken the United States in its AI competition with China.

On Sept. 29, Google, Anthropic, Meta, OpenAI, xAI, and Nvidia signed the White House Accord on Super Intelligence, a voluntary agreement with Trump. The six companies committed to monitor their most powerful AI models for dangerous abilities and behavior, including unintended hacking. They also agreed to assign an internal team to confirm their safeguards work, bring in an independent outside reviewer, and have a committee of their board of directors oversee the monitoring and reviews.

In the Oct. 4 post, Trump wrote that the companies that signed the accord had “confirmed their responsibilities to the American People” and said he was forming the force following the accord.

The accord sets no timetable for turning its commitments into law, and Trump’s post gives no date for the force to begin work.

Donald Trump seated with tech leaders at a long White House dining table, for a story on the White House safety accord

Six AI Companies Sign Voluntary White House Safety Accord

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The agreement calls for independent outside assessments and board oversight of safeguards for the companies’ most powerful AI models.

 

Google, Anthropic, Meta, OpenAI, xAI, and Nvidia signed a voluntary safety accord with President Donald Trump, committing to monitor their most powerful AI models and have their safeguards checked internally and by independent reviewers. The White House Accord on Super Intelligence sets out four layers of checks and oversight.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) announced the agreement following a White House meeting with Trump and technology leaders. Johnson described the commitments as voluntary and said the companies had agreed to take responsibility for the safety of their products.

Companies Commit to Four Layers of Safety Checks

The accord sets out the following commitments:

  1. Monitor models during training and after deployment for dangerous capabilities and behavior, including unintended hacking or access to computer systems. The checks would cover cyber, biological, and chemical threats.
  2. Assign an internal team to ensure that safeguards and monitoring work, and that problems are fixed.
  3. Bring in an independent outside auditor or evaluator to assess whether those safeguards and checks work as intended.
  4. Assign an independent committee from the company’s board of directors to oversee the safety checks, receive reports from internal teams and outside reviewers, and ensure identified problems are addressed.

Accord says voluntary safety commitments could become law. Congress continues AI discussions.

Johnson said the meeting focused on balancing product safety with innovation and maintaining the United States’ advantage over China and other competitors.

“Safety and innovation are not mutually exclusive pursuits,” Johnson said.

Johnson pointed to earlier congressional work, including a bipartisan House task force that published AI policy recommendations in December 2024. Those recommendations included ideas for legislation, but Johnson said Congress had struggled to reach agreement.

Congress would “continue to assess and further deliberate in the days ahead,” Johnson said. He did not identify a new bill or legislative timetable.

The accord itself raises the possibility of turning its safety commitments into laws or regulations later. For now, the participating companies agreed to meet regularly to develop safety standards and practices. The accord sets no timetable for legislation.