Anthropic's Responsible Scaling Policy uses an if-then structure: if models pass a certain capability, Anthropic imposes a set of safety and security requirements.
Resolved true The record shows it happened or was so.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
The evidence is the person's or their organisation's own records.
Said for an organisation they lead or work for; it counts on both records.
What would count as true or false
Judge as of 2024-11-11. True: Anthropic's Responsible Scaling Policy as published by then sets capability thresholds that, once reached or approached, trigger specified safety and security requirements (AI Safety Levels / required safeguards). Mostly true: this structure is present, with a minor difference in detail, for example thresholds triggered by evaluations indicating the capability might be reached rather than definitively passed. Mixed: the policy only partly has this structure. Mostly false: the policy refers to capabilities and safeguards, but they are not linked conditionally. False: the RSP has no such structure.
Set before the research began.
Evidence (4)
-
E1 Our updated Responsible Scaling Policy Anthropic · 15 October 2024 Own record
“Capability Thresholds: Specific AI abilities that, if reached, would require stronger safeguards than our current baseline.”
-
E2 Our updated Responsible Scaling Policy Anthropic · 15 October 2024 Own record
“Required Safeguards: The specific ASL Standards needed to mitigate risks once a Capability Threshold has been reached.”
-
E3 Our updated Responsible Scaling Policy Anthropic · 15 October 2024 Own record
“Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) weapons: If a model can meaningfully assist someone with a basic technical background in creating or deploying CBRN weapons, we require enhanced security and deployment safeguards (ASL-3 standards).”
-
E4 Our updated Responsible Scaling Policy Anthropic · 15 October 2024 Own record
“Autonomous AI Research and Development: If a model can independently conduct complex AI research tasks typically requiring human expertise—potentially significantly accelerating AI development in an unpredictable way—we require elevated security standards (potentially ASL-4 or higher standards) and additional safety assurances”
Reasoning
Anthropic's official announcement of its updated Responsible Scaling Policy, dated 2024-10-15 (before the claim date), defines Capability Thresholds as specific abilities that, if reached, require stronger safeguards (E1). It defines Required Safeguards as the ASL Standards needed once a threshold has been reached (E2). The announcement also gives concrete conditional rules for CBRN weapons, which require ASL-3 safeguards (E3), and for autonomous AI research and development, which require elevated security standards (E4). Together these show the if-then structure the claim describes. This rests only on Anthropic's own published policy announcement, which here counts as the official record of the policy itself.
Cite this claim
Dario Amodei, “Anthropic's Responsible Scaling Policy uses an if-then structure: if models pass a certain capability, Anthropic imposes a set of safety and security requirements.” (said 11 November 2024). Verdict: resolved true. Reliability API, claim c_0036bea19755, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_0036bea19755
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Dario Amodei
-
Mostly true
“So we did this experiment where we basically train the model to be all the good thing, helpful, honest, harmless, friendly.”
Anthropic ran an experiment training a model to be helpful, honest, harmless and friendly.
-
Resolved true
“They're not yet at the stage where we think that there is a real and meaningful increase in the threat end to end,”
-
Resolved true
“10 to 25% referred to the chance of civilization getting substantially derailed, right?”
-
Mostly true
“this lack of understanding is essentially unprecedented in the history of technology.”
-
Mostly true
“We were able to provide a strong theoretical basis for having conviction that superposition was the right hypothesis to pursue.”
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.