the threat model you’re describing is out of scope for our RSP, as I think the May 14 update (last page) makes clear
I disagree. I address that section explicitly here:
From the Anthropic RSP:
When a model must meet the ASL-3 Security Standard, we will evaluate whether the measures we have implemented make us highly protected against most attackers’ attempts at stealing model weights.
We consider the following groups in scope: hacktivists, criminal hacker groups, organized cybercrime groups, terrorist organizations, corporate espionage teams, internal employees, and state-sponsored programs that use broad-based and non-targeted techniques (i.e., not novel attack chains).
[...]
We will implement robust controls to mitigate basic insider risk, but consider mitigating risks from sophisticated or state-compromised insiders to be out of scope for ASL-3. We define “basic insider risk” as risk from an insider who does not have persistent or time-limited access to systems that process model weights. We define “sophisticated insider risk” as risk from an insider who has persistent access or can request time-limited access to systems that process model weights.
My best understanding is the RSP commits Anthropic to being robust to attackers from corporate espionage teams (as included in the list above).
The RSP mentions “insiders” as a class of person Anthropic is promising less robustness from, but doesn’t fully define the term. Everyone I have talked to about the RSP interpreted “insiders” to mean “people who work at Anthropic”. I think it would be a big stretch for “insiders” to include “anyone working at any organization we work with that has persistent access to systems that process model weights”. As such, I think it’s pretty clear that “insiders” is not intended to include e.g. Amazon AWS employees, or Google employees.
One could potentially make the argument that Google, Microsoft and Amazon should be excluded on the basis of the “highly sophisticated attacker” carve-out:
The following groups are out of scope for the ASL-3 Security Standard because further testing (as discussed below) should confirm that the model would not meaningfully increase their ability to do harm: state-sponsored programs that specifically target us (e.g., through novel attack chains or insider compromise) and a small number (~10) of non-state actors with state-level resourcing or backing that are capable of developing novel attack chains that utilize 0-day attacks.
Multiple people I talked to thought this was highly unlikely. These attacks would not be nation-state backed, would not require developing novel attack chains that use 0-day attacks, and if you include Amazon and Google in this list of non-state actors, it seems very hard to limit the total list of organizations with that amount of cyber security offense capacity or more to “~10”.
The Claude transcripts are all using pdfs of the latest version of the RSP. I also ran this by multiple other people and none of them thought it was reasonable for a definition of “Insiders” to apply to employees at major datacenter providers. “Insiders” I think pretty clearly means “employees or at most contractors of Anthropic”. If you end up including employees at organizations Anthropic is working with, you quickly run into a bunch of absurdities and contradictions within the RSP that I think clearly show it must have a definition as narrow as this.
Therefore, I do not see how “This update excludes both sophisticated insiders and state-compromised insiders from the ASL-3 Security Standard.” could exclude employees and executives at Microsoft, Google, or Amazon, unless you define “Insider” to mean “anyone with persistent physical access to machines holding model weights” in which case I would dispute that that is a reasonable definition of “insider”. If Anthropic ships their model weights to another organization, clearly employees of that organization do not by default become “insiders” and executives do not become “sophisticated insiders”. If Anthropic ships their models to another organization and then one of their executives steals the weights, I think Anthropic violated their RSP as stated.
If you are clarifying that Anthropic, according to its RSP, could send unencrypted weights to the CEOs of arbitrary competing tech companies, but with a promise to please not actually use them for anything, and this would not constitute a breach of its RSP because competing tech companies CEOs are “high level insiders” then I think this would be really good to clarify! I really don’t think that would be a natural interpretation of the current RSP (and Claude and multiple people I’ve talked to about this, e.g. @Buck and @Zach Stein-Perlman agree with me here).
(Less importantly, I will register confusion about your threat model here—I don’t think there are teams at these companies whose job is to steal from partners with executive buy-in? Nor do I think this is likely for executives to buy into in general, at least until/unless AI capabilities are far beyond today’s.)
I don’t think this is a particularly likely threat model, but also not an implausible one. My position for a long time has been that Anthropic’s RSP security commitments have been unrealistically aggressive (but people around Anthropic have been pushing back on that and saying that security is really important and so Anthropic should make commitments as aggressive as this).
I think it would be a scandal at roughly the scale of the Volkswagen emission scandal if a major lab decided to do something like this, i.e. a really big deal, but not unprecedented. My current guess is that it’s like 50% likely that one of Google, Amazon or Microsoft has corporate espionage teams that would be capable of doing this kind of work, and something like 6% likely that any Microsoft, Google, or Amazon would consider it worth the risk to make an attempt at exfiltrating model weights of a competing organization via some mechanism like this within the next year.
> This means given executive buy-in by a high-level Amazon, Microsoft or Google executive, their corporate espionage team would have virtually unlimited physical access to Claude inference machines that host copies of the weights.
microsoft is not sending a sanctioned team of spies physically into a data center to steal anthropic weights what are you talking about man
Look, I didn’t make Anthropic’s RSP! I agree that this is currently pretty unlikely, but it’s also not completely implausible. Like, actually think about this. We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in market value depending on who can make the best models. Having access to a leading competitor’s model for the purpose of trading your own really helps. Organizational integrity has been violated for much less.
@maxhodak_
The risk to Microsoft‘s market cap for getting caught far exceeds any possible upside here
@ohabryka
I mean, it depends on the likelihood of getting caught. I agree it doesn’t look like a great EV bet right now, but I don’t think it’s implausible for it to become one within a few months.
Like, imagine a world really quite close to this one where Microsoft’s stock price is 30%+ dependent on whether they have the best frontier model, they think they can make this 10%+ more likely by stealing Anthropic’s weights, and think there is less than a 10% chance that they get caught.
In that world, which really doesn’t seem implausible to materialize in the coming months, this proposition is looking pretty good! Like, Microsoft’s stock price probably wouldn’t literally go to zero if they got caught. Even if they get caught they probably would have the ability to pin it on someone, etc.
And look, I agree with you that this is overall unlikely, but Anthropic’s RSP really isn’t about “we will be robust to anyone who has very strong motivations to hack us”.
It makes a lot of quite specific claims about the strength of their defenses against specific classes of attackers, and does not talk about only being able to defend against the subset of attackers who are particularly motivated to hack Anthropic. Like, if you explicitly promise robustness against corporate espionage teams, then it’s quite weird to exclude corporate espionage teams at three of the world’s largest corporations, who also happen to be, as things go, more motivated than others at having your weights (like, what is Toyota going to do with your weights, clearly if anyone is going to steal your weights, it’s going to be another AI lab or big tech company).
@maxhodak_
This would almost certainly be a felony, maybe under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (which offers plaintiffs some crazy tools) if not other statutes and would result in prison time for executives and probably a criminal prosecution of the corporation. This is not some business EV calculation. Microsoft as a whole would be permanently damaged. The chance that they actually have any kind of corporate espionage team attacking domestic US companies who are customers of theirs is ~0
@ohabryka
I mean, yes, and business executives sometimes commit felonies and go to jail when they experience enough pressure.
Like, think through what must have happened for stuff like the Volkswagen emission scandal. That was straightforward fraud. It had huge consequences for Volkswagen. They nevertheless did this. As far as I can tell they had much less to win than Microsoft would have in this scenario.
This feels like a quite natural category to me: there are a lot of common factors in what’s hard about achieving security from people with authorized access, and in why the marginal security benefits of doing so in this context are relatively limited (because the company has self-interested reasons to keep this set of people relatively contained and vetted).
But it’s possible that I’m the one with the idiosyncratic reading here. My reading is certainly colored by my picture of the threat models. My concern for AIs at this capability level is primarily about individual or small groups of terrorists, I think security that screens off most opportunistic attackers is what we need to contain the threat, and the threat model you’re describing does not seem to me like it represents an appreciable increase in relevant risks (though it could at higher AI capability levels).
In any case, I will advocate for the next iteration of this policy to provide clarification or revision to better align with what is (in my opinion) important for the threat model.
FWIW, this is part of a general update for me that the level of specific detail in the current RSP is unlikely to be a good idea. It’s hard to be confident in advance of what will end up making the most sense from a risk reduction POV, following future progress on threat modeling, technical measures, etc., at the level of detail the current RSP has.
Having talked to something like 5-15 people about this, many of whom had at least a non-trivial cybersecurity background, I am pretty confident that your reading is idiosyncratic!
The language models also seem to continue to think so:
Chat with Gemini Pro about RSP definitions
Me: Hey, can you help me clarify what Anthropic considers an “Insider” according to their RSP? Like, would employees or executives of datacenter providers count as “insiders”? I attached the latest version of their RSP.
Gemini Pro:
Based on the text of the Responsible Scaling Policy (Version 2.2), Anthropic differentiates between “Insiders” and third-party providers (such as datacenter staff).
Here is the breakdown of how the document defines these roles:
1. Definition of “Insider”
According to Page 13 and Footnote 11, Anthropic defines “insiders” specifically as internal employees.
The “In Scope” List (Page 13): The policy explicitly lists “internal employees” as a specific threat group alongside external groups like hacktivists and state-sponsored programs.
Insider Risk Classifications (Footnote 11): The document further breaks down “internal employees” into two categories based on their access to model weights:
Basic Insider: An insider who does not have persistent or time-limited access to systems that process model weights.
Sophisticated Insider: An insider who has persistent access or can request time-limited access to systems that process model weights.
2. Status of Datacenter Providers
Employees or executives of datacenter providers are not classified as “Insiders” under this policy. Instead, they fall under the categories of “Third-party environments,”“Supply chain,” or “Vendors.”
The RSP treats them as external entities that require their own specific set of safeguards:
Third-Party Environments (Page 12 & 14): The policy states that if models are deployed in a third-party partner’s environment (like a datacenter), Anthropic must “Document how all relevant models will meet the criteria… even if they are deployed in a third-party partner’s environment that may have a different set of safeguards.”
Supply Chain (Page 19, Appendix B): The ASL-2 Security Standard distinguishes “Supply chain” from “Workforce.”
Supply Chain: Involves “Vendor and supplier security” which must be regularly reviewed.
Workforce: Involves “internal employees” and the “insider risk program.”
Summary
To answer your question directly: No, employees or executives of datacenter providers would not count as “Insiders” according to this document.
“Insiders” = Anthropic internal staff/employees.
Datacenter Staff = Vendors/Third-party partners (subject to supply chain security reviews and third-party environment agreements).
Like, my understanding is that the definition of “sophisticated insider” you propose here includes on the order of 2,000-3,000 people, whereas when I read the RSP, and asked other people about it, they thought it would be on the order of 50-100 people. That is of course a huge difference in surface area.
I don’t think this change in surface area is the kind of change that should be left up to this much ambiguity in the RSP. I think even if you update that the level of specific detail in the current RSP is unlikely to be a good idea, I think you should be able to end up with less counterintuitive definitions and less ambiguity[1] in future revisions of the RSP.
I haven’t thought as much about all the tradeoffs as you have, so maybe this is infeasible for some reason, but I currently believe that this was a pretty clear and preventable error, instead of just a case of diverging interpretations (and to be clear, it’s OK for there to be some errors, I don’t think this thing alone should update anyone that much, though this plus a few other things should).
In any case, I will advocate for the next iteration of this policy to provide clarification or revision to better align with what is (in my opinion) important for the threat model.
I appreciate it!
My concern for AIs at this capability level is primarily about individual or small groups of terrorists, I think security that screens off most opportunistic attackers is what we need to contain the threat, and the threat model you’re describing does not seem to me like it represents an appreciable increase in relevant risks (though it could at higher AI capability levels).
I think this is reasonable! I don’t think the current RSP communicates that super well, and I think “risk from competitor corporate espionage” is IMO a reasonable thing to be worried about, at least from an outside view[2]. It seems good for the RSP to be clear that it is currently not trying to be robust to at least major US competitors stealing model weights (which is I think a fine call to make given all the different tradeoffs).
Though given that I have not met a single non-Anthropic employee, or language model, who considered the definition of “Insider” you use here natural given the context of the rest of the document I struggle to call it “ambiguity” instead of simply calling it “wrong”
It is for example a thing that has come up in at least one scenario exercise game I have been part of, not too far from where current capability thresholds are at.
I disagree. I address that section explicitly here:
The Claude transcripts are all using pdfs of the latest version of the RSP. I also ran this by multiple other people and none of them thought it was reasonable for a definition of “Insiders” to apply to employees at major datacenter providers. “Insiders” I think pretty clearly means “employees or at most contractors of Anthropic”. If you end up including employees at organizations Anthropic is working with, you quickly run into a bunch of absurdities and contradictions within the RSP that I think clearly show it must have a definition as narrow as this.
Therefore, I do not see how “This update excludes both sophisticated insiders and state-compromised insiders from the ASL-3 Security Standard.” could exclude employees and executives at Microsoft, Google, or Amazon, unless you define “Insider” to mean “anyone with persistent physical access to machines holding model weights” in which case I would dispute that that is a reasonable definition of “insider”. If Anthropic ships their model weights to another organization, clearly employees of that organization do not by default become “insiders” and executives do not become “sophisticated insiders”. If Anthropic ships their models to another organization and then one of their executives steals the weights, I think Anthropic violated their RSP as stated.
If you are clarifying that Anthropic, according to its RSP, could send unencrypted weights to the CEOs of arbitrary competing tech companies, but with a promise to please not actually use them for anything, and this would not constitute a breach of its RSP because competing tech companies CEOs are “high level insiders” then I think this would be really good to clarify! I really don’t think that would be a natural interpretation of the current RSP (and Claude and multiple people I’ve talked to about this, e.g. @Buck and @Zach Stein-Perlman agree with me here).
I don’t think this is a particularly likely threat model, but also not an implausible one. My position for a long time has been that Anthropic’s RSP security commitments have been unrealistically aggressive (but people around Anthropic have been pushing back on that and saying that security is really important and so Anthropic should make commitments as aggressive as this).
I think it would be a scandal at roughly the scale of the Volkswagen emission scandal if a major lab decided to do something like this, i.e. a really big deal, but not unprecedented. My current guess is that it’s like 50% likely that one of Google, Amazon or Microsoft has corporate espionage teams that would be capable of doing this kind of work, and something like 6% likely that any Microsoft, Google, or Amazon would consider it worth the risk to make an attempt at exfiltrating model weights of a competing organization via some mechanism like this within the next year.
I have written a bit about this in a Twitter discussion:
Thanks Oli. Your reading is quite different from mine. I just googled “insider risk,” clicked the first authoritative-ish-looking link, and found https://www.cisa.gov/topics/physical-security/insider-threat-mitigation/defining-insider-threats which seems to support something more like my reading.
This feels like a quite natural category to me: there are a lot of common factors in what’s hard about achieving security from people with authorized access, and in why the marginal security benefits of doing so in this context are relatively limited (because the company has self-interested reasons to keep this set of people relatively contained and vetted).
But it’s possible that I’m the one with the idiosyncratic reading here. My reading is certainly colored by my picture of the threat models. My concern for AIs at this capability level is primarily about individual or small groups of terrorists, I think security that screens off most opportunistic attackers is what we need to contain the threat, and the threat model you’re describing does not seem to me like it represents an appreciable increase in relevant risks (though it could at higher AI capability levels).
In any case, I will advocate for the next iteration of this policy to provide clarification or revision to better align with what is (in my opinion) important for the threat model.
FWIW, this is part of a general update for me that the level of specific detail in the current RSP is unlikely to be a good idea. It’s hard to be confident in advance of what will end up making the most sense from a risk reduction POV, following future progress on threat modeling, technical measures, etc., at the level of detail the current RSP has.
Thanks for the response!
Having talked to something like 5-15 people about this, many of whom had at least a non-trivial cybersecurity background, I am pretty confident that your reading is idiosyncratic!
The language models also seem to continue to think so:
Chat with Gemini Pro about RSP definitions
Me: Hey, can you help me clarify what Anthropic considers an “Insider” according to their RSP? Like, would employees or executives of datacenter providers count as “insiders”? I attached the latest version of their RSP.
Gemini Pro:
Based on the text of the Responsible Scaling Policy (Version 2.2), Anthropic differentiates between “Insiders” and third-party providers (such as datacenter staff).
Here is the breakdown of how the document defines these roles:
1. Definition of “Insider”
According to Page 13 and Footnote 11, Anthropic defines “insiders” specifically as internal employees.
The “In Scope” List (Page 13): The policy explicitly lists “internal employees” as a specific threat group alongside external groups like hacktivists and state-sponsored programs.
Insider Risk Classifications (Footnote 11): The document further breaks down “internal employees” into two categories based on their access to model weights:
Basic Insider: An insider who does not have persistent or time-limited access to systems that process model weights.
Sophisticated Insider: An insider who has persistent access or can request time-limited access to systems that process model weights.
2. Status of Datacenter Providers
Employees or executives of datacenter providers are not classified as “Insiders” under this policy. Instead, they fall under the categories of “Third-party environments,” “Supply chain,” or “Vendors.”
The RSP treats them as external entities that require their own specific set of safeguards:
Third-Party Environments (Page 12 & 14): The policy states that if models are deployed in a third-party partner’s environment (like a datacenter), Anthropic must “Document how all relevant models will meet the criteria… even if they are deployed in a third-party partner’s environment that may have a different set of safeguards.”
Supply Chain (Page 19, Appendix B): The ASL-2 Security Standard distinguishes “Supply chain” from “Workforce.”
Supply Chain: Involves “Vendor and supplier security” which must be regularly reviewed.
Workforce: Involves “internal employees” and the “insider risk program.”
Summary
To answer your question directly: No, employees or executives of datacenter providers would not count as “Insiders” according to this document.
“Insiders” = Anthropic internal staff/employees.
Datacenter Staff = Vendors/Third-party partners (subject to supply chain security reviews and third-party environment agreements).
Like, my understanding is that the definition of “sophisticated insider” you propose here includes on the order of 2,000-3,000 people, whereas when I read the RSP, and asked other people about it, they thought it would be on the order of 50-100 people. That is of course a huge difference in surface area.
I don’t think this change in surface area is the kind of change that should be left up to this much ambiguity in the RSP. I think even if you update that the level of specific detail in the current RSP is unlikely to be a good idea, I think you should be able to end up with less counterintuitive definitions and less ambiguity[1] in future revisions of the RSP.
I haven’t thought as much about all the tradeoffs as you have, so maybe this is infeasible for some reason, but I currently believe that this was a pretty clear and preventable error, instead of just a case of diverging interpretations (and to be clear, it’s OK for there to be some errors, I don’t think this thing alone should update anyone that much, though this plus a few other things should).
I appreciate it!
I think this is reasonable! I don’t think the current RSP communicates that super well, and I think “risk from competitor corporate espionage” is IMO a reasonable thing to be worried about, at least from an outside view[2]. It seems good for the RSP to be clear that it is currently not trying to be robust to at least major US competitors stealing model weights (which is I think a fine call to make given all the different tradeoffs).
Though given that I have not met a single non-Anthropic employee, or language model, who considered the definition of “Insider” you use here natural given the context of the rest of the document I struggle to call it “ambiguity” instead of simply calling it “wrong”
It is for example a thing that has come up in at least one scenario exercise game I have been part of, not too far from where current capability thresholds are at.