Your tiredness is understandable and I appreciate you continuing to engage despite that!
Do you have any takes on the specific point of “When a (perhaps naive) rationalist interprets Dario to have made a commitment on behalf of Anthropic regarding safety, should they be surprised when that commitment isn’t met?”
A very specific phrasing of this question which would be useful to me: “Should I interpret ‘Zac not having quit’ to mean that his ‘Losing trust in the integrity of leadership’ red line has not been crossed and therefore, to his knowledge, Anthropic leadership has never lied about something substantial?”[1]
- ^
tbc, I’ve worked for many CEOs who occasionally lied, I think it’s reasonable for this to not be your red line. But to the extent you can share things (e.g. you endorsing a more heavily caveated version of my question), I would find it helpful.
See Paul Christiano’s Thoughts on sharing information about language model capabilities (back when METR was ARC Evals).