Chris Olah

Very proud of this amicus brief filed yesterday in the @AnthropicAI case against the Department of War from Catholic moral theologians and ethicists. The very notion of what it means to have a just war is at stake in how we respond to these matters. courtlistener.com/docket/7237965…

Introducing The Anthropic Institute, a new effort to advance the public conversation about powerful AI. anthropic.com/news/the-anthr…

I resigned from OpenAI. I care deeply about the Robotics team and the work we built together. This wasn’t an easy call. AI has an important role in national security. But surveillance of Americans without judicial oversight and lethal autonomy without human authorization are lines that deserved more deliberation than they got. This was about principle, not people. I have deep respect for Sam and the team, and I’m proud of what we built together.

I am humbled to be among the courageous leaders from Abrahamic religious traditions who put out this important statement about the @DeptofWar-@AnthropicAI dispute: faithfamilytech.org/moral-guardrai…. A short summary of the substance:

We partnered with Mozilla to test Claude's ability to find security vulnerabilities in Firefox. Opus 4.6 found 22 vulnerabilities in just two weeks. Of these, 14 were high-severity, representing a fifth of all high-severity bugs Mozilla remediated in 2025.

A statement from Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei: anthropic.com/news/where-sta…

I've decided to leave OpenAI. I'm incredibly proud of all the work I've been part of here, from helping create the reasoning paradigm with @MillionInt, scaling up test-time compute with @polynoamial, working on RL algorithms with my fellow strawberries, shipping o1-preview (which started life as of one of my derisking runs), to post-training o1 and o3 with @ericmitchellai, @yanndubs and many others. I'm most proud of having led the post-training team here for the last year -- the team has done incredible work and shipped some really smart models, including GPT-5, 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3-Codex. OpenAI has genuinely some of the most talented researchers I have ever met, and I have learned more than I could have imagined knowing since I joined as a new grad. I want to thank @markchen90 @FidjiSimo @sama @merettm for all their support over my time here, and too many collaborators to name for the insights, ideas, and just plain fun we have had working together. After leading post-training for a year, though, I'm longing to start fresh and return to IC research work. I've been thinking about going back to technical research for quite some time, and I genuinely believe my colleagues and team here are set up to succeed going forward without me. I'm personally very excited for my next chapter -- I'm proud to be joining @AnthropicAI to get back into the weeds in RL research, and I'm looking forward supporting my friends there at this important time. Many of people I most trust and respect have joined Anthropic over the last couple of years, and I'm excited to work with them again. I have also been very impressed with Anthropic's talent, research taste and values, and I'm excited to be part of what the company does next!

@aidan_mclau @scrollvoid This isn't true. Anthropic hasn't offered a "helpful-only" model without safeguards for NatSec use. Claude Gov is a custom model with extra training, including technical safeguards. (We've also had FDEs and researchers implementing it, and we run our own classifier stack.)

@CharlieBul58993 @JTillipman @bridgewriter New article from @ARozenshtein - x.com/ARozenshtein/s…

@CharlieBul58993 @JTillipman @bridgewriter (former NSC counsel) - justsecurity.org/132851/anthrop…

Very grateful to all the natsec law experts who are taking time over the weekend to provide independent legal commentary in this moment. A few that I've noticed (no doubt missing many)...

A deep dive in @lawfare on the many legal problems with the Pentagon's designation of Anthropic as a supply chain risk.

@boazbaraktcs I'm former general counsel of Army, former Undersecretary of Army, former Undersec of Defense. Not sure if that makes me a nat sec "expert." But @nabla_theta interpretation is the right one, IMO.

These are NOT meaningful redlines. For example it only prohibits autonomous weapons “ in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control.” But the relevant safeguard against autonomous weapons is a DOD directive that Hegseth can change at will! Also the surveillance redline is about “unconstrained” surveillance of “private” information. But what about “slightly constrained” surveillance of private information, or unconstrained surveillance of “public” information? Those are both potentially very dangerous forms of mass surveillance!