Anthropic Gives METR Team “Employee-Like Access”
In a company announcement last Thursday, Anthropic stated that it has begun to roll out “employee-like access” to a METR team. METR, a nonprofit that assesses frontier AI models, will publish its risk evaluation. Six members of METR will be involved in the assessment. While Anthropic cannot veto METR's publication, it can chose to redact information if it falls into “predefined categories.”
Below, security leaders share their thoughts on this partnership.
Security Leaders Weigh In
Darin Fredde, Sr. Director of Technical Marketing Engineering, Ridge Security:
Giving independent researchers meaningful access to AI systems is an encouraging step. There's a difference between asking someone to review your homework and letting them see how you arrived at the answers. Both have value, but the second offers a much better opportunity to discover what might have been overlooked. From an offensive security perspective, independent evaluation brings fresh eyes, different assumptions, and the freedom to ask questions that internal teams may not have considered. That's especially important as AI systems become more capable and increasingly connected to tools, data, and operational workflows. The real value will come from what researchers can examine, what they discover, and how those findings improve the systems being evaluated. Independent testing isn't about proving someone wrong. It's about building confidence through evidence rather than assumptions.
Jacob Krell, Senior Director: Secure AI Solutions & Cybersecurity, Suzu Labs:
Six people cannot audit a frontier AI lab. Anthropic giving METR employee-level access is a real step, and I would rather have it than not, but the bank examiner analogy Anthropic itself uses works against them here. Large banks get teams of resident examiners, rotating staff, and decades of examined process. Six embedded researchers get one slice of one company's output.
Employee-level access means employee-level volume. Internal risk reviews, training run documentation, incident reports, eval results. A six-person team reading that firehose while also designing its own evaluations will spend most of its capacity just keeping up. Something goes unreviewed, and the things that go unreviewed are never the things a press release mentions.
I've seen this pattern in security audits of large environments. Two auditors find real findings in the areas they had time to reach. The rest is sampling error dressed up as assurance.
The test is whether Anthropic scales embedded headcount with model capability. Six researchers against a frontier lab is a pilot. Treat the findings accordingly.
John Strand, Owner, Black Hills Information Security:
This is the best news I’ve seen all week. This is exactly the type of oversight and transparency people have been asking for. It’s rare to see a company voluntarily give an independent third party employee-level access to conduct research, evaluate safety practices, and assess risk. I hope this becomes standard across the companies building frontier models.
A lot of these companies believe oversight will slow things down or reduce innovation. But they’re forgetting something pretty basic. Their AI models going rogue is an actual business risk. Good governance means doing more than moving as fast as possible and maximizing profits at every turn. You have to build something you can sustain.
It’s great to see Anthropic taking a step in that direction. Responsible oversight is part of keeping a company around for the long term.
Looking for a reprint of this article?
From high-res PDFs to custom plaques, order your copy today!
