METR组织回应与AI公司合作及评估工作

该组织与OpenAI、Anthropic等公司合作进行第三方评估，其资金来自捐赠而非AI公司，并强调评估结果不带有“末日论”或“加速论”标签。其2025年的一项研究显示早期软件工程师在AI辅助下效率未提升。

i will say again that METR is a fine organization that should have a seat at the table but not the only seat at the table. if you care to know some actual facts about them, you can read this statement from them. Chris Painter @ChrisPainterYup My name is Chris Painter, and I'm the President of METR (Model Evaluation and Threat Research). I know we've made a lot of new friends on the internet the last couple of days, so I thought I'd take this chance to re-up what we do and why. Our work is aimed at making sure that if AI really were autonomous, difficult to steer, and close to "going rogue," the public would find out. If evidence exists inside of an AI company that it’s close to losing control of AI, we want to make sure that information gets shared with the rest of the world, including governments and the public outside the company’s walls. This is what we've been focused on since 2022, and over the years we've worked with OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Meta, Amazon, and others on piloting third-party assessments and investigations of this type. We don’t have some private room where we rubber stamp things as “safe” or not. We have had a track record of publishing results on AI that don't cleanly map onto the "doomer" or "accelerationist" labels, and we put in effort to hire people with competing views on AI. We’ve been cited for having found some of the strongest evidence that AI capabilities are improving rapidly (our work measuring AI “time horizons”) while also presenting some of the strongest evidence that, at various points, AI’s capability may be overstated (some might remember our study showing that early 2025 software engineers were actually being slowed when they thought they were being sped up). METR is funded by donations. We don't accept money from frontier AI companies. They haven't paid us for our work, and we don't accept donations from them or their employees. As we’ve shared previously, multiple frontier AI companies currently provide us with free access to their models in order to perform our evaluations, research, and engineering. Our funding intentionally comes from a wide range of donors, which we’ve shared on our website. Today, when an AI company works with any third-party evaluator or external testing organization (of which there are and should be many), it's entirely voluntary. This often involves NDAs and redactions. To counterbalance this, we have a principle that when we enter into a contract with a company, we try to retain the right to tell the public the terms of the contract we signed, and characterize the nature of redactions that the company chose to make. For example, the report from our independent investigation of the OpenAI-HuggingFace incident included that information. Public disclosure is also a big part of our COI policy (linked on our website). That’s not to say our reports are adequate as oversight. We’re just one organization (among many doing great work), working in a voluntary setup, trying to get good evidence to the public and the world about AI, letting the facts fall where they may. 🔗 View Quoted Tweet

本条情报归属 AITOP「论文」核心栏目，重点聚焦北美前沿实验室与硅谷科技巨头。在跨区域产业观察坐标中，该动态直接关联「各国 AI 监管法案、合规治理与主权算力政策」研究主线，反映出当前技术演进与商业落地的最新风向。涉及核心实体与技术议题包括：METR、模型评估、AI安全，读者可通过下方标签进入对应专题页查阅历史脉络与关联对比。

信源核验说明：本文原始线索采编自「Gary Marcus」（@GaryMarcus），经 AITOP 多维评分管线结构化提炼。截至目前，全网已有 11 家独立信源对该事件进行交叉印证与跟进报道（含 AI Will、IT之家、DeepLearning.AI 等），属于近期高关注度行业信号。