- Anthropic has removed its promise not to train or release AI models without security mitigations guaranteed beforehand.
- The company will now rely on transparency reports and security roadmaps instead of strict preconditions.
- Critics argue the change shows the limits of voluntary AI safety commitments without binding regulation.
Anthropic has formally abandoned a core promise not to train or launch border AI systems unless it can ensure adequate security in advance. The company behind Claude confirmed the decision in an interview with Timemarking the end of a policy that once distinguished him among AI developers. The newly revised Responsible Scaling Policy is more focused on ensuring the company remains competitive as the AI market heats up.
For years, Anthropic presented that promise as proof that it would resist commercial pressures that pushed competitors to market ever more powerful systems. The policy effectively prevented him from advancing beyond certain levels unless predefined safeguards were already in place. Now, Anthropic is using a more flexible framework instead of categorical pauses.
The company insists that the change is more pragmatic than ideological. Executives argue that unilateral moderation no longer makes sense in a market defined by rapid iteration and geopolitical urgency. But the change appears to be a turning point in the way the AI industry thinks about self-regulation.
Under the new Responsible Escalation Policy, Anthropic commits to publishing detailed “Border Security Roadmaps” outlining its planned security milestones, along with regular “Risk Reports” assessing the model’s capabilities and potential threats. The company also says it will match or exceed the safety efforts of its competitors and delay development if it believes it is a leader in the field and identifies a significant catastrophic risk. What it will no longer do is promise to suspend training until all mitigations are guaranteed in advance.
Everyday users may not notice any changes when interacting with Claude or other AI tools. However, the barriers that govern how those systems are trained influence everything from accuracy to fraudulent misuse. When the company, once defined by its strict preconditions, decides that those conditions are no longer viable, it signals a broader recalibration within the industry.
Claudia’s control
When Anthropic introduced its original policy in 2023, some executives hoped it could inspire rivals or even inform eventual regulation. That regulatory push never fully materialized. Federal AI legislation remains stalled and the broader political climate has shifted away from developing any framework. Companies must choose between voluntary moderation and competitive survival.
Anthropic is growing rapidly, with both its revenue and portfolio outpacing rivals like OpenAI and Google, and even teasing ChatGPT receiving ads in a Super Bowl ad. But the company clearly saw the safety red line as an impediment to that growth.
Anthropic maintains that its revised framework preserves significant safeguards. The new Roadmaps aim to create internal pressure to prioritize mitigation research. Future Risk Reports aim to provide a clearer public explanation of how the model’s capabilities could lead to misuse.
“The new policy still includes some barriers, but the core promise that Anthropic would not release models unless it could ensure adequate security mitigations in advance no longer exists,” said Nik Kairinos, CEO and co-founder of RAIDS AI, an organization focused on independent monitoring and risk detection in AI. “This is precisely why continuous, independent monitoring of AI systems is important. Voluntary commitments can be rewritten. Regulation, backed by real-time oversight, cannot.”
Kairinos also noted the irony in the $20 million Anthropic gave a couple of weeks ago to Public First Action, a group supporting congressional candidates who have pledged to push for AI safety regulation. That contribution, he suggested, underscores the complexity of the current moment. Companies can advocate for stricter regulation while recalibrating their own internal constraints.
The broader question facing the industry is whether voluntary standards can meaningfully shape the trajectory of transformative technologies. Anthropic once tried to anchor itself as a model of moderation. Its revised policy requires it to compensate competitors. That doesn’t mean security has been abandoned, but it does mean the order of operations has changed.
The average person may not read responsible escalation policies or risk reports, but they live with the after-effects of those decisions. Anthropic maintains that meaningful security research requires staying on the border, not retreating. Whether that philosophy is reassuring or disturbing depends largely on one’s view of how quickly AI should move and how much risk society is willing to tolerate in exchange for progress.
Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to receive news, reviews and opinions from our experts in your feeds. Be sure to click the Follow button!
And of course you can also follow TechRadar on TikTok for news, reviews, unboxings in video form and receive regular updates from us on WhatsApp also.
