Anthropic's call for third-party evaluators is undermined by its choice of Meter, an organization critics say is deeply intertwined with both Anthropic and OpenAI. With a shared history, personnel, and ecosystem, Meter's ability to act as a truly independent referee is being heavily questioned.

The AI safety auditing ecosystem is fundamentally flawed. Auditors get minimal access (e.g., three days with Astra), are underfunded, constantly lose talent to the very labs they audit, and face legal and operational hurdles, making effective, independent oversight nearly impossible.

The concept of embedding independent auditors in AI labs is plagued by practical issues. Key challenges include finding trusted, qualified talent, securing unbiased funding (government vs. industry), and ensuring their recommendations can be enforced against powerful tech companies.

External investigators into AI incidents, like at OpenAI, face a power imbalance. Their access is limited, and they must stay on good terms with labs to be invited back, compromising the candor of their reports and hindering true oversight.

Key AI safety proponents, funded by investors like Dustin Moskovitz and Jaan Tallinn, have significant financial stakes in Anthropic and OpenAI. This creates a conflict of interest where their calls for regulation and safety directly benefit their investments by creating moats and justifying valuations.

Anthropic's proposal for independent evaluators is complicated by its close ties to Meter, the likely organization for the role. With employees and funding flowing between them, the perceived lack of independence threatens the credibility of the entire safety initiative, highlighting the need for 'ironclad' separation to build public trust.

The AI safety movement is heavily influenced and funded by the Effective Altruism (EA) community, which has deep financial and personal ties to frontier labs like Anthropic. Their push for regulation, framed as a response to existential risk, often masks a commercial incentive to create a protected duopoly.

Critics argue that proposed third-party evaluators, such as Meter, lack true independence. Their staff often includes former employees from the very AI labs they would audit (OpenAI, Anthropic), creating a "revolving door" that raises questions about conflicts of interest.

Despite concerns about independence, AI safety auditors are showing they have teeth. METER, an evaluator hired by Anthropic, publicly contradicted the lab's own risk report, stating Anthropic was not justified in its conclusion that its models posed a sufficiently low risk. This demonstrates actual friction and independent oversight in practice.