www.lesswrong.com/posts/eeJB8x2pK8injCuBN/is-metr-a-meaningful-check-on-anthropi...

This sentence makes a categorical claim about Anthropic's position, but Anthropic's own published policy documents say the opposite.

In "We Must Pace the Frontier" (September 2026), Dario Amodei writes that Anthropic's first step is a unilateral commitment that it "calls on governments to require other frontier companies to match." The same essay also says "The most effective method of pacing is via regulation that targets all US frontier AI companies" and that "Anthropic has long supported sensible and targeted AI regulation, specifically bills that focus on transparency and on third-party auditing."

Anthropic's earlier "Policy on the AI Exponential" (June 2026) is even more explicit. It says "It is time to go beyond transparency to more serious and binding regulation of AI" and proposes that models above a compute threshold "should undergo mandatory testing by a qualified third party", with government power to block deployment if the model presents unacceptable risks.

Those statements directly contradict the post's blanket claim that Anthropic does not think it should be regulated or required to seek impartial auditors. One can argue Anthropic's proposals are insufficient or flawed, but its publicly stated position is plainly pro-regulation and pro-third-party auditing/testing, not anti-regulation.