it's possible that their rationale for making claims about safety is in fact that they, among everyone else, are doing the most to be prudently safe. While that's a powerful tool to compete with, that doesn't make them bad. Amodei and Anthropic have never said "open models are not safe because anyone can use them," in fact to the contrary, they've said "open-weights models that don’t have dangerous capabilities are a public good". It's important not to muddy the water here with assertions about their intentions when they've actually been super clear about that in a way that I, at least, personally find difficult to disagree with -- releasing dangerous-capability models into the wild would likely be a bad idea for humanity. If you disagree, state why.

I also think you're confusing multiple different things, calling them all risks, lumping them together as equally bad, and using that to attribute contradictory/shady behavior to Anthropic. Depending on what you mean by 'sabotaging Fable briefly', you could either mean experiments they have run internally to try to improve alignment, or you could mean their attempts to restrict Fable from working on danger-adjacent work. Neither one of those is a 'risk'; they are both risk-analysis or risk-mitigation. That is not them 'doing the unsafe things they say are risks of open models', that is literally them working to avoid the unsafe things they say are risks of open models. They don't, in my experience, 'lay claim' to the 'safe AI company mantle' as much as they, apparently principledly and conscientiously, attempt to be safe and talk about what they're doing -- which is not in and of itself a problem.

If you think Anthropic is doing all of this badly, what's your optimum alternative here? What would you do in Amodei's shoes?