OpenAI and Anthropic reportedly wanted control over what safety reviewers can publish.
A report from Reuters suggests that OpenAI and Anthropic considered tighter restrictions for third-party evaluators over concerns that they could leak trade secrets. When reached for comment, OpenAI told Reuters that “its standard practice is to redact confidential information” and that evaluators can disclose if it made significant redactions. Anthropic reportedly said that it has “made clear” to existing partners that they can control their own review and publishing process. [Link: Behind AI industry's call for independent reviews, a fight over what gets made public | https://www.reuters.com/world/behind-ai-industrys-call-independent-reviews-fight-over-what-gets-made-public-2026-10-13/ | Reuters]
A report from Reuters suggests that OpenAI and Anthropic considered tighter restrictions for third-party evaluators over concerns that they could leak trade secrets. When reached for comment, OpenAI told Reuters that “its standard practice is to redact confidential information” and that evaluators can disclose if it made significant redactions. Anthropic reportedly said that it has “made clear” to existing partners that they can control their own review and publishing process. [Link: Behind AI industry's call for independent reviews, a fight over what gets made public | | Reuters]
Gathered from external sources. Rights to this text belong to whoever originally published it.