I don’t know the full chain of provenance for the document, given how I received it (linked by someone in a Slack server), but I don’t have any specific reason to think it’s fake. Seems like a lot of effort to go through for not much obvious gain. But it does seem worth keeping that hypothesis in mind, or similar (i.e. it is Anthropic’s letter but it was modified by 3rd parties before being published), absent an explicit confirmation or denial.
I didn’t catch this thing was not from an official anthropic doc. I think you should add something to the title or the first paragraph to clarify this, e.g., “Re: Anthropic’s suggested SB-1047 amendments (unofficial)”
It’s a letter written to a California legislator by Anthropic’s state & local policy lead, on behalf on Anthropic, so I don’t think it’s “unofficial”. “Unconfirmed”, maybe? I am not currently in sufficient doubt that the letter is real to put that in the title, but I’ll add it to the top of the post.
I don’t know the full chain of provenance for the document, given how I received it (linked by someone in a Slack server), but I don’t have any specific reason to think it’s fake. Seems like a lot of effort to go through for not much obvious gain. But it does seem worth keeping that hypothesis in mind, or similar (i.e. it is Anthropic’s letter but it was modified by 3rd parties before being published), absent an explicit confirmation or denial.
I didn’t catch this thing was not from an official anthropic doc. I think you should add something to the title or the first paragraph to clarify this, e.g., “Re: Anthropic’s suggested SB-1047 amendments (unofficial)”
It’s a letter written to a California legislator by Anthropic’s state & local policy lead, on behalf on Anthropic, so I don’t think it’s “unofficial”. “Unconfirmed”, maybe? I am not currently in sufficient doubt that the letter is real to put that in the title, but I’ll add it to the top of the post.