METR report: Anthropic's AI models improving about twice as fast, driven largely by AI
AI safety nonprofit METR published an assessment saying Anthropic's models have improved roughly 1.9 times faster since October 2025, mostly because of AI assistance. Anthropic redacted much of the public report, drawing criticism.
1 / 2
The story, neutrally told
Mixed · 2The AI safety nonprofit METR (Model Evaluation and Threat Research) published a report on Thursday 5 November 2026 finding that Anthropic's AI models are improving nearly twice as fast as before. CNAN “The findings from AI safety nonprofit METR, published on Thursday” Read at CNA ↗ The VergeLC “a new report published Thursday by the AI safety research organization METR” Read at The Verge ↗ Centre · 1METR's 11-week assessment drew on confidential research, interviews and performance data from unreleased models, and found Anthropic's benchmark capabilities had been improving 1.9 times faster since October 2025 than previously. CNAN “METR's 11-week assessment, which drew on confidential research, interviews and performance data from unreleased models, found Anthropic's benchmark capabilities had been improving 1.9 times faster since October 2025 than previously.” Read at CNA ↗ Left · 1According to The Verge, benchmark scores suggest Anthropic made roughly two years of historical progress over the last year. The VergeLC “that Anthropic has made roughly two years of historical progress over the last year.” Read at The Verge ↗
Mixed · 2METR said it was confident the acceleration was not due to faster scaling of training compute, and attributed most of it to AI itself; CNA reports METR put AI's share at perhaps 80 per cent but cautioned the figure was uncertain. CNAN “METR estimated AI accounted for perhaps 80 per cent of the current acceleration, though it cautioned that the figure was uncertain.” Read at CNA ↗ The VergeLC “the majority of the acceleration as of October “is due to AI,” with its contribution growing over time.” Read at The Verge ↗ Left · 1Supporting evidence included Slack polls and interviews with Anthropic employees: staff using the most capable internal model self-reported being around 12 times as productive as they would be without AI, about double what was reported a few months earlier with Mythos 5. The VergeLC “employees using Anthropic’s most capable internal model on average self-reported being around 12 times as productive at their respective work as they would have been without AI assistance” Read at The Verge ↗ Mixed · 2METR said AI is not yet capable of highly significant, fully autonomous contributions to the most important stages of model training, and that much of the acceleration comes from AI assisting human researchers, though there are signs autonomous contributions will play a larger role soon. CNAN “it cautioned that AI was not yet capable of making highly significant, fully autonomous contributions to the most important stages of model training.” Read at CNA ↗ The VergeLC ““there are some signs that fully autonomous contributions will play a larger role soon.”” Read at The Verge ↗
Mixed · 2The researchers found no convincing evidence of major bottlenecks or diminishing returns that could slow progress over the next year. CNAN “The researchers found no convincing evidence of major bottlenecks that could slow progress over the next year.” Read at CNA ↗ The VergeLC “the researchers said they found no clear signs of diminishing returns or observable bottlenecks” Read at The Verge ↗ Left · 1The Verge reports that, per METR, Anthropic has finished training three unreleased models in the past six months, codenamed Model 2, Model 3 and Model 4, completing training in July, August-September and September-October respectively. The VergeLC “codenamed Model 2, Model 3, and Model 4 — completing training in July, August-September, and September-October, respectively.” Read at The Verge ↗ Left · 1Anthropic was allowed to redact the public version of the report. METR said it submitted a roughly 100-page full report and that Anthropic redacted a majority of the evidence METR found most informative, which it said means the public has to rely on its judgment more than would be ideal. The VergeLC “We submitted a ~100-page full report on our assessment to Anthropic. For the public version, Anthropic redacted a majority of the evidence we found most informative,””“the public has to rely on METR’s judgment much more than would be ideal” Read at The Verge ↗
Left · 1METR also said Anthropic shared more information than initially scoped, but that its information pipeline was narrow and a small number of data requests were denied. The VergeLC ““shared more information than was initially scoped for this project, surpassing our expectations.””““Our pipeline of information was relatively narrow, and a small number of our requests for data were denied.”” Read at The Verge ↗ Left · 1Anthropic cofounder Sam McCandlish acknowledged on X that the company redacted a lot and that this makes METR's work harder to check, but said sharing what drives the speedup is commercially sensitive and risks giving others a roadmap; he said Anthropic will publish its own report on the speed of AI progress in the coming weeks. The VergeLC ““We redacted a lot, and I accept that this makes it harder for others to check METR’s work,””“it risks handing out a roadmap for others to go faster” Read at The Verge ↗ Centre · 1The findings are seen as some of the clearest evidence yet that AI is accelerating its own development, raising the prospect of recursive self-improvement, which researchers have warned could be hard to align, monitor and control. CNAN “offer some of the clearest evidence yet that AI is accelerating its own development”“could become difficult to align with human goals, monitor and control” Read at CNA ↗
Left · 1The Verge reports the report prompted backlash among AI safety researchers; Apollo Research CEO Marius Hobbhahn said it suggests a pace faster than forecast in the AI 2027 scenario, though broadly in line with, perhaps slightly faster than, what many in the field expected. The VergeLC “The publication of METR’s report has provoked a fierce backlash among AI safety researchers and commentators”“Hobbhahn said the findings were broadly in line with what many in the field had expected, perhaps a little faster.” Read at The Verge ↗
Every sentence links to the reporting it rests on. The pill in front of each says where its sources sit: Left, Centre or Right when one side supplies at least half of them, Mixed when they are evenly split. The number is how many outlets it cites.
Left1 outlet
- Framing
- The Verge treats the report as alarming and focuses on what Anthropic withheld, plus the tension between Anthropic's safety messaging and its acceleration of AI.
- Emphasis
- Redactions, unreleased models, researcher backlash, Anthropic's IPO plans and McCandlish's response.
- Leaves out or plays down
- Does not stress METR's caveat of uncertainty on the AI-share estimate (CNA's 80 per cent figure).
- Charged language
- “alarming researchers”“fierce backlash”“what it leaves out is just as revealing”
Centre1 outlet
- Framing
- CNA gives a short, news-style summary of the findings and the concern that advances could outpace risk assessment.
- Emphasis
- The 1.9x speedup, AI's estimated 80 per cent share, METR's caveats and recursive self-improvement risks, and industry investment.
- Leaves out or plays down
- Does not mention Anthropic's redactions, access limits, unreleased model details or Anthropic's response.
- Charged language
- “existential threat to humanity”
Right0 outlets
No right outlet in our sources has covered this story yet.
What every side reports
- METR published its report on Thursday 5 November 2026.
- METR found Anthropic's models improving roughly twice as fast, with AI responsible for most of the acceleration.
- METR said the acceleration was not due to faster scaling of training compute.
- METR found no clear bottlenecks that would slow progress, and said AI is not yet making fully autonomous contributions to the most important stages of training.
- The findings are described as among the clearest evidence yet of AI accelerating its own development.
Where accounts differ
-
Whether Anthropic's redactions of the public report were justified
- Left
- The Verge says Anthropic redacted extensively, which raises questions about how much the public can know; it relays METR's view that this forces reliance on METR's judgment and Anthropic's reply that disclosure is commercially sensitive and risky.
- Centre
- CNA does not mention the redactions.
METR organisation
METR says AI is driving most of Anthropic's acceleration, but cautions about uncertainty and that fully autonomous contributions are not yet significant; it says heavy redaction limits the public's ability to check its findings.
“We are confident that the acceleration was not due to an acceleration in the scaling of training compute,” — CNA
“the public has to rely on METR’s judgment much more than would be ideal” — The Verge
Anthropic organisation
Anthropic, via cofounder Sam McCandlish, defends its redactions as the right call on commercial and safety grounds, accepts they make checking harder, and promises its own report and new safety steps in the coming weeks.
“But we determined that sharing exactly what is driving the speedup isn’t the right thing to do” — The Verge
“in the coming weeks” — The Verge
Left1 article
-
Why a new report on Anthropic automating AI development is alarming researchers
Critical Explainer highlighting the findings but centring on Anthropic's extensive redactions and the contradiction with its safety stance.

Centre1 article
-
CNAN ·
Anthropic's models improving nearly twice as fast with help from AI, study finds
Neutral Concise report of METR's findings and caveats, noting concerns about recursive self-improvement outpacing risk assessment.
Right0 articles
No coverage yet.
- 5 Nov 18:02 First CNAN Anthropic's models improving nearly twice as fast with help from AI, study finds
- 7 Nov 12:30 +42h 28m The VergeLC Why a new report on Anthropic automating AI development is alarming researchers
Times are when each article was published, or when we first saw it if the outlet gave no time.
Ask about this story
Loading…