Frankly that's an irrelevant first order thinking.

If Sam would let it go what would happen? Nothing. Criticism and comparisions already exist and will exist. Having it coming from board member at least gives counter argument that they're well aware of potential problems and there is opportunity to address gaps if they are confirmed.

If regulators find argument in the paper reasonable and that's going to have impact - what's wrong with that? It just means argument was true and should be addressed.

They don't need to worry about commercial side because money is being pured more than enough.

The nature of safety research is critical by definition. You can't expect to have research constrained to talk only in positive terms.

Both sides should have worried less and carry on.

but her job is to do exactly that. anybody in this space knows Anthropic was formed with the goal of AI Safety. her paper just backed that. is she supposed to lie?

What she is supposed to do is bring the issues to the company so that they can be fixed.

That's the pro safety solution.

It is a complaint, or a discussion of the need for caution?