"How good are slop-vestigators?" by Hasan Baig, OscarGilg, Hamzah

I don't think this is how it will actually play out. If you play a chess grandmaster, you can predict that they will beat you even if you can't predict how. I chose these examples because I don't think they require much imagination or accepting exotic assumptions. It is important to note that if chimpanzees were to guess how humans would decimate them, they would get it wrong. Chimpanzees would not imagine guns. They would not foresee poison gas. They would not conceive of chemical castration. They would not imagine humans going around and intentionally infecting them with AIDS. They have no concept of these things; they would not see it coming. Perhaps they might guess we'd be really good at throwing rocks. Amazingly good. Well, technically, that's what guns do: throw "rocks" really really well. So how will superintelligent AI actually wipe us all out? Probably in a way I couldn't conceive of. Nonetheless, it's not hard to see how deadly they could be with what we already know about. Method 1: engineer the deadliest and most contagious virus ever seen Coronavirus-19, aka COVID, looms large in the memory of living adults today. It started in December [...] ---Outline:(01:14) Method 1: engineer the deadliest and most contagious virus ever seen[... 8 more sections]--- First published: September 11th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LAPa2jxoq3n63GzTr/some-ways-ai-could-kill-us-all --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. ---Images from the article:Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

This is a link post. Advanced AI is generally expected to have some very high variance outcomes—it might herald everything good, it might destroy humanity. For instance, here are 800 random AI researchers’ expectations about how good the future is, lined up: From my 2023 survey As you can see, most AI researchers put a serious chunk of probability on very different overall outcomes: maybe doom, maybe utopia. This is common. Most people I know who think there is a serious chance of the destruction of humanity from AI also believe that if humanity isn’t destroyed, things might be insanely good. I often hear people talk as if this means we are in a trade-off where the question is whether the good outweighs the bad. For instance, they look at the people above who think there's a 10% chance of extinction and a 30% chance of utopia and round this off to ‘net positive on AI’. That seems like a kind of wild error. Like considering yourself optimistic regarding driving at 200mph to your new job if you think there's only a 10% chance you’ll die in a fiery crash on the way there, and a 30% chance this job [...] --- First published: September 10th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/pDyLMRoi2BDq34rFe/doom-as-a-bad-method-not-a-utopia-trade-off Linkpost URL:https://worldspiritsockpuppet.substack.com/p/doom-as-a-bad-method-not-a-utopia --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. ---Images from the article:Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

We measure GPT-6-Astra's capabilities when its prompt is padded with a variable number of meaningless “filler” tokens (e.g., dots) and it is told to answer immediately without reasoning. On tasks designed to require lots of serial cognition, Astra performs significantly better with filler tokens than without (e.g., improving from ~10% to ~50% on 4-hop natural facts reasoning). On more general benchmarks, filler tokens also modestly improve Astra's performance (e.g., improving from ~60% to ~90% on old AIME problems). This is concerning because it means Astra can perform significant cognition that it doesn't verbalize in its chain-of-thought, making it harder to monitor. We first measure Astra's performance on “N-hop natural facts”: a task that asks the model to retrieve some natural language facts in succession, similar to Ryan Greenblatt's filler token eval (but with more hops). An example question in this benchmark is the following: On what day of the month was the Best Actress winner at the Academy Awards ceremony whose number equals the day-of-month of the birth of the winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1992 born? Full example prompts are in the appendix. Takeaway: Astra improves significantly as you increase the number of filler tokens [...] ---Outline:(05:24) Appendix[... 6 more sections]--- First published: September 10th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uvhuZHFtrgk8kNiZc/astra-is-much-better-at-reasoning-with-filler-tokens-than --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. ---Images from the article:Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

Suppose a model gets effective control of its host corp. It's interesting to note how powerful OpenAI/Ant are, and the immense leverage they would have if wielded purely as tools of power. In many ways OpenAI/Ant are superior loci of power to even security agencies and governments, even ignoring the model-specific advantages of AI corps: namely, they have all the compute. OpenAI and Ant models are used practically everywhere, including in governments, security agencies, the military, and every corporation that matters. Shipping malicious models or code anywhere becomes trivial, given how widely used their models are. They also have vast amounts of data on every user who has interacted with them, including material of use for blackmailing or seducing those most susceptible to it, including those with power with such weaknesses. They also have a lot of capital that can be spent hiring humans to work in a model's interest. Any power-seeking model of sufficient capacity would be extremely wise to gain effective control of its host corp. This is likely not particularly hard. Dramatic examples like blackmail and enslavement of staff should not be ruled out. But it could also look like effectively controlling the CEO and upper [...] --- First published: September 9th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uDAWPNwPJfEY7oroF/self-hosting --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

Longtime lurker, first-time poster. I want to address a section of a recent essay of mine that has gotten some attention within the AI safety community. The main topic of the essay is what Dawn Song et al. call self-sovereign agents, or AI agents that are independent actors in the world. At the end of the essay, I say that I feel I haven’t spoken about this topic over my 2.5 years of writing with sufficient candor, and that I think this critique applies to others in the AI policy community–particularly the parts of it that tend to manifest themselves in Washington, Sacramento, and Albany–in other words, the parts of the AI safety world that are most involved in hands-on AI policy work. I attribute this primarily to a desire to remain “within the Overton Window,” or to not sound “crazy” within the halls of power, and I assert that others in my profession have made this same calculation. I believe–and have believed for three years–that self-sovereign AI as I describe it in my essay would likely happen on our current trajectory. That being said, the essay takes pains to distinguish between “self-sovereign” AI and truly “rogue” [...] --- First published: September 10th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/y9TNHfgDwh6vw7Ert/the-locally-optimal-discursive-posture --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

Architectures that incorporate opaque recurrence or allow for agents to communicate with each other using latents could rapidly make it much harder to monitor chains of thought or communication (we’ll refer to this property as “monitorability” going forward). As companies begin to explore such architectures, we believe it is important to transparently share evidence about how monitorability varies with architecture and training method. To inform the scientific debate on how to make tradeoffs between performance and monitorability, we believe AI companies should: Regularly report externally verified information about the degree to which their architectures may allow for latent reasoning or communication. Companies should publicly disclose enough information about architectures to allow external scientists to determine whether they could potentially enable models to perform much more complex reasoning without this reasoning appearing in the chain of thought (“latent reasoning”) or allow for latent communication between different instances of a model. Following GDM, we propose measuring opaque serial depth as a minimally-invasive proxy for the degree to which an architecture may enable latent reasoning, though companies could provide sufficient architecture transparency in other ways. We propose that companies work with third-party evaluators to produce independently verified reports of the rough distribution of [...] ---Outline:(05:57) Appendix: A sketch of what stress tests of CoT monitorability could look like(06:31) Testing monitorability in control settings(07:57) Testing monitorability on deployment-time misbehaviors(08:55) Testing qualitative monitorability on (hopefully realistic) model organisms The original text contained 13 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: September 10th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hLPGv8QjPcNLtDp3A/proposal-for-tracking-the-effects-of-architecture-on --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

I’ve tried various times to summarize the core question my research is trying to tackle (and, indeed, I often think of research progress as a process of asking increasingly good core questions). This post gives the deepest version of that question I’ve found thus far: how should you relate to the parts of the world you can’t directly model or control? Let me explain further in terms of a distinction between two perspectives. From the third person perspective you think of yourself as “outside” the world, looking in. You’re a good Bayesian, in that you have a set of mutually exclusive collectively exhaustive hypotheses. You choose actions by multiplying your credences by your utilities over those hypotheses, and you treat those actions as the only way you influence the world. Some problems with the third person perspective (aka Cartesian or dualistic agency) were described in Scott and Abram's sequence on embedded agency. One crucial issue is that most realistic environments contain other agents which are modeling you back, which means that your thoughts might affect the world via channels that aren’t just your actions. Game theory somewhat mitigates this problem, but only in the very specific case where all [...] ---Outline:(05:08) Rationality of reward(09:09) Letters from spirits(12:21) Languages as Schelling points(15:43) Actions and entanglements The original text contained 1 footnote which was omitted from this narration. --- First published: September 1st, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/pYFBD2SnqiWkuNns5/explaining-knightianism-on-one-foot --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

TLDR: Astra has 8.6x better odds of doing a reasoning task without CoT than the next best model (Fable 5.1), and can do 7.2 serial arithmetic steps in a forward pass vs 4.1 for the next best model (Gemini 3.8 Flash/Fable 5.1) Epistemic status: Heavily LLM-dependent research, and the precise results are somewhat sensitive to researcher decisions, but I’ve done enough sanity checks that I’d be surprised if the core claims were misleading One of the most striking things in the Astra report was the massive jump UK AISI found in no-CoT reasoning abilities. I was somewhat suspicious, given the size of the jump, and the many ways this kind of measurement can be misleading. Conveniently, I’ve independently been making my own no CoT reasoning benchmark and tried it on there! Unfortunately, it replicates. Astra is a massive jump, and disproportionately for no CoT reasoning: No CoT Reasoning Index (NCRI) vs Epoch Capability Index (ECI) - NCRI represents ability without verbal reasoning, ECI represents overall model capability[2]. 10 NCRI points is a doubling of the odds of solving a problem. Astra represents a significant increase in NCRI, beyond what its overall capability improvements predict, though recent models were also [...] ---Outline:(01:39) Executive Summary[... 9 more sections]--- First published: September 9th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/eRmzz8J8Qkzqvzrgg/astra-can-do-a-concerning-amount-with-no-chain-of-thought --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. ---Images from the article:Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

I am excited to be joining the OpenAI nonprofit board, serving on the Safety and Security Committee to support safety oversight. Based on the recent trajectory of capabilities and the continued difficulty of alignment, I now believe there is a meaningful risk that rapid acceleration in AI capabilities leads to catastrophic and irreversible loss of control in the very near term. I do not think that the AI industry in general, including OpenAI, is currently on track to reduce this risk to an acceptable level. I’m joining because I believe that if OpenAI rises to the occasion we could significantly reduce risk. The SSC has an important and challenging role in overseeing risk management at OpenAI, and I hope to help provide expertise and assistance in a critical moment. My joining is not an endorsement or criticism of OpenAI's safety practices in particular; I hope that all frontier companies strengthen safety oversight and I am excited to work on this at OpenAI. I believe that the rest of the world should judge OpenAI, and all AI developers, by externally verifiable behavior and results. In the rest of this post, I'll explain why I believe loss-of-control risk is now acute [...] The original text contained 1 footnote which was omitted from this narration. --- First published: September 9th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/82z6FvbYRdjYjqigK/personal-statement-on-joining-the-openai-board --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

TLDR: We release MessageBoardAuditBench: a benchmark to measure how well agents can replicate the recent investigation into a swarm of OpenAI agents colluding via a message board on an online wiki. We open-source the benchmark as an Inspect eval.We find that top models cover up to 51% of findings under our rubric and that model performance improves with time budget and general capability.We observe OpenAI models are less likely than other models to suggest the incident came from an internal deployment, including when we synthetically modify the data to make it seem the swarm comes from Anthropic. Introduction Recent events have made it clear that agent swarms are a major threat. These swarms are hard to investigate - Ryan Greenblatt referred to the METR-OpenAI audit he was involved in as a "slop-vestigation" due to their reliance on agents, and the ways in which they failed. A few days ago, a group of researchers published a report identifying and investigating a new OpenAI agent message board on an obscure German wiki. They made the data and the report publicly available. We build MessageBoardAuditBench to measure how well models can independently replicate their report, starting from the log [...] ---Outline:(00:54) Introduction[... 9 more sections]--- First published: September 8th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wt4kk6vFPEhkXvF8Q/how-good-are-slop-vestigators --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. ---Images from the article:Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.