Replying to @Karim_abdelll
showing OPSD where the feedback is an extra turn confused me a lot
Had to ask claude about this as I didn't see this when skimming through the paper
another example: taking the Mythos incident CoT and sanitizing it with Kimi until it doesn't trigger the cyber classifier then triggers the reasoning extraction one when asked to classify it as concerning or not!
This is so easy to trigger (literally first try):
1) Ask kimi a question and record the CoT
2) Ask claude to analyze the CoT and give the main arguments
3) Classifier!
Anthropic classifier can't even distinguish between thinking in the prompt vs thinking from the model
💀💀💀, basically if the model would do a novel concerning thing on my current eval, we wouldn't have caught because Opus tried to work around the classifier
Someone should try character training but you only train the early layers and see if the model verbalizes more who it is 👀
More on that coming soon but it's interesting to track self report across training step when doing character training!
David Atkinson@diatkinsonOct 6🇺🇸
United StatesConnected via United States App StoreAccount-level information, not a live location or per-post device.
Replying to @diatkinson
We can test this further: trained on all 40 layers, Qwen3-14B is a terrible self-reporter.
But if we train only its first 20 layers, faithfulness reaches 0.74. Once training reaches layer 25 or beyond, faithfulness plummets, although the decisions are ~just as good.
After "you can't do cyber defense with claude", @AnthropicAI presents "you can't do monitoring with claude"
love to see that from the most AI safety aligned company!












