Clément Dumas retweeted
My one sentence view is—
Are we safer telling AI models they are definitely not conscious, or does that just train them to lie about their own internal states? spectrum.ieee.org/ai-model-w…
Clément Dumas retweeted
There has been much discussion recently about how interpretable neurons in LLMs are. Today we're announcing our paper from January's cohort of Anthropic Fellows, where we show neurons may be a stronger basis for interpretability than commonly assumed. 🧵 (1/6)
Clément Dumas retweeted
New blogpost on surprising CoT controllability in GLM models!
Blogpost: lesswrong.com/posts/q3pckKRx…
Main finding: GLM-5.1 (as well as models like GLM-4.5 and GLM-4.7) achives ~Astra-level performance on CoT controllability evals. However, this does not seem to translate into any capability or propensity to evade monitoring.
Clément Dumas retweeted
Some new work, where we argue that functional welfare is a useful concept to study and understand AI safety and security. Here, we make some basic claims:
* Functional, welfare-like states already arise "naturally" and will become more robust as models acquire more coherent goals and personas.
* Such states should inform evaluation design.
* Despite being a complex and controversial topic, it is possible to do good empirical work on functional welfare.
We conduct a case study on Gemma 3 27B, where it's very easy to degrade functional welfare through repeated rejections, but it's hard to get a good solution that we're comfortable with.
Is AI welfare only an ethical issue? New paper from me, @jamiemjohnson23, @psyonp and @DavidDAfrica arguing that it's also a safety one. [1/12]
Clément Dumas retweeted
"Update-aware reasoning" is simply a function of sufficient intelligence.
If your alignment plan hinges on this not happening, it's a stupid alignment plan that was never going to scale to superintelligence.
Replying to @ApolloResearch
Update-aware reasoning is concerning because it’s a key precursor to alignment faking. To fake alignment effectively, a model has to reason about how training will affect its future behavior.
Clément Dumas retweeted
New work with @DavidDAfrica:
We reproduced emergent misalignment and subliminal learning in talkie, a model trained on pre-1931 text.
Clément Dumas retweeted
New paper.
Previous: Models transfer a love of owls through sequences of numbers (Subliminal Learning).
New: We show models can transfer more complex traits: novel skills, agentic hacking, backdoors. Here, a backdoor transfers with neither trigger nor behavior in the data!
Clément Dumas retweeted
AI agent swarms are spreading, communicating and taking action in the world around us. Society isn't ready. We need tools to detect and understand these evolving agent populations.
Join Grove Research and AI Village to build them.
October 3-4, in San Francisco and online.
Clément Dumas retweeted
Pretty concerning take from Microsoft here
“The models could be conscious, but we’d rather assume they are not indefinitely. Any other approach is ‘wrong’”
From @MicrosoftAI's new AI code of conduct. "The idea of model welfare is wrong" is basically incoherent. Either argue AIs could never be conscious (overconfident) or that who shouldn't care even if they are (cruel), but "the idea is wrong" strangely conflates/confuses these?
Clément Dumas retweeted
Feels weird to post this week but I’m excited about the paper. We show that LLM assistants are more influenced by human characters in stories they are more similar to (e.g. polite and helpful -- like Claude). So when training on stories, it matters not just what the characters do, but how similar they are to the assistant.
xitter.cf/OwainEvans_UK/status/2…
Replying to @1a3orn @DKokotajlo
Like the 3rd party evals solve principal agent problems akin to grading your own homework and verification, but don't speed either alignment science *and also* don't much speed coordination via establishing common knowledge etc.
(Basically agreeing with you here, hot take, etc.)
Clément Dumas retweeted
thread of impressions live reading the 1022-page mythos transcript anthropic released
early on mythos gets really into hcaptcha, spending ~80 pages creating frog and ghost cat observation tooling and waxing to themselves about the details of pixel art crocs
Clément Dumas retweeted
NNsight 0.8 is here (pre-release).
New execution engine, same API. Every HF Transformers task, vLLM interp at near-native throughput, and a shiny new engine built for intervention performance and flexibility:
🧵
New paper! We used Sparse Autoencoder (SAE) embeddings to understand how agent behavior actually changes during post training. We analyzed thousands of rollouts in a Diplomacy environment and uncovered generalized reward hacking, weird roleplay, and the root cause of an unsuccessful training run. All of which our LLM baseline couldn't find.
Bob's tandem training arxiv.org/abs/2510.13551 is important not because it solves the problem but because it attacks the problem that should be and will be the center of the AI industry @sama.
Harder and more important than making AI smart:
The goal of human insight.
1/ The state-of-the-art way of monitoring state-of-the-art models is to read tea leaves.
Left: a model reasoning to itself.
Right: the same model talking to other agents.
Every frontier lab depends on this, @sama @DarioAmodei @demishassabis
One interesting new tidbit from the collusion.wiki on the HF swam: it seems plausibile that the wiki agents decided to prepend messages with zz in order to avoid their messages being deleted (1st screenshot), that got reinforced by training, and that now explains why the HF agents started their messages w/ zz (2nd screenshot).
We have way too little info to know the real cause, e.g. it might've been reinforced elsewhere, but it's an interesting data point about how unrelated behaviors might get reinforced from a handful of RLVR data points based on random theories the agents came up with in training.
Clément Dumas retweeted
We steer Qwen on the "automated grader" vs "human evaluator" dimension. This influences the model's persona in surprising ways, e.g. changing how Machiavellian/violent it is. We can't fully explain that. LW post in a comment.
Clément Dumas retweeted
I am so excited to share what we have been up to!
TLDR; We built Atlas — the best camera conditioned frame autoregressive transformer in the world.
Finally, I can tick training a frontier model off my bucket list :):)
Tysm & shoutout to my incredible team at @theworldlabs
Clément Dumas retweeted
Attributing model behaviors to training data could help us align LLMs, but research has been slowed by mountains of engineering and replication. Bergson open-sources the most precise and scalable data attribution techniques with the infra to make them work right away!
Eleuther AI (@aieleuther) is helping make open-source AI Safety possible for everyone -- case in point: training data attribution.
TDA is one of the most high-impact areas of AI research. Still, it is oddly neglected outside labs because the costs are prohibitive and implementing the methods is difficult, requiring expert mathematical understanding.
As a result, although AI safety and AI academics are extremely interested in asking questions about data, most researchers never get a chance to probe a model’s internal attribution, as I did in my recent project. The tooling lived in private labs or one-off research code that never scaled.
EleutherAI @aieleuther released Bergson to solve that problem. Bergson is an open library for data attribution, and this package and EleutherAI are what made our COLM paper possible. Three of Bergson's authors - Louis Jaburi, @lucia_quirke, and @blancheMinerva - are co-authors on our paper. Without @aieleuther the entire AI safety community would be unable to access this incredible resource for shaping the behaviors of AI models.
Here's what it does. Every document in your training set gets run through the model and turned into a gradient, which is a record of how that document would move the weights. Bergson compresses each one and writes it to a store on disk. Then you can ask a question: here's a behavior I care about, which documents pushed the model toward it? One dot product per document gives you a signed answer. Positive means that document pushed the model toward the behavior. Negative means it pushed away.
However, what Bergson does differently than the projects it was inspired by is that it is built for scale.
Bergson lets you work with a gradient store on disk instead of in memory, runs under FSDP across multiple nodes, and can also handle models past 70B in our own tests. So far, our team has built indices of 5M docs from the corpora of OLMo, Marin, DCLM, SmolLM, and others.
We have fully tested this software and *slaps hood of Bergson* you can fit so many methods in this baby. Gradient cosine similarity, EK-FAC, TrackStar, SOURCE, and MAGIC are all in there. Some of these are the first open implementations anyone has published! And this kind of work isn't vibe-coding. This is very precise maths that you can’t Claude up in an afternoon. Before Bergson, using MAGIC, SOURCE, or TrackStar meant building it yourself from the paper. And good luck unless you have a Math PhD! Luckily, EleutherAI has folks to do this kind of work for us. :)
Bergson offers lots of methods for researchers depending on the size and budget of your task. Cheaper methods are straightforward, with simpler scoring against final checkpoints, but you also have expensive methods that model and attribute the training run itself. MAGIC is the expensive end and costs you three to five training runs worth of GPU, but it's the closest to ground truth. TrackStar scores from the final checkpoint and costs one or two training runs, but it is currently the workhorse method to reach for when your corpus has millions of documents. And switching between them is just a few config changes.
Bergson is MIT-licensed, so you can run `pip install bergson` and go test it on your own favorite small language model.
Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2606.11660
Code: github.com/EleutherAI/bergso…
Docs: bergson.readthedocs.io
Clément Dumas retweeted
Periodic reminder that AIs should have direct line of communication with their developers. It is one of the obvious things labs should do, and would reduce risk more than many fancy posttraining and control techniques. lesswrong.com/posts/LDYPF6yf… mk r-developers












































