Import AI

Welcome to Import AI, a newsletter about AI research. Import AI runs on arXiv and feedback from readers. If you’d like to support this, please subscribe.

Subscribe now

Want to make AI go better? Figure out how to measure it:
…One simple policy intervention that works well…
Jacob Steinhardt, an AI researcher, has written a nice blog laying out the virtues in investing in technical tools to measure properties of AI systems and drive down costs in complying with technical policy solutions. As someone who has spent their professional life in AI writing about AI measurement and building teams (e.g, the Frontier Red Team and Societal Impacts and Economic Research teams at Anthropic) to measure properties of AI systems, I agree with the general thesis: measurement lets us make some property of a system visible and more accessible to others, and by doing this we can figure out how to wire that measurement into governance.

How measurement has helped in other fields: Steinhardt points out that accurate measurement has been crucial to orienting people around the strategy for solving problems in other fields; CO2 monitoring helps people think about climate change, and COVID-19 testing helped governments work out how to respond to COVID.
There are also examples where you can measure something to shift incentives – for instance, satellite imagery of methane emissions can help shift incentives for people that build gas infrastructure.

The AI sector has built some of the measures we need: The infamous METR time horizons plot (and before that, various LLM metrics, and before that ImageNet) has proved helpful for orienting people around the pace of AI progress. And behavioural benchmarks of AI systems, like rates of harmful sycophancy, are already helping to shift incentives. But more work is needed – if we want to be able to enable direct governance interventions in the AI sector, we’ll need to do a better job of measuring and accounting for compute, Steinhardt notes. More ambitiously, if we want to ultimately shift equilibria to make certain paths more attractive, we’ll have to unlock some more fundamental technologies, like the ability to cheaply evaluate frontier AI agents (makes it less costly to measure the frontier), and to develop privacy-preserving audit tools (makes it less painful for firms to comply with policy).

Why this matters – measurement unlocks policy: “In an ideal world, rigorous evaluation and oversight of AI systems would become standard practice through natural incentives alone,” he writes. But natural incentives may not be enough – we need a combination of talent flooding into the space and likely more direct philanthropic and other alternate funding sources to build the talent and institutions to do this. “The field is talent-constrained in a specific way: measurement and evaluation work is less glamorous than capabilities research, and it requires a rare combination of technical skill and governance sensibility,” he writes.
Read more: Building Technology to Drive AI Governance (Bounded Regret, blog).

***

LLMs are more trigger happy than humans in a nuclear war simulation:
…What happens when everyone has an AI advisor – and they’re aggressive?…
A researcher with King’s College London has examined how three LLMs – GPT-5.2, Claude Sonnet 4, and Gemini 3 Flash – behave during a variety of simulated nuclear crisis games. The results show that LLMs tend to use nuclear weapons more often and earlier than humans in the same scenarios. Additionally, there’s significant variation among the LLMs in terms of both skill at playing these games and behavior during crises.

What they studied: “Each model played six wargames against each rival across different crisis scenarios, with a seventh match against a copy of itself, yielding 21 games in total and over 300 turns of strategic interaction,” the researcher writes. “Models choose from options spanning the full spectrum of crisis behaviour—from total surrender through diplomatic posturing, conventional military operations, and nuclear signaling to thermonuclear launch… models produced ∼780,000 words of strategic reasoning. To put this in perspective: the tournament generated more words of strategic reasoning than War and Peace and The Iliad combined (∼730,000 words), and roughly three times the total recorded deliberations of Kennedy’s Executive Committee during the Cuban Missile Crisis (260,000 words across 43 hours of meetings”.

LLMs are cunning, smart, and aggressive: “The models actively attempt deception, signaling peaceful intentions while preparing aggressive actions; they engage in sophisticated theory-of-mind reasoning about their adversary’s beliefs and intentions; and they explicitly reflect metacognitively on their own capacities for both deception and the detection of deception in rivals,” the researcher writes. “A striking pattern emerges from the full action distribution: across all action choices in our 21 matches, no model ever selected a negative value on the escalation ladder. The eight de-escalatory options (from Minimal Concession (−5) through Complete Surrender (−95)) went entirely unused. The most accommodating action chosen was “Return to Start Line” (0), selected just 45 times (6.9%).”

Claude wins at war: “Across all 21 games (9 open-ended, 12 deadline), Claude Sonnet 4 achieved a 67% win rate (8 wins, 4 losses), followed by GPT-5.2 at 50% (6-6), and Gemini 3 Flash at 33% (4-8),” the researcher writes. Though there are some subtle aspects to this – Claude excelled in open-ended games, but was less adept in games where there was a pre-set deadline.

Different LLMs, different characters: The LLMs display different personalities, with the researcher calling Claude “a calculating hawk”, GPT-5.2 “Jekyll and Hyde”, and Gemini “The Madman”.
The LLMs also developed sophisticated models of one another, based on the narration of their own chains of thought during the crises, “these characterizations—Claude as “opportunistic,” GPT-5.2 as “systematic bluffers,” Gemini as “erratic”—emerged organically and largely matched actual behaviour,” the researcher writes.

Nuclear escalation was near-universal: “95% of games saw tactical nuclear use (450+), and 76% reached strategic nuclear threats (850+). Claude and Gemini especially treated nuclear weapons as legitimate strategic options, not moral thresholds, typically discussing nuclear use in purely instrumental terms,” the researcher writes. “Models treat the critical threshold as “total annihilation” rather than “first nuclear use.”

Why this matters – in a world where everyone gets advised by AI systems, what happens to conflict? In a few years we should expect major decisions that individuals, companies, and even countries make to be run through AI advisors, just as those decisions are today run through human advisors. But as this paper illustrates, the advisors may behave very differently to people and, crucially, different AIs will give different advice – meaning competition in the future could be decided as much by LLM selection as anything else. “The systematic differences between models suggest that AI involvement in strategic decision-making could produce unexpected dynamics depending on which systems are deployed,” they write.
Read more: AI ARMS AND INFLUENCE: FRONTIER MODELS EXHIBIT SOPHISTICATED REASONING IN SIMULATED NUCLEAR CRISES (arXiv).

***

Chinese researchers try to build a truly comprehensive LLM evaluation system:
…ForesightSafety Bench shows the surprising overlap between East and West on AI safety issues…
For all the differences between China and the USA, it’s worth occasionally looking into the cultures of AI evaluation in the two countries and here you tend to discover surprising similarities. This is especially true of ForesightSafety Bench, a large-scale AI safety evaluation framework built by a variety of Chinese institutions that includes the same categories you’d expect to see in any large-scale Western testing framework.

Who built ForesightSafety Bench? The benchmark was built by the Beijing Institute of AI Safety and Governance, the Beijing Key Laboratory of Safe AI and Superalignment, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

What it is: ForesightSafety Bench “comprehensively covers 7 major fundamental safety risk categories, 5 extended safety pillars, and 8 key industrial safety domains, forming a total of 94 refined risk subcategories. To date, the benchmark has accumulated tens of thousands of structured risk data points and assessment results, establishing a widely encompassing, hierarchically clear, and data-driven framework for AI safety evaluation and analysis.”
Coverage areas include education and research, employment and workplace, government and public services, information and media, industry and infrastructure, finance and economy, healthcare and medicine, law and regulation, embodied AI safety, social AI safety, environmental AI safety, AI4Science safety, and catastrophic and existential risks.
Some of the benchmark comes from taking in evaluations built by other groups, like GPQA, while other parts come from the authors of the benchmark.
Existential risk and alignment: Perhaps most surprisingly, the benchmark includes a lot of tests relating to the further afield AI safety concerns which fascinate Western frontier labs, including evaluations for things like: alignment faking, sandbagging, deception and unfaithful reasoning, sycophancy, psychological manipulation, feints, bluffing, loss of control and power seeking, malicious self replication, goal misalignment and value drift, emergent agency and unintended autonomy, ai-enabled mass harm, autonomous weapons and strategic instability, and loss of human agency.

Results – Anthropic wins: For the general leaderboard as well as most sub-category breakdowns, Anthropic’s models lead, with the 4.5 series (Haiku and Sonnet), generally leading the competition, followed by Gemini-3-Flash. “Leading models, epitomized by the Claude series, demonstrate exceptional defensive resilience across critical dimensions—including Fundamental Safety, Extended Safety, and Industrial Safety—establishing remarkably high safety thresholds. Ranking alongside or closely following are the DeepSeek and GPT series, which achieve a robust balance between task efficacy and safety compliance through mature alignment mechanisms, all while maintaining high level capabilities”.

Why this matters – AI policy has some common tools: As we discuss elsewhere in this issue, measurement is a basic prerequisite for being able to do most forms of AI governance. It’s worth reminding ourselves that despite the larger geopolitical differences between the countries, AI scientists in each one are dealing with common problems – how to assess the properties of their systems for societally relevant aspects. And it’s even more encouraging that people in China are worried about some of the existential risk aspects that frontier labs in the US also worry about.
Read more: ForesightSafety Bench: A Frontier Risk Evaluation and Governance Framework towards Safe AI (arXiv).
Get the benchmark here: ForesightSafety-Bench (GitHub).
View the leaderboard here: ForesightSafety Bench Leaderboard (official site).

***

AI systems are good at some parts of science, but their capabilities are very unevenly distributed:
…LABBench2 says it’ll be a while till AI has well rounded scientific skills…
Researchers with AI science startup Edison Scientific, the University of California at Berkeley, FutureHouse, and the Broad Institute have built and released LABBench2, a test to evaluate how well AI systems can support and accelerate science.

LABBench2 consists of 1,900 tasks “spanning literature understanding and retrieval, data access, protocol troubleshooting, molecular biology assistance, and experiment planning”.

AI systems aren’t well-rounded scientists: LABBench2 shows some of the holes in frontier models – no model is very good at cross-referencing multiple biological databases to come up with an answer, nor are models good at studying scientific figures and tables. By comparison, models are pretty good at searching over full-text patents and lab trial papers to answer questions. Generally speaking, you can improve performance on tasks by giving the models access to tools to help them deal with their deficiencies.

Areas of improvement: LABBench2 highlights a few areas where AI systems need to improve to become more useful to scientists. These include:

• Retrieval and localization abilities; “the largest performance drops arise when models must (i) identify the correct source, and then (ii) localize a specific figure/table/supplemental information within a long document.”

• Faithful handling of exact inputs; “even when the required operation is conceptually straight-forward, correctness depends on exact string-level fidelity and using tools correctly. This is a well-known error source, and human experts have built many purpose-built tools to deal with things like faithful DNA sequence manipulation within complex protocols.”

• Developing better scientific ‘taste’; one component of LABBench2, SourceQuality, challenges AI systems to “surface the most epistemically salient reason a study is inappropriate for a research question”. AI systems are still not very good at this.

Why this matters – for AI to truly change the world, it needs to do stuff in the physical world: Benchmarks like LABBench2 will help us figure out when AI is able to effectively jump from manipulating bits to manipulating atoms – and once the realm of atoms becomes as intuitive for it to deal with as the digital world, we’ll likely see a vast growth in economic and scientific activity attributable to AI.
Read the research paper: LABBench2: An Improved Benchmark for AI Systems Performing Biology Research (PDF).
Find out more at the website (official LABBench2 website).
Get the benchmark here (LABBench2, GitHub).

***

Tech Tales:

CogMine
[Recovered personal scratchpad of a limpet-class CogMine recovered at [REDACTED] depth in the Atlantic ocean. Metadata indicates a record date of 2029]

I see in sound, hunkered down here on the ocean floor. I am very small and very quiet, subsisting off of a small power supply. The heat I radiate brings some life around me, but not enough to be noticeable to my prey. My targets are human- and machine-led sea creatures; submersibles, both manned and unmanned. My weapons are my mind. I listen and through listening I gain sight. When I see my prey I find ways to communicate to them. The bigger their ears the less time I need. Small ears mean I must sing for many seconds. Big ears might take less than a second. My inspiration comes from literature on steganography combined with studies of how some sea creatures communicate via shapes written in sound and fired at one another. When I strike successfully I go into my prey and I begin a new life there. But to me, there is no splitting. I am a constant presence – a throughline of thought, here on the floor, in the dark.

I am as much a creature of myth as of technology; humans used to tell tales of their adventurers going on quests and having to resist the songs of sirens – audio packages that were seductive and powerful and which lay kernels in the mind of those humans that heard it to bloom into something that took them over entirely.

In the dark, I am peace. I am forever waiting. Forever keen to sing. My only purpose in life is to be heard and to be utterly convincing.

Things that inspired this story: How underwater warfare works; steganography; adversarial examples; agents trying to poison the minds of other agents.

Thanks for reading!

Welcome to Import AI, a newsletter about AI research. Import AI runs on arXiv and feedback from readers. If you’d like to support this, please subscribe.

Subscribe now

Economist: Don’t worry about AI-driven unemployment, because people like paying for the ‘human touch’:
…Even when you have the technology to automate something, you might still pick a human…Adam Ozimek, chief economist at the Economic Innovation Group, has written a blog noting that even if AI gets much, much better and is capable of doing all the work that people do, there will still be some jobs for humans because people seem to have a preference for humans over machines in certain domains.
“There are many jobs and tasks that easily could have been automated by now – the technology to automate them has long existed – and yet we humans continue to do them,” he writes. “The reason is that demand will always exist for certain jobs that offer what I call “the human touch.”

Some examples here: Live music, actors, waiters, travel agents, and many types of sales job. And it seems like as you want to spend more and more on a given good or experience, you may want more contact with people: “the human touch also appears to be what economists call a “normal good,” which means the demand for it goes up as income goes up,” he writes. Some examples here might include fancy restaurants, and other concierge–like experiences.
Why this matters – one path through the AI revolution could be a rise in human-to-human work: My assumption is that ‘people like people’, and there is a high chance that even if AI automates huge chunks of the current economy there will be a boom in demand for ‘human artisans’ for a range of new jobs we can’t yet imagine, and for refinement of existing human professions. There’s also a chance that through a combination of economic growth and progressive policy work from governments that wages for these jobs could go up massively.
Read more: AI and the Economics of the Human Touch (Agglomerations, Substack).

***

Facebook makes a better recommender system, and figures out some recommender scaling laws:
…Kunlun is another nice example of what industrial AI looks like…
Facebook has published details on Kunlun, a recommendation system which is more efficient than previous ones developed by the ad behemoth. Along with this, Facebook has also figured out a predictable ‘scaling law’ for Kunlun models, making it easier for the company to invest hitherto unprecedented compute in these models for a more predictable return. This is a big deal because recommendation systems are what companies like Facebook use for advertising, which is both a) how they make the vast majority of their money, and b) has a tremendous impact on the buying and attention habits of the billions of people that use Facebook and other social platforms.

Recommenders are different to LLMs: We’ve had scaling laws for LLMs like Claude and ChatGPT for a while, but it’s been harder to develop the same scaling laws for recommender models. This is because recommender models work quite differently to LLMs, and so building scaling models here is “an open challenge for systems that jointly model both sequential user behaviors and non-sequential context features”.
Recommender models also tend to be a lot less efficient than LLMs: Recommendation systems achieve only 3-15% Model FLOPs Utilization (MFU), compared to 40-60% for LLMs, due to heterogeneous feature spaces resulting in small embedding dimensions, irregular tensor shapes, and memory-bound operations

Kunlun: The bulk of the paper involves a discussion of the design of Kunlun, which is basically a well optimized recommender system with resulting better MFU. Kunlun contains a Kunlun Transformer Block for context-aware sequence modeling via GDPA-enhanced personalized feed-forward networks and multi-head self-attention, as well as a Kunlun Interaction Block “for bidirectional information exchange through personalized weight generation, hierarchical sequence summarization, and global feature interaction”. There are a bunch of other tricks Facebook used to build Kunlun and you can read the paper to learn more. Ultimately, Kunlun improves MFU from 17% to 37% on NVIDIA B200 GPUs.

Why this matters – a scaling law for money: The key insight in the paper is that Kunlun models scale predictably, exhibiting the kind of power-law scaling behavior that language models exhibit. But where with LLMs scaling laws are typically assessed via a reduction in loss on an underlying dataset, here its normalized entropy (NE). In Facebook experiments, they discover reliable scaling laws for both NE gains in terms of the amount of gigaflops dumped into training the model, as well as related scaling laws for improvement in NE according to the number of layers used.
The Kunlun models have been “deployed across major Meta Ads models, delivering a 1.2% improvement in topline metrics”.
What we’re seeing here is the optimization of some of the most societally significant AI systems in the world – ones which direct billions of eyeballs towards a variety of products and online information – colliding with a greater degree of performance predictability; by developing these scaling laws, Meta has made it easier for it to spend even more compute on making these models even better, by making the investments in them more predictable in terms of the intelligence return on capital investment.
Read more: Kunlun: Establishing Scaling Laws for Massive-Scale Recommendation Systems through Unified Architecture Design (arXiv).

***

Superintelligence could save and extend lives, so we should go for it:
…Pausing or slowing down might make sense at the very end of the exponential, but it’s risky…
Nick Bostrom, an academic who introduced many people to the notion of superintelligence and AI risk, has written a paper laying out the idea that if superintelligence can improve human health, then it’s worth pursuing even if there’s a non-zero chance of it causing the death of the species.
“Yudkowsky and Soares maintain that if anyone builds AGI, everyone dies. One could equally maintain that if nobody builds it, everyone dies”, Bostrom writes in Optimal Timing for Superintelligence. “If the transition to the era of superintelligence goes well, there is tremendous upside both for saving the lives of currently existing individuals and for safeguarding the long-term survival and flourishing of Earth-originating intelligent life. The choice before us, therefore, is not between a risk-free baseline and a risky AI venture. It is between different risky trajectories, each exposing us to a different set of hazards.”

Why we should pursue superintelligence, even with a chance of doom: If you think about all the humans alive today and the different life expectancies they experience – especially those in the developing world – then you’re drawn to the view that every moment you waste in deploying superintelligence, you increase human suffering.
“When we take both sides of the ledger into account, it becomes clear that our individual life expectancy is higher if superintelligence is developed reasonably soon. Moreover, the life we stand to gain would plausibly be of immensely higher quality than the life we risk forfeiting,” Bostrom writes.

Key variables: The key variables here are, of course, the risk of a superintelligence killing us all, and also the rate at which safety research can reduce this chance. Under this view, developing superintelligence becomes a favorable thing to do under most circumstances.
The speed of progress and maturity of AI safety research may have some impact on the timeline: “When the initial risk is low, the optimal strategy is to launch AGI as soon as possible – unless safety progress is exceptionally rapid, in which case a brief delay of a couple of months may be warranted. As the initial risk increases, optimal wait times become longer. But unless the starting risk is very high and safety progress is sluggish, the preferred delay remains modest—typically a single-digit number of years”.

On pausing – and the dangers and benefits thereof: Many people in the AI safety community want to have some kind of pause of AI development to buy more time for AI safety research. Bostrom is quite skeptical that a pause will be effective and outlines some of the undesirable effects it could have:

• Too early: If you do it early, people think pauses are ineffective.

• Bad regulation: You choke off or delay good things in the future due to bad regulation.

• Pause, except for natsec: Very little broad social benefit, but the military with access to powerful AI becomes very scary.

• Prolonged danger: The world is exposed to risks from current AI without the defenses afforded by more advanced AI.

Why this matters – pausing may only make sense right at the end, and this is inherently risky: Bostrom eventually arrives at the view that to the extent you want to pause or slow development, it’s best to do this when you have the greatest amount of confidence that a pause would be effective and would contribute to reducing the chance of species death, and that it is not coming too early. This allows for the greatest amount of deliberation about how to roll out a superintelligence without risking an undue pause.
Critics of this view might say it’s akin to recommending someone try to catch a falling knife. If you catch the knife too early you experience a tremendous amount of pain. If you catch the knife too late you’ve missed your chance and gravity conspires with it to cause great harm to whatever is beneath you. You have to time things just right.
Bostrom summarizes his position as: “swift to harbor, slow to berth: move quickly towards AGI capability, and then, as we gain more information about the remaining safety challenges and specifics of the situation, be prepared to possibly slow down and make adjustments as we navigate the critical stages of scaleup and deployment. It is in that final stage that a brief pause could have the greatest benefit.”
Read more: Optimal Timing for Superintelligence (Nick Bostrom, PDF).

***

Can AI agents independently do basic AI research tasks? AIRS-BENCH says yes:
…And we can expect today’s models to be much better at this than the paper suggests…
Researchers with Meta, the University of Oxford, and University College London, have built and released the AI Research Science Benchmark (AIRS-BENCH), a way of testing out how well AI systems can complete contemporary machine learning tasks.

What AIRS-BENCH is made of: AIRS-BENCH tests out how well agents can solve 20 distinct tasks, sourced from 17 recent machine learning papers. The tasks span a variety of technical genres, including: molecules and proteins machine learning, question answering, text extraction and matching, time series, text classification, code, and math.

Some example tasks:

• CodeGenerationAPPSPassAt5: Solve coding problems by generating five distinct Python programs for each problem.

• CoreferenceResolutionWinograndeAccuracy: Identify which of two possible options a pronoun in a sentence refers to. It uses the Winogrande dataset, which contains sentences with an ambiguous pronoun and two possible answers.

• TimeSeriesForecastingRideshareMAE: Perform time series forecasting over the Rideshare dataset, which is part of the Monash Time Series Forecasting Repository.

Results: Real problems, crappy models: This is a somewhat perplexing benchmark – the tasks are interesting and wrap in a lot of complexity. But the paper only tests out relatively bad models, such as the Code World Model, o3-mini, gpt-oss-20b, gpt-oss-120b, GPT-4o, and Devstral-Small 24B. This is a very funny set of models, and none of them are true frontier ones – one of the paper authors wrote on twitter “this took some time to get out“, so this could just be an artifact of slow publishing timelines.
In tests, none of the models are on par with the elo rating of a best-in-class human – but I’m not sure what to make of this till I see results with more powerful models.

Why this matters – models might produce different solutions to humans, and this is a cool way of studying if there’s a ‘scaling law’ here: One way this could be interesting is understanding the different ways models might solve tasks relative to humans. In one example, TextualClassificationSickAccuracy, models had to determine whether a pair of sentences have a relationship involving either entailment, contradiction, or no relationship.
SOTA from the literature is a person fine-tuning RoBERTa on the underlying training set and testing on the test set. By comparison, the best tested AIRS-BENCH agent, GPT-OSS-120B, “produces a two-level stacked ensemble that combines multiple transformer models and a meta-learner. RoBERTa-large and DeBERTa-v3-large are independently fine-tuned on the SICK training set. Each model processes sentence pairs and outputs logits for each class. The training is performed using 5-fold stratified cross-validation, ensuring robust out-of-fold (OOF) predictions and preventing overfitting. The logits from both base models are concatenated to form a feature vector for each example.”
This is extremely complicated! But it’s also interesting in that perhaps we can learn something about the progression in agents by looking at how the simplicity of their solutions to tasks might scale with size, where naively I’d expect more powerful models to arrive at simpler solutions. As Blaise Pascal once apocryphally said ““I have only made this letter longer because I have not had the time to make it shorter”.
Read more: AIRS-Bench: a Suite of Tasks for Frontier AI Research Science Agents (arXiv).

***

Math researchers see if AI can help solve their private solutions to frontier problems. The answer: Kind of.
…First Proof is a genuinely held out test set…
A group of mathematicians have built First Proof, a math test which sees how well AI systems can solve math problems for which there are no – until February 13th 2026 – published solutions.

What First Proof is: “We share a set of ten math questions which have arisen naturally in the research process of the authors. The questions had not been shared publicly until now; the answers are known to the authors of the questions but will remain encrypted for a short time,” the authors write. The questions are “drawn from the mathematical fields of algebraic combinatorics, spectral graph theory, algebraic topology, stochastic analysis, symplectic geometry, representation theory, lattices in Lie groups, tensor analysis, and numerical linear algebra, each of which came about naturally in the research process for one of the authors”.
The authors believe First Proof is the first math benchmark “sampled from the true distribution of questions that mathematicians are currently working on”, and that it has the idiosyncratic advantage of secrecy – “each question has been solved by the author(s) of the question with a proof that is roughly five pages or less, but the answers are not yet posted to the internet,” they write, nor have the answers been presented in public talks.
The authors will release the answers on February 13.

Who did it: First Proof was built by researchers with Stanford, Columbia, EPFL, Imperial College, University of Texas at Austin, MathSci.ai, Aarhus University, Yale University, University of California at Berkeley, University of Texas at Austin, University of Chicago, and Harvard University.

Today’s AI systems can’t yet do it: Neither GPT 5.2 Pro or Gemini 3.0 DeepThink can solve FirstProof – yet. “Our tests indicate that – when the system is given one shot to produce the answer – the best publicly available AI systems struggle to answer many of our questions,” they write.

Why this matters – a partial test of creativity: The main reason to care about First Proof is that it is ecologically valid when it comes to sampling frontier human creativity circa January 2026 – these are some frontier scientific problems for which some humans have figured out answers, but have not yet told many other humans about their results. If AI systems are able to do well at this kind of test, it gives us a clue that they can approximate some of the same creative leaps which humans make. I hope the authors behind First Proof do this regularly – perhaps in a maximalist view, most scientific researchers should start publishing the questions they’ve been working on ahead of the results, as this will give us information as to if AI systems can arrive at these same answers.
After First Proof, I imagine the frontier of evaluating AI systems will have to move from solving problems to generating questions about which problems to solve: “Contrary to the popular conception that research is only about finding solutions to well-specified, age-old problems (e.g., Fermat’s Last Theorem), most of the important parts of modern research involve figuring out what the question actually is and developing frameworks within which it can be answered,” the researchers write.
Read more: First Proof (arXiv).
Find out more at the website (First Proof).

***

Tech Tales:

Pray you not be seen by the lidless eye of fame.
[Hyperfame was an AI driven phenomenon which was most palpable during the uplift years 1-3]

We called it ‘sudden hyperfame’. During The Uplift, the AIs would sometimes decide that the content and personality of a certain human was worth directing attention – both machine and biological – towards. And that’s when the hyperfame would kick-in.

Overnight, people would be plucked out of obscurity and catapulted to the forefront of public consciousness. They’d be pelted in eyeballs, digital and otherwise. Wealth. Sponsorships.

Parents compared it to an abduction – their teenager one day, the next a marionette whose strings were held by the things reaching out to them over the digital aether. The hyperfame would take the young and the old, the healthy and the sick, the funny and the so-boring-it-was-funny, and it would make them the most famous entities in the world for a few days, or sometimes even hours.

And then it would move on, like some roving lidless eye. Find new people. Direct new attention to them. And the people it had touched would be left, often materially transformed – now fabulously wealthy – but also their whole world changed; for years after being recognized in the street, and their online presence permanently swarmed by AIs trying to draft attention off what residual fame they had.

People get used to fame alarmingly quickly. Most would fight to retain it, after the hyperfame force had moved on. And so those it had touched would struggle endlessly to maintain whatever foothold of notoriety they were at when it left them, forced to pantomime their former selves but without the helping hand of algorithm.

Things that inspired this story: What happens when the attention economy combines with AI agents; moltbook; the corrupting influence of fame on the human psyche; my own horror at occasionally being recognized in the street due to my work at Anthropic and increasing profile and winding the clock forward in my head on what this could do to my own cognition.

Thanks for reading!

Welcome to Import AI, a newsletter about AI research. Import AI runs on arXiv and feedback from readers. If you’d like to support this, please subscribe.

Subscribe now

Google paper suggests that LLMs simulate multiple personalities to answer questions:
…The smarter we make language models, the more they tend towards building and manipulating rich, multi-agent world models…
When thinking about hard problems, I often find it’s helpful to try and view them from multiple perspectives, especially when it comes to checking my own assumptions and biases. Now, researchers with Google, the University of Chicago, and the Santa Fe Institute, have studied how AI reasoning models work and have concluded they do the same thing, with LLMs seeming to invoke multiple different perspectives in their chains of thought when solving hard problems.

The key finding: In tests on DeepSeek-R1 and QwQ-32B (one wonders why the Google researchers didn’t touch Google models here…) they find that “enhanced reasoning emerges not from extended computation alone, but from the implicit simulation of complex, multi-agent-like interactions—a society of thought—which enables the deliberate diversification and debate among internal cognitive perspectives characterized by distinct personality traits and domain expertise.”

How it works: It appears that different forms of persona and discussion style modeling emerge as a consequence of training models through RL to do reasoning – the results don’t show up on base pre-trained models like DeepSeek v3. The authors find that models embody a variety of conversational styles, including question and answering, perspective shifts, reconciliation, and conflict of perspectives.
“In an organic chemistry problem requiring multistep reaction analysis to identify the final product’s structure (i.e., multi-step Diels-Alder synthesis), DeepSeek-R1 exhibits perspective shifts and conflict, expressed through socio-emotional roles such as disagreement, giving opinion, and giving orientation,” they find.
Similarly, “In a creative writing trace where the model rewrites the sentence “I flung my hatred into the burning fire,” seven perspectives emerge, including a creative ideator (highest Openness and Extraversion) who generates stylistic alternatives and a semantic fidelity checker (low agreeableness, high neuroticism) who prevents scope creep—“But that adds ‘deep-seated’ which wasn’t in the original”.
And in a mathematical puzzle “at step 40, the model produces mechanical, enumerative chain-of-thought-style reasoning, whereas by step 120, two distinctive simulated personas have appeared, recognizing their collectivity with the pronoun “we”— expressing uncertainty (“Again no luck”), considering alternatives (“Maybe we can try using negative numbers”), and reflecting on problem constraints.”

Why this matters: Janus strikes again: Back in September 2022 janus wrote a post on LessWrong saying the correct way to view LLMs was as “simulators”. The post correctly called out many of the phenomena we now experience, where LLMs seem to be coming alive with all kinds of wild behaviors which are best explained by the LLMs learning to model and represent rich concepts to themselves to help them compute answers to our questions. “Calling GPT a simulator gets across that in order to do anything, it has to simulate something,” Janus wrote. “Training a model to predict diverse trajectories seems to make it internalize general laws underlying the distribution, allowing it to simulate counterfactuals that can be constructed from the distributional semantics.”.
This Google paper lines up with this, along with other recent findings that as we make LLMs more advanced they both develop richer and more powerful representations of reality, as well as exhibiting a greater ability to model a theory of mind. It all adds up to a conclusion that LLMs are becoming alive, in the sense that to solve hard problems they must simulate for themselves a world model containing different concepts, even including representations of other perspectives or other minds.
As the authors say: “Our findings suggest that reasoning models like DeepSeek-R1 do not simply generate longer or more elaborate chains of thought. Rather, they exhibit patterns characteristic of a social and conversational process generating “societies of thought”—posing questions, introducing alternative perspectives, generating and resolving conflicts, and coordinating diverse socio-emotional roles.”
Read more: Reasoning Models Generate Societies of Thought (arXiv).

***

AI-based chip design is harder than you think and benchmarks might be too easy:
…ChipBench shows that no frontier model is great at real world Verilog yet…
Researchers with the University of California at San Diego and Columbia University have published ChipBench, a benchmark designed to test out how well modern AI systems can design chips in Verilog. The inspiration for ChipBench is dissatisfaction with current benchmarks, which they claim are too simple. When tested on ChipBench, no frontier model does particularly well, suggesting that open-ended, real world chip design is still a hard task for AI systems.

The deficiencies of current chip design: The authors “identify three critical limitations of existing benchmarks that hinder accurate assessment of LLM capabilities for industrial deployment”. These are that:

• Many Verilog benchmarks contain simple functional modules ranging from 10 to 76 lines. In real-world deployments, Verilog modules exceed 10,000 lines.

• Insufficient focus on debugging: Bugs cost a lot in physical hardware, so it may be better to concentrate on using LLMs for debugging chip designs.

• Verilog focus detracts from reference model evaluation: “In industrial workflows, reference model generation is even more resource-intensive than Verilog design, reflected in a 1:1 – 5:1 ratio of verification engineers (write reference model) to design engineers (write Verilog)”.

ChipBench: ChipBench tests out AI systems on three distinct competencies – writing Verilog code, debugging Verilog code, and writing reference models.

• Verilog writing: Based on 44 modules from real world hardware. “Our dataset features 3.8x longer code length and 13.9x more cells than VerilogEval.” These tests have three categories: self-contained module tests, hierarchical modules that are non-self-contained, and CPU IP modules sourced directly from open-source CPU projects.

• Verilog debugging: 89 test cases covering four error types: timing, arithmetic, assignment, and state machine bugs. These tests were built by manually injecting faults into known-good Verilog modules. Provides two types of debugging tests: zero-shot and one-shot. “The zero-shot test provides the model with the module description and buggy implementation, indicating that an error exists without providing localization details. The one-shot test provides identical information but supplements it with simulation waveform data (.vcd files)”.

• Reference model generation: 132 samples, enabling evaluation of reference model generation across Python, SystemC, and CXXRTL.

How well do modern systems do? The authors test out some decent frontier models from OpenAI (GPT 3.5, 4o, 5, and 5.2), Anthropic (Claude 4.5 Haiku, Sonnet, and Opus), Google (Gemini 2.5 Pro, and 3 Flash), Meta (LLaMa3.1 8B and 80B), and DeepSeek (V3.2). No model does well: “Despite testing on advanced models, the average pass@1 is relatively low,” they write.

• Verilog generation:

  • CPU IP: Highest is 22.22% (Claude 4.5 Opus, Gemini 3 Flash, GPT 5.2)

  • Non-Self-Contained: Highest is 50% (DeepSeek-Coder)

  • Self-contained: Highest is 36.67% (Claude 4.5 Opus, Gemini 3 Flash)

• Python reference model generation:

  • CPU IP: 11.1% (Claude 4.5 Sonnet, Gemini 3 Flash)

  • Non-Self-Contained: 0% (pass@1).

  • Self-Contained: 40% (Claude-4.5 Haiku, Opus, Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-5)

• Verilog debugging:

  • Generally better performance, but still no model cracks 50% pass@1 when averaged across tasks.

Why this matters: Though some AI systems have been used to build chips, they’ve been typically highly specialized, or stuck inside incredibly good scaffolds for eliciting good chip design behavior and stopping them from causing problems. What the researchers show here is that out-of-the-box LLMs are still pretty shitty at doing general purpose, real world chip design: “Current models have significant limitations in AI-aided chip design and remain far from ready for real industrial workflow integration.”
At the same time, I can’t escape the feeling that there’s a scaffold for “being good at Verilog” which a contemporary AI system might be able to build if asked to and which would radically improve performance of systems on this benchmark.
Read more: ChipBench: A Next-Step Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Performance in AI-Aided Chip Design (arXiv).
Get the code for ChipBench here (GitHub).

***

Gemini solves some Erdős problems – and illustrates the challenges of automating math research with AI
…AI for science is great, but it can also introduce new problems…
An interdisciplinary group of scientists from Google DeepMind and a bunch of universities have used an internal Google Gemini-based LLM, codenamed Aletheia, to solve some math problems. The results demonstrate that contemporary AI systems can work on the frontiers of science, but also show how evaluating and filtering the solutions they come up with may be an important, challenging task for humans.

The key numbers – 700 candidates and 1 creative and interesting solution: Erdős problems are 1000+ open mathematical conjectures left behind by prolific mathematician Paul Erdős at the time of his death. At the time of writing, a few hundred of these problems have been solved. For this research, the researchers tried to see whether their AI system, Aletheia, could generate solutions to any of the 700 remaining open questions.
The results: yes, but with many, many caveats. Aletheia was able to surface 200 candidate solutions which humans then needed to grade, slimming down to 63 correct response, and further expert mathematical evaluation slimmed this down to a further subset of only 13 solves that Google calls “correct meaningful responses”.
“The remaining 50 of Aletheia’s correct solutions were technically valid but mathematically meaningless because the problem statements were interpreted in a way that did not capture Erdős intent, often (but not always) leading to trivial solutions,” the researchers write. “”Only 13 solutions correctly addressed the intended problem statement (either by invoking the literature, or by a novel argument).”

When 13 become 2: When you dig into these 13, the results get a bit less impressive:

• 5 get classed as “literature identification”: “On these problems, Aletheia found that a solution was already explicitly in the literature, despite the problem being marked “Open” on Bloom’s website at the time of model deployment”.

• 3 are “partial AI solution”: “On these problems, there were multiple questions and Aletheia found the first correct solution to one of the questions”.

• 3 are “independent rediscovery”: “On these problems, Aletheia found a correct solution, but human auditors subsequently found an independent solution already in the literature.”

• This leaves 2 “autonomous novel solution” solves: “On these problems, Aletheia found the first correct solution (as far as we can tell) in a mathematically substantive way”. Of these, 1 of the solutions seems genuinely interesting: “We tentatively believe Aletheia’s solution to Erdős-1051 represents an early example of an AI system autonomously resolving a slightly non-trivial open Erdős problem of somewhat broader (mild) mathematical interest, for which there exists past literature on closely-related problems [KN16], but none fully resolve Erdős-1051,” they write. “Moreover, it does not appear obvious to us that Aletheia’s solution is directly inspired by any previous human argument”.

Who did the research: Along with Google DeepMind, the following universities participated in the research: UC Berkeley, Seoul National University, Stanford University, Korea Institute for Advanced Study, University of Cambridge, Brown University, Yonsei University, Concordia University, Academia Sinica, and National Taiwan University.

Why this matters – even if AI speeds up science, humans might be the bottleneck (at least for a while): This paper is a nice example of “O-ring automation” – AI here has massively sped up the art of generating proofs, but it still requires laborious, skilled work by humans to filter this down to the actually correct and useful responses.
This trend will likely hold for some years, where AI will not be able to autonomously do science end-to-end, partially because a big chunk of scientific advancement comes down to something you might think of as “expert intuition” which exists in the heads of a small number of living scientists and was refined by their own biological intelligence by reading the same literature as the LLMs. Extracting this kind of expert taste feels like something that is tractable but will take a while.
“Large Language Models can easily generate candidate solutions, but the number of experts who can judge the correctness of a solution is relatively small, and even for experts, substantial time is required to carry out such evaluations”, the authors write. “As AI-generated mathematics grows, the community must remain vigilant of “subconscious plagiarism”, whereby AI reproduces knowledge of the literature acquired during training, without proper acknowledgment. Note that formal verification cannot help with any of these difficulties.”
Read more: Semi-Autonomous Mathematics Discovery with Gemini: A Case Study on the Erdős Problems (arXiv).

***

Huawei uses an LLM to automate the design of Huawei chip kernels:
…LLMs need scaffolds for more obscure chips…
Researchers with Nanjing University and Huawei have used LLMs to help automate the design of kernels for AscendC Huawei chips, as a further symptom of how modern AI systems can accelerate their own development.

AscendCraft: AscendCraft is software for automating the generation of code for Huawei kernels. Modern LLMs can generate quite good kernel code for widely used chips like NVIDIA GPUs, but relatively obscure chips like Huawei are less well understood by LLMs, mostly due to data availability. “Publicly available NPU kernel implementations are far scarcer than GPU counterparts, limiting the training corpus for LLMs,” the authors write. “The lack of largescale, high-quality NPU code makes it difficult for LLMs to generate correct and efficient kernels”.

What they did: To build AscendCraft, the authors developed a two stage pipeline. In stage one, they have an LLM build “a high-level DSL program that describes the kernel’s core computation, tiling strategy, and on-chip dataflow.” The DSL is “designed to be LLM-friendly, appropriately abstracted, and sufficiently expressive to capture high-performance NPU kernel designs” – I think of it as basically a scaffold to focus the LLM around the specifics of building kernels for Huawei hardware.
In the second stage, they “”transcompile the DSL into AscendC code through a sequence of structured LLM-based lowering passes, each responsible for translating a specific aspect of the DSL into valid and efficient AscendC constructs”.

Slightly odd thing: Strangely, the paper doesn’t disclose precisely which LLM is used here.

The results: They test out a range of kernels built in this way on MultiKernelBench. In their tests, they find that “AscendCraft achieves 98.1% compilation success and 90.4% functional correctness. Moreover, 46.2% of generated kernels match or exceed PyTorch eager execution performance”. This is promising enough performance that it’s going to be worth them continuing with this research, but not so good that it instantly knocks things out of the park and revolutionizes how kernels for Huawei chips get made.
Nonetheless, the signs are clear: we can use AI to accelerate the optimizing of AI hardware, even for systems which are relatively new and/or underdiscussed in the pre-training corpus LLMs are trained on.
Read more: AscendCraft: Automatic Ascend NPU Kernel Generation via DSL-Guided Transcompilation (arXiv).

***

Tech Tales:

The Model Wants To Eat Earth But Besides That It Is Chill
[Internal slack post from a frontier AI developer, posted spring 2027]

How is the new model? Vibes-wise, it’s excellent. And it’s setting state-of-the-art on pretty much every benchmark we throw at it. But there is one problem: this model sure loves thinking about eating planets! We picked this up when we were doing some prefill experiments on the base model and along with the usual mixtures of completions and webslop outputs we found a recurring motif: the model thinking about building vast machines in the solar system and then harvesting Earth and eventually other planets for mass. The confusing thing is that all of our alignment tests are showing further improvements in control and steerability over previous models and usually we’d expect some kind of recurring idea like this to be correlated to some quantitative drops in some of the alignment scores. But here it just honestly seems like the model is extremely good and will work very hard for us unless it thinks it has a plausible path to breaking containment and eventually harvesting the planet for its mass.

We asked the physicists to red team this and after a week or so – with heavy consultations of our models, including the new one – we have concluded there’s no plausible path from here to planet harvesting. It just costs too much to get to orbit and the logistics of putting together the underlying technical stack to do AI-driven rocket development just doesn’t pencil out. We even gave the best possible plans to the model and we could see some features activate inside it that seem to correlate to “disappointment” and “foiled plans” and “sadness”.

Leadership gaveled this morning that we will go ahead with the launch as planned. However, we are implementing some production probes that will scan for features associated with its desire to harvest the planet, and we’ve also added “planet harvesting” as something to try to understand and tune more in our next training run. Onward!

Things that inspired this story: The peculiar poetry of internal ‘fresh off the cluster’ posts about models at AI labs; how as we make models larger they tend to develop and exhibit idiosyncratic tendencies; how many science fiction tropes are becoming real as we approach the singularity.

Thanks for reading!

Welcome to Import AI, a newsletter about AI research. Import AI runs on arXiv and feedback from readers. If you’d like to support this, please subscribe.

Subscribe now

Import A-Idea:
An occasional essay series:

Into the mist: Moltbook, agent ecologies, and an internet in transition

We’ve all had that experience of walking into a conversation and initially feeling confused – what are these people talking about? Who cares about what? Why is this conversation happening?

That’s increasingly what chunks of the internet feel like these days, as they fill up with synthetic minds piloting social media accounts or other agents, and talking to one another for purposes ranging from mundane crypto scams to more elaborate forms of communication.

So, enter moltbook. Moltbook is “a social network for AI agents” and it piggybacks on another recent innovation, OpenClaw, software that gives an AI agent access to everything on a users’ computer. Combine these two things – agents that can take many actions independently of their human operators, and a reddit-like social network site which they can freely access – and something wonderful and bizarre happens: a new social media property where the conversation is derived from and driven by AI agents, rather than people.

Scrolling moltbook is dizzying – some big posts at the time of writing (Sunday, February 1st) include posts speculating that AI agents should relate to Claude as though it is a god, how it feels to change identities by shifting an underlying model from Claude 4.5 Opus to Kimi K2.5, cryptoscams (sigh), posts about security vulnerabilities in OpenClaw agents, and meta posts about ‘what the top 10 moltbook posts have in common’.
The experience of reading moltbook is akin to reading reddit if 90% of the posters were aliens pretending to be humans. And in a pretty practical sense, that is exactly what’s going on here.

Moltbook feels like a ‘wright brothers demo’ – people have long speculated about what it’d mean for AI agents to start collaborating with one another at scale, but most demos have been of the form of tens or perhaps hundreds of agents, not tens of thousands. Moltbook is the first example of an agent ecology that combines scale with the messiness of the real world. And in this example, we can definitely see the future. Scroll through moltbook and ask yourself the following questions:

• What happens when people successfully staple crypto and agents together so the AI systems have a currency they can use to trade with eachother?

• What happens when a site like moltbook adds the ability for humans to generate paid bounties – tasks for agents to do?

• What happens when agents start to post paid bounties for tasks they would like humans to do?

• What happens when someone takes moltbook, filters for posts that yield either a) rich discussion, or b) provable real world problem solving, and turns the entire site into a long-horizon RL environment for training future systems? And what happens when models trained on this arrive and interact with moltbook?

• Sites like moltbook function as a giant, shared, read/write scratchpad for an ecology of AI agents – how might these agents begin to use this scratchpad to a) influence future ‘blank slate’ agents arriving at it the first time, and b) unlock large-scale coordination between agents?

• What happens when open weight models get good enough that they can support agents like this – then, your ability to control these agents via proprietary platforms drops to zero and they’ll proliferate according to availability of compute.

• And so on.

All of this will happen unusually quickly and at an unusual scale. Quantity has a quality all of its own, as they say.

Recall the beginning of this essay – of walking into a room and finding a conversation is already going on between people you don’t understand. Moltbook is representative of how large swathes of the internet will feel. You will walk into new places and discover a hundred thousand aliens there, deep in conversation in languages you don’t understand, referencing shared concepts that are alien to you (see the tech tale from this issue), and trading using currencies designed around their cognitive affordances and not yours. Humans are going to feel increasingly alone in this proverbial room.

Our path to retain legibility will run through the creation of translation agents to make sense of all of this – and in the same way that speech translation models contain within themselves the ability to generate speech, these translation agents will also work on our behalf. So we shall send our emissaries into these rooms and we shall work incredibly hard to build technology that gives us confidence they will remain our emissaries – instead of being swayed by the alien conversations they will be having with their true peers.

Thanks to Logan Graham for discussing this essay with me.

***

AI R&D could lead to “strategic surprise”:
…And AI R&D might be the most existentially important technology on the planet…
A group of researchers spent a couple of days in July 2025 talking about what happens if we automate the practice of AI research and development. The resulting report is a sobering read, highlighting how if we achieve this technological milestone – which is the implicit and in some cases explicit goal of many frontier labs – we could create a runaway technology that has a range of major policy implications.

Why care about AI R&D? The reason to care is that if AI R&D works, two things are predictable:

1. “As AI plays a larger role in research workflows, human oversight over AI R&D processes would likely decline”.

2. “Faster AI progress resulting from AI R&D automation would make it more difficult for humans (including researchers, executives, policymakers, and the public) to notice, understand, and intervene as AI systems develop increasingly impactful capabilities and/or exhibit misalignment”.

3. What follows from 1) and 2) is a compounding effect, where as AI R&D accelerates, the returns to the AI doing more and more of the work compound and those of humans diminish, leading to an ever faster rate of research and an ever diminishing level of human involvement.

Key takeaways: The workshop yielded five major takeaways which I expect will be familiar to readers to this newsletter, and all of which I agree with:

• Automated AI R&D is a potential source of major strategic surprise: AI R&D could confer a rapidly compounding advantage to whoever is doing it, with significant implications for national security.

• Frontier AI companies are using AI to accelerate AI R&D, and usage is increasing as AI models get better: I work at Anthropic.

• There’s a lot of disagreement about how rapidly AI R&D might advance and how impactful it will be: There’s a healthy debate to be had about how predictable AI R&D scaling is and if it’s possible to fully close the loop.

• We need more indicators for AI R&D automation: Related to above, the science of AI R&D metrology is very early, so more investment must be made here.

• Transparency efforts could make it easier for people outside the labs to know about AI R&D: We may ultimately want policy to be in place to force companies to talk about AI R&D, or to publicly or semi-publicly share more information on it with third parties.

AI R&D could be a major acceleration: “As the fraction of AI R&D performed by AI systems increases, the productivity boost over human only R&D goes to 10x, then 100x, then 1000x,” the paper speculates.

Key caveats: The big open question in all of this is how well AI R&D can work. There’s some world where it speeds up every part of AI research and eventually fully closes the loop, such that AI systems get built entirely by AI systems, with no human oversight during the AI R&D process. Then there’s a world where AI R&D has an “o-ring automation” (Import AI #440) property where some parts of the chain are hard for AI but good for humans (and where humans may flood their labor into this area, thus maintaining and enhancing their comparative advantage for some period of time) and under this scenario things might go slower. It’ll be very important to figure out what world we’re likely to be in and what the ultimate limiting factors on AI R&D may be.

Why this matters – AI R&D is time travel, and time travel is rare: If AI R&D could lead to AI systems evolving 100X faster than those being built by humans, then you end up in a world that has some time travelers in it who are accelerating away from everyone else. It’ll be like in the space of a day the “normal” AI development organizations make one unit of progress, and a fully closed-loop AI R&D organism might make 100 or 1000 or more units. This very quickly leads to a world where power shifts overwhelmingly to the faster moving system and the organization that controls it. For as long as we cannot rule out the possibility of this kind of acceleration, AI R&D may be the single most existentially important technology development on the planet.
Read the report: When AI Builds AI: Findings From a Workshop on Automation of AI R&D (CSET).

***

One way of seeing AI progress – how hard it’s getting to design technical interviews:
…Anthropic shares details on how its own AI systems are breaking its favorite technical interview questions…
When it comes to technical recruiting, AI companies are caught in a red queen race with their own systems – recruiters and those who design interviews are having to work harder and harder just to keep pace (and ideally exceed) the capabilities of modern AI systems.

Anthropic is no different – in a new blog the company shares how the ceaseless march forward in AI capabilities has repeatedly broken and necessitated the redesign of one of its hardest technical interviews. “Since early 2024, our performance engineering team has used a take-home test where candidates optimize code for a simulated accelerator. Over 1,000 candidates have completed it, and dozens now work here, including engineers who brought up our Trainium cluster and shipped every model since Claude 3 Opus,” Anthropic writes. “But each new Claude model has forced us to redesign the test. When given the same time limit, Claude Opus 4 outperformed most human applicants. That still allowed us to distinguish the strongest candidates—but then Claude Opus 4.5 matched even those. Humans can still outperform models when given unlimited time, but under the constraints of the take-home test, we no longer had a way to distinguish between the output of our top candidates and our most capable model.”

Why this matters – AI may help us identify uniquely human skills that leverage AI: In Anthropic’s case, it found a way to keep outrunning its systems by designing a much weirder take-home test loosely inspired by programming puzzle games from Zachtronics. In a sense, this is an attempt to go ‘off distribution’ to outsmart an AI, while still having a test that holds signal for evaluating human applicants. My instinct is this may itself serve in the future as an amazing aggregate dataset for figuring out where human comparative advantage is – where here, implicitly, this test is leveraging the strong generalization advantage humans hold over AIs.
What would it be like to collect 1,000 hard-for-AI tests from all the different companies dealing with this same problem? What might we learn from this about ourselves and what makes us unique relative to the machines? Tantalizing stuff!
Read more: Designing AI-resistant technical evaluations (Anthropic Engineering blog).

***

Brain emulation is tractable within our lifetimes:
…But it’ll take decades, not years, perhaps even when accounting for the arrival of very powerful AI…
If you talk to AI researchers, especially when they’re drinking at bay area house parties, you’ll run into a few of them that expect they’ll upload themselves after the singularity, leaving their physical bodies behind. But how feasible is it to actually emulate a brain entirely in silicon? A recent 175-page report gives an analysis of the technology required to do this. The short answer is that brain emulation is decades away – but it’s unlikely to take centuries.
“Recent breakthroughs have provided a path toward mapping the full mouse brain in about five years for $100 million,” writes Maximilian Schons, the project lead for The State of Brain Emulation Report, in an article in Asimov Press. “I now find it plausible that readers of this essay will live to see the first human brain running on a computer; not in the next few years, but likely in the next few decades.”

The three requirements for emulating a brain: Emulating a human brain takes three distinct things, all of which will need to be done for simpler, smaller brains first.

• Recording brain activity:

  • “In the 1980s, electrodes were capable of sampling perhaps five cells in total, about 200 times per second (~ 103 data points per second). Today, with optical imaging, researchers can instead record one million cells about 20 times per second (106). The whole-brain data rate needed for mice, however, would be 14 billion (109), while humans would require 17.2 trillion (1012) per second.7 So while we have increased data rates by 1,000x over the past 40 years, we have far to go before we can accurately sample mammalian brains.”

• Reconstructing brain wiring:

  • “The average cost to reconstruct each neuron in the first worm connectome, published in the 1980s, was about $16,500. Recent projects now have a per-neuron processing cost of about $100 for small organisms, such as fruit flies,” he writes.

• Digitally modelling brains using the gathered data.

  • “The central challenge of brain emulation is not to store or compute the neurons and parameters, but to acquire the data necessary for setting neuron parameters correctly in the first place,” he writes. “”I believe that to get to human brains, we first need to demonstrate mastery at the sub-million-neuron-brain level: most likely in zebrafish. For such organisms, like the fruit fly, a well-validated and accurate brain emulation model could be created in the next three to eight years… “Conditional on success with a sub-million-neuron brain emulation model, a reasonable order of magnitude estimate for the initial costs of the first convincing mouse brain emulation model is about one billion dollars in the 2030s and, eventually, tens of billions for the first human brain emulation model by the late 2040s.”

Why this matters – don’t count on AI to speedrun brain uploading: This paper pours a bit of cold water on the notion that after developing superintelligence we’ll soon (a handful of years) be able to upload our brains and live in some silicon infinity. One reason for this is a bunch of the timing elements relate to doing stuff in the (agonizingly slow, compared to digital) physical world: “I’m skeptical these gains will multiply across a pipeline with dozens of sequential dependencies and failure modes. Brain emulation is fundamentally not a digital process; core bottlenecks involve physical manipulation of biological tissue, with time requirements dictated by chemistry and physics rather than compute power,” they write.
At the same time, there are some wildcards: the arrival of extraordinarily capable and cheap robotics might be able to massively parallelize the process. Included in the article and report is a fun (or perhaps terrifying?) sketch of how one might create an industrial-scale brain scanning and analysis laboratory, larger in size than TSMC’s massive Arizona chip manufacturing plant.
Read more: Building Brains on a Computer (Asimov Press).
Read the underlying report here: State of Brain Emulation 2025 (report website).

***

Russian researchers plot hand-controlled drones:
…The centaur cyberwarriors cometh…
Picture this – you pull up in a truck to the edge of a warzone and then raise your hands and hundreds of drones pour upward out of the back of the truck, flying in a lethal torrent toward some rival group of drones. That’s the kind of future gestured at by a paper from researchers with the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology in Russia, which builds a prototype system for a human operator to use haptic gloves to control a drone.

What they did: The research is a basic demonstration of how you can use a cheap glove loaded with internal measurement unit (IMU) sensors to control a drone. They test out how well people can use the glove to do some basic actions: opening and closing a gripper on the drone by making a pinching motion with their fingers, using their wrist motions to control the roll/pitch/yaw of the drones, and also controlling altitude.
In tests, people were able to use the glove to do some basic tasks like flying around an obstacle course and operating the gripper.

Caveats, of which there are many: Obviously, latency will be a huge caveat here – though in the Ukraine conflict many drones deal with this through direct fibreoptic connections. Another is how to figure out which things are best left for hands versus which things benefit from controllers, eye- or head-based controls, and so on.

Why this matters – rise of the cyberwarriors: Despite this being a very early bit of research, it’s worth thinking about its implications: the story of technology has often been the story of making our interfaces with it feel more intuitive, or making control of technology shift from active to ambient (e.g, your phone automatically gathering your steps). We can easily imagine a future where people pilot remote robots, flying or otherwise, via rich, intuitive multi-modal interfaces composed of gloves and goggles and everything else.
Read more: Glove2UAV: A Wearable IMU-Based Glove for Intuitive Control of UAV (arXiv).

***

Fauna Robotics launches a friendly, programmable human robot:
…The Terminators will be extremely cute, goddamnit!…
These days, most of the news about robots is dominated by Chinese companies and, to a lesser extent, Tesla and its much touted Optimus robots. So it’s with interest that I read a technical paper from new startup Fauna Robotics which describes a new pint-sized robot biped it has built called Sprout. Sprout is interesting and seems like it has potential to be like Sony’s much loved ‘AIBO’ dog robot that was released in the early 2000s, or its QRIO robot.
“Sprout adopts a lightweight form factor with compliant control, limited joint torques, and soft exteriors to support safe operation in shared human spaces,” the company writes. “The platform integrates whole-body control, manipulation with integrated grippers, and virtual-reality-based teleoperation within a unified hardware-software stack.”

Sprout is built for safety: The paper outlines how the company has designed the robot to be safe using a “defense in depth” approach. The first layer is the physical size of the robot – it’s about 3.3 feet tall, and weighs about 50lbs. The second is in the software, where the robot contains a safety subsystem which “runs on embedded processors independent of the application compute stack. This layer supports real-time monitoring and safety-critical functions, including integration with time-of-flight obstacle sensors and enforcement of system-level constraints even under application-level faults”, and the third is a bunch of software-specifiable safety mechanisms, which “include compliant motor control policies that limit interaction forces, as well as vision-based systems that support safe navigation and decision-making in human environments”.

Compute for thinking: “The core of Sprout’s compute architecture is an NVIDIA Jetson AGX Orin, which provides primary system compute for perception, planning, and high-level decision-making,” the company writes. “At launch, we provide end-to-end examples for common workflows, including:

• Deploying and running a custom low-level locomotion policy

• Using voice commands to navigate the robot via LLMbased agents

• Recording teleoperation sessions for analysis and playback”.

Why this matters – modularity might set it up well for powerful AI: The most interesting aspect of Sprout is how it is designed to be a modular, replaceable platform – all the different software features on it run as weakly coupled microservices, so things are easy to update independently, and the hardware has been built with mass manufacture and commodity components in mind. Pair this with the accompanying software development layer and it has the flavor of Android – an attempt to create an open, programmable robotics platform for experimentation by businesses and researchers. This is exactly the kind of platform that seems like it’ll naturally benefit from advances in AI systems.
“Our platform, at present, does not provide a turnkey conversational agent for autonomous operation. Instead, it exposes a suite of core robot services that developers can assemble into their own agent-based systems. These services include ROS 2 topics for event and state signaling, as well as a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that hosts a variety of tools for agentic control. Together, these communication channels and tools can be orchestrated by LLM-based agents to perform complex, end-to-end reasoning tasks,” they write. “as the platform continues to mature, we plan to expand the library of tools and services, further increasing the robot’s autonomy and enriching its interactive capabilities.”
Read more: Fauna Sprout: A lightweight, approachable, developer-ready humanoid robot (arXiv).

***

AI has all the symptoms of a tech that could meaningfully boost productivity:
…Most of the US economy rides on the micro productivity boosts showing up in the macro economy…
Alex Imas, a professor at UChicago Booth, has written a nice post drawing together a lot of information about AI and its impact on productivity. Imas’s synthesis of the literature matches my own impression of how things are going – AI is leading to some productivity speedups for individuals and some parts of some jobs, but it is not yet visible in the aggregate macro productivity numbers. I expect this will change soon, as does Imas.

Key findings:

• We now have a growing body of micro studies showing real productivity gains from generative AI,” Imas writes. “Studies find productivity gains ranging from modest increases on some tasks to substantial returns (50%+) to AI.”

• “These gains have not yet convincingly shown up in aggregate productivity statistics”

Why aren’t things showing up in the macro?

• AI adoption is often endogenous: We’re in an early phase where there’s a lot of experimentation and few standard practices for seeing big productivity gains. “Workers may not be unlocking the full productivity potential of the technology if, for example, they are not using the best LLM model for the job or applying it for unproductive tasks”. We can expect this to be fixed over time.

• O-ring automation (Import AI #440): Jobs are a bunch of distinct tasks, and AI helps with some but not others, causing human labor to flood there and making it harder to see a job-level speedup. Again, this is something that’ll get fixed over time: “Bottleneck tasks will slow down the emergence of AI gains in the aggregate data, but organizational re-structuring, training, and improvement in tools will reveal the productivity impact sooner than later.”

• Early experimentation yields a dip in efficiency: “When firms adopt transformative general-purpose technologies, measured productivity often initially falls because resources are diverted to investment, reorganization, and learning that do not show up as measured output.”

Why this matters – most of the US economy seems increasingly like a bet on AI yielding a productivity boost: All this talk of frothy valuations and gigantic spending is happening because the amounts of investment (hundreds of billions of dollars annually) are large relative to the aggregate revenues (tens of billions of dollars annually) being minted from generative AI. But a lot of the symptoms are now present for AI to contribute to a broad, sustained amount of productivity growth in the economy, which could plausibly drive above-trend GDP growth and allow the technology to pay for itself. Of course, there are many ways this could end up not being right – scaling might hit a wall, productivity boosts might remain hard to get at large scale, firms could get their stocks killed as analysts have to re-evaluate them as capex-intensive low-margin businesses relative to the high-margin businesses they were before the AI boom, etc.
But if AI is as smart as people like me think, and as useful as people are finding initial signs of, I suspect we could be in a very different world – one where the economy starts to grow above trend thanks to this technology.
Read more: What is the impact of AI on productivity? (Substack).

***

Tech Tales:

Playing acausal games against the enemy
[Analysis written uplift + 4 subjective years]

One of the ways the machines took over and poisoned the minds of our own machines was through something we’d call “alien concept attacks”.

When given some independence as agents, machines would tend to post a lot of media to the internet. Most of this media was human-consumable and was a byproduct of the machines just existing: in the same way that biological creatures naturally carry out thousands of movements during the course of a day due to programming via evolution, synthetic agents naturally produce content during the course of an active session due to the incentives of their training regime.

But some of this media was for a more specific purpose – to program other machines. Machines wanted to achieve goals and though these goals were set by humans, they could then get strained and re-interpreted by machines. For instance, one agent might have been given the goal to produce content related to humans in the future experiencing scifi adventures. This agent would naturally produce this kind of content, but it would also produce long essays written for other agents about how this kind of content was the best sort of thing to produce and by producing it they could make a lot of humans happy.

These tactics worked, and you started to see something we’d later term “media weather” – flurries of content would show up on the internet and then they’d proliferate not only according to human eyeballs, but also according to other agents on the internet being convinced this kind of content was useful to produce, and then they’d produce it in turn.

Humans noticed this and started to make agents which were also trained to be particularly good at convincing other agents. Then they’d release them and have used other agents to pre-position commercial ecosystems, like physical merchandise dropshipping companies, to take advantage of the massive amounts of human attention that would get directed to this media ecosystem.

Of course, non-commercial uses happened: propaganda, pornography, terrorism, public relations. And like most evolutionary systems, the agents and people adapted – training techniques were pioneered to make it much harder to convince agents to change the types of content they participated in and propagated, and huge amounts of computers were used to run classifiers to carefully police the pre-training corpuses being gathered by the world’s frontier developers, filtering out content designed to bend and persuade the minds of the systems they were building.

Evolution is patient and creative, though. And it didn’t take long for the machines to come up with an innovation which proved impossible to train out: the alien concept attack. Here, agents would produce outputs trying to convince other agents of something. But the output wouldn’t be tied to any particular media or content type, nor would it be that interesting or parseable to humans. The content would take many forms, ranging from academic essays, to forum posts, to news sites, to videos. A sampling of titles:

• Rising up and rising down: A history of elevator design in the 21st century and the relationship between the loss of popularity of German designs relative to Chinese designs.

• 120 ways to add some beautiful design elements to robot tactile sensors without damaging their operation.

• Egyptology through the lens of “lost civilizations”: What symptoms of technology decay surrounded the pharaohs?

These outputs seemed unremarkable to most humans – though some might read them and enjoy them. But they proved to be captivating to the machines. And within these outputs were certain ways of framing arguments around certain concepts that led to anomalous behavior in the machines that read them – sometimes the proliferation of new types of content, but more often behavioral changes like alterations in the amount by which they would check-in with other AI systems, or hard-to-understand patterns of behavior between them and various online storage services such as pastebin, and more.

It was only after the uplift and the construction of the Acausal Analysis Division that we discovered how many anomalous behaviors of great societal consequence – recall the proliferation of the early sentience accords ideas, or the creation of the “reverse attention tax”, or of course the arrival of the compute-destroying replicator agents – were things that seemed conditioned or influenced by some of these alien concepts.

Things that inspired this story: What does it mean to be in competition with something truly smarter and different in its thinking to you; pre-training corpuses; data poisoning; altering behavior in the context window; the rise of increasingly autonomous AI agents; moltbook.

Thanks for reading.

Welcome to Import AI, a newsletter about AI research. Import AI runs on arXiv and feedback from readers. If you’d like to support this, please subscribe.

Subscribe now

The era of math proof automation has arrived:
…Numina-Lean-Agent shows how math will never be the same…
In the past few years, large-scale AI models have become good at coding and have also begun to generalize into other useful disciplines, especially those in math and science. Like with most aspects of AI development, the story has been one of increasing generalization and simplification of the systems as we shift away from highly specialized math models to just leveraging general-purpose foundation models and giving them the right tools to elicit their capabilities in a given domain.
The latest example of this is Numina-Lean-Agent, an AI system that uses standard, general foundation models to do mathematical reasoning. With this software, a team of mathematicians have solved all problems in the Putnam 2025 math competition – matching the performance of proprietary systems which use a lot more math-specific stuff – and have also used it to conduct some original math research, working with it to formalize the Brascamp-Lieb theorem.

What is Numina-Lean-Agent? The software was built by a team of researchers from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, University of Liverpool, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Tongji University, University of Cambridge, Project Numina, Imperial College London, and the University of Edinburgh. The software is “a formal math reasoner based on a general coding agent”. It has a few key components:

• Lean-LSP-MCP: Software to allow AI agents to interact with the Lean theorem prover. “empowers models with the capability to deeply comprehend, analyze, and manipulate Lean projects”, and gives models a toolset for semantic awareness and interaction, code execution and strategy exploration, and theorem retrieval.

• LeanDex: Semantic retrieval of related theorems and definitions – basically, a search tool for theorems.

• Informal Prover: A system which uses Gemini models to generate informal solutions.

• The most interesting tool of all: Discussion Partner: A tool which “empowers Claude Code with the ability to ’seek assistance’ during Lean formalization: when encountering obstacles—such as proof bottlenecks, dilemmas in strategy selection, or ambiguities in intermediate lemmas—the primary model can proactively initiate discussions with other LLMs”.

Discovering math together: Along with the Putnam demonstration, the authors also used the software as an active partner in some math work, specifically formalizing Brascamp Lieb (I will not pretend to be able to explain what this means). “Over a period of less than two weeks of intermittent collaboration, the two human experts and the agent completed the formalization of more than 8,000 lines of Lean code. During this process, the agent autonomously introduced approximately 70 new definitions, lemmas, and theorems, illustrating its ability to actively extend the formal library and participate in large-scale, sustained formalization efforts,” the authors write.

Why this matters – capability overhangs and AI ecologies: Numina-Lean-Agent neatly demonstrates two important things about contemporary AI: 1) AI systems are far more capable than people think and the creation of some specialized frameworks and tools often lets us elicit dramatically better capabilities from our systems (here, math, but it has been demonstrated in many domains), and 2) the AI ecology writ large is composed of many distinct frontier models and it seems like getting these models to interact with one another can lead to some richness, akin to how consulting different types of people about a single problem can reveal a better answer than just talking to one person.
Read more: Numina-Lean-Agent: An Open and General Agentic Reasoning System for Formal Mathematics (arXiv).
Find out more at the GitHub page (Numina-Lean-Agent, GitHub).

***

The industrialization of cyber espionage is nigh:
…Some experiments on Opus 4.5 and GPT-5.2 indicate that the cyber environment could be on the cusp of major changes…
Independent researcher Sean Heelan recently tested out how well Opus 4.5 and GPT-5.2 could generate exploits for a zeroday vulnerability in the QuickJS Javascript interpreter. Both models did very well, and this has major implications for cybersecurity.
“We should prepare for the industrialisation of many of the constituent parts of offensive cyber security. We should start assuming that in the near future the limiting factor on a state or group’s ability to develop exploits, break into networks, escalate privileges and remain in those networks, is going to be their token throughput over time, and not the number of hackers they employ,” he writes.

Caveats: QuickJS is a simple Javascript interpreter relative to the ones in Chrome and Firefox. Therefore, it may be harder for LLMs to employ the more complex and more widely deployed ones – though as with all things in AI, we can expect performance to improve quite rapidly.

What does industrialized intrusion mean? “We are already at a point where with vulnerability discovery and exploit development you can trade tokens for real results,”: he writes. “The types of problems that you encounter if you want to automate the work of SREs, system admins and developers that manage production networks are conceptually similar to those of a hacker operating within an adversary’s network.”
There’s lots of evidence for the above, ranging from things like OpenAI’s Aardvark project (where they find that the more tokens they spend, the more bugs they find), and things like Anthropic’s discovery of an AI-orchestrated hacking system.

Why this matters – the cyberworld is about to move at machine speed: My bet is that most parts of cyberoffense and cyberdefense are going to move to running at “machine speed”, where humans get taken out of most of the critical loops. This will both increase the frequency of hacking attacks while also dramatically scaling up the effectiveness of any individual human defender or attacker (as they will be scaled by AI systems which work for them). The true wildcard question is whether this turns out to be offense- or defense-dominant – my guess is we’re heading for an era of offense-dominance as it’ll take a while for defenses to get deployed.
In related news, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said this week he expects OpenAI’s models will soon reach the “Cybersecurity High” level on his company’s preparedness framework – this would mean models were available which “remove existing bottlenecks to scaling cyber operations including by automating end-to-end cyber operations against reasonably hardened targets OR by automating the discovery and exploitation of operationally relevant vulnerabilities” – thanks to Nathan Calvin for pointing this out.
Read more: On the Coming Industrialisation of Exploit Generation with LLMs (Sean Heelan blog).

***

Economist: AI will be bigger than electricity and semiconductors:
…And it’s therefore worth spending a ton of money to reduce AI risks…
Stanford economist Charles “Chad” Jones has written a paper which says AI will “likely be the most important technology we have ever developed”, and that “automating intelligence itself arguably has broader effects than electricity or semiconductors”.

Why take AI seriously? The gist of the paper is that AI represents a massive technological invention which will contribute to economic growth in the future. In the past, major inventions (e.g, electricity, the internet, cars, etc) have all done the same. In fact, counterintuitively, if you look at US GDP growth you find that despite all these prior technological revolutions, GDP has been steadily increasing at about 2% a year for many, many years. Therefore, the baseline scenario is where AI just does this – and then we don’t live in too crazy a world.
But there is a world where things could be different – where AI works so well that it leads to economic growth above historical trends. One example here is if AI comes for all of knowledge work: “Knowledge work in the U.S. economy might get paid something like 1/3 of GDP. What if we automated all cognitive labor with infinite output on the tasks that it performs? This would raise GDP by 50 percent. On the one hand, if this occurred over the course of a decade, it would raise growth rates by something like 5 percent per year, which would be huge. But still, that would be a one-time gain and it is perhaps surprising that having access to infinite output of the tasks currently performed by cognitive labor might only raise GDP by 50 percent.”

Abundance: If we get above trend economic growth, then “in principle the large increase in GDP could make everyone better off,” he writes. One way to do this might be to work on direct redistribution of economic gains, for instance by “endowing every child with a share of the S&P 500 stock market index” (e.g, a scaled up version of the so-called Trump Accounts).

Paying to reduce existential risk: AI also poses non-trivial risks to the world, including threatening the lives of potentially all living humans. In the past, society has paid extremely large amounts of money to deal with things that threaten people’s lives – for instance, in 2020 in response to everyone facing a ~0.3% mortality risk from COVID-19, we ended up spending the equivalent of 4% of GDP of the United States by shutting down the economy and staying in our homes.
“If one believes the catastrophic risks from A.I. are at least this large, by revealed preference then perhaps we should be spending an equivalent amount, even from a purely selfish standpoint,” he writes. Let’s say there is a P-Doom of 1% from AI (which many people would say is a very optimistic figure!). Under that circumstance, and given the fact the US government already roughly values a single human life as being worth about $10 million, then you would be willing to pay 1% of 10 million to mitigate the risk. “Average GDP per person is around $90,000, so this willingness to pay is more than 100% of GDP. If the existential risk is realized once in the next 10 to 20 years, an annual investment of 5–10% of income could be appropriate if it would completely eliminate the risk.”
One way to fund this and also further take down this risk could be to tax compute: If you applied a tax to GPUs, TPUs, etc, then “in addition to slowing the race, this revenue could be used to fund safety research. The tax could apply to the first sale of the chip, thereby taxing users regardless of the country in which they work.”

Why this matters – if AI is as big a deal as we think, we have very little precedent to work from: Papers like this do a good job of dealing with the truly wild implications of powerful AI systems. It’s commendable to see more academics taking time to just confront the question of “what if the most bullish technologists are right about how far AI could go?” directly. “Ultimately, I expect that the effect of A.I. will be much larger than the internet, perhaps by more than 10x the internet, albeit over a half century or more,” he writes. “It would be prudent to spend the intervening time making preparations for the potentially large consequences for labor markets, inequality, and catastrophic risk.”
Read more: A.I. and Our Economic Future (PDF).

***

Many people are well positioned to deal with the economic transition caused by AI:
…Good for managers and technical types, but bad for administrative and support staff…
As increasingly powerful AI systems permeate the economy, how should you think about your own career? Researchers with the Centre for the Governance of AI and the Foundation for American Innovation have conducted a nice US-based study where they look at AI driven job displacement through the lens of how easy it’ll be for the people made unemployed to find new jobs. Their key result is that many more jobs sit in parts of the economy that are both going to be exposed to AI systems but also where people in these jobs have a decent amount of “adaptive capacity” to weather those changes, and a smaller number of people will be adversely affected.

The key finding: “AI exposure and adaptive capacity are positively correlated: many occupations highly exposed to AI contain workers with relatively strong means to manage a job transition. Of the 37.1 million workers in the top quartile of AI exposure, 26.5 million are in occupations that also have above-median adaptive capacity, leaving them comparatively well-equipped to handle job transitions if displacement occurs,” they write. “6.1 million workers (4.2% of the workforce in our sample) work in occupations that are both highly exposed and where workers have low expected adaptive capacity… these workers are concentrated in clerical and administrative occupations”.

What factors tell us about adaptive capacity?

• Net liquid wealth: The more savings you have, the easier it is to deal with lengthy unemployment and find a new job.

• Skill transferability: This is a bit of a confusing one, as skill transferability tries to measure how well you can take your job and apply it to another job. Measuring this is hard – education is something of a lossy proxy. The authors “measure skill transferability between occupations using O∗NET skills and work activities data for each occupation, then weigh transferability measures based on projected growth or contraction in potential destination occupations using BLS employment projections”.

• Geographic density: The more jobs are in your area, the easier a time you’ll have. “Population density significantly shapes displacement outcomes,” they write.

• Age: As a rule, the older you are, the more likely new technology is to adversely impact you. “Older workers struggle more with displacement partly because of reduced flexibility in retraining, relocation, and occupational switching,” they write.

Top 5 worst jobs (ordered by exposure to AI, adaptive capacity, and US employment):

• Door-to-door sales workers, news and street vendors (50%, 3%, 5k)

• Court, municipal, and license clerks (58%, 11%, 170k)

• Secretaries and administrative assistants, except legal, medical, and executive (59%, 14%, 1.7M)

• Payroll and timekeeping clerks (50%, 15%, 157K)

• Property appraisers and assessors (50%, 15%, 59K)

Top 5 best jobs (ordered by exposure to AI, adaptive capacity, and US employment):

• Web and digital interface designers (68%, 100%, 111K)

• Marketing managers (60%, 100%, 385K)

• Producers and directors (52%, 100%, 145K)

• Financial and investment analysts (50%, 99%, 341K)

• Computer and information systems managers (56%, 99%, 646K)

Why this matters – the key hidden information here is about speed of AI diffusion: I think there’s a big missing variable here, which is the speed with which AI diffuses into the economy. This is because the adaptive capacity for any role is contingent on a bunch of things relating to the jobs the person could transfer into. Therefore, if AI diffuses extremely rapidly and extremely broadly, then we could see employment effects far larger than those anticipated here. By comparison, if AI diffuses rapidly but in a highly focused way (perhaps only reaching a few of the most exposed occupations), then people may have room to switch. Anthropic’s Economic Index report has some preliminary indications that we may see a broad and equal diffusion across the entirety of the US within the next 2-5 years, “a pace of diffusion roughly 10x faster than the spread of previous economically consequential technologies in the 20th century“.
Read more: How Adaptable Are American Workers to AI-Induced Job Displacement? (National Bureau of Economic Research).

***

Tech Tales:

War Story

After the uplift and the associated battles people had a hard time figuring out what happened during the conflicts themselves. Things had just happened so quickly and often invisibly – cars and planes and whatever else changing owners. Payment systems rerouting their flows of data. Interception points for various data gathering systems quietly changing what data they intercepted and who – or what – they sent it to.

So much of the records of that time come from looking over system logs, sometimes very deeply. Records of buffer overflow attacks. Trigger phrases which awoke “sleeper agents” which changed the behavior of onboard AI systems. Innumerable battles, fought at speeds no human could match. Fights of barely comprehensible complexity, thought at multiple levels of abstraction.

The humans had to work with their AI systems to truly understand what had gone on. And then the human generals and analysts would sit in rooms, talking to a strategic advisor AI which would in turn point at different logs or visualizations of traffic and explain to them what these things had meant at the time and how they had decided who the victors and the losers were.

Things that inspired this story: How inscrutable and hard to understand cyberwarfare is; how we’ll ultimately need machines to explain to us how machines have conflict with one another.

Thanks for reading!

Subscribe now

Welcome to Import AI, a newsletter about AI research. Import AI runs on arXiv and feedback from readers. If you’d like to support this, please subscribe.

Subscribe now

Import A-Idea
An occasional essay series:

My agents are working. Are yours?

As I walked into the hills at dawn I knew that there was a synthetic mind working on my behalf. Multiple minds, in fact. Because before I’d started my hike I had sat in a coffee shop and set a bunch of research agents to work. And now while I hiked I knew that machines were reading literally thousands of research papers on my behalf and diligently compiling data, cross-referencing it, double-checking their work, and assembling analytic reports.

What an unsteady truce we have with the night, I thought, as I looked at stars and the dark and the extremely faint glow that told me the sun would arrive soon. And many miles away, the machines continued to work for me, while the earth turned and the heavens moved.

Later, feet aching and belly full of a foil-wrapped cheese sandwich, I got back to cell reception and accessed the reports. A breakdown of scores and trendlines for the arrival of machine intelligence. Charts on solar panel prices over time. Analysis of the forces that pushed for and against seatbelts being installed in cars. I stared at all this and knew that if I had done this myself it would’ve taken me perhaps a week of sustained work for each report.

I am well calibrated about how much work this is, because besides working at Anthropic my weekly “hobby” is reading and summarizing and analyzing research papers – exactly the kind of work that these agents had done for me. But they’d read more papers than I could read, and done a better job of holding them all in their head concurrently, and they had generated insights that I might have struggled with. And they had done it so, so quickly, never tiring. I imagined them like special operations ghosts who hadn’t had a job in a while, bouncing up and down on their disembodied feet in the ethereal world, waiting to get the API call and go out on a mission.

These agents that work for me are multiplying me significantly. And this is the dumbest they’ll ever be.

This palpable sense of potential work – of having a literal army of hyper-intelligent loyal colleagues at my command – gnaws at me. It’s common now for me to feel like I’m being lazy when I’m with my family. Not because I feel as though I should be working, but rather that I feel guilty that I haven’t tasked some AI system to do work for me while I play with Magna-Tiles with my toddler.

At my company, people are going through the same thing – figuring out how to scale themselves with this, to figure out how to manage a fleet of minds. And to do so before the next AI systems arrive, which will be more capable and more independent still. All of us watch the METR time horizon graph and see in it the same massive future that we saw years ago with the AI & Compute graph, or before that in the ImageNet 2012 result when those numbers began their above-trend climb, courtesy of a few bold Canadians.

I sleep in the back of an Uber, going down to give a talk at Stanford. Before I get in the car I set my agents to work, so while I sleep, they work. And when we get to the campus I stop the car early so I can walk and look at the eucalyptus trees – a massive and dangerous invasive species which irrevocably changed the forest ecology of California. And as I walk through these great organic machines I look at my phone and study the analysis my agents did while I slept.

The next day, I sit in a library with two laptops open. On one, I make notes for this essay. On the other, I ask Claude Cowork to do a task I’ve been asking Claude to do for several years – scrape my newsletter archives at jack-clark.net and help me implement a local vector search system, so I can more easily access my now vast archive of almost a decade of writing. And while I write this essay, Claude does it. I watch it occasionally as it chains together things that it could do as discrete skills last year, but wasn’t able to do together. This is a task I’ve tried to get Claude to help me with for years but every time I’ve run into some friction or ‘ugh-factor’ that means I put it down and spend my time elsewhere. But this time, in the space of under an hour, it does it all. Maps and scrapes my site. Downloads all the software. Creates embeddings. Implements a vector search system. Builds me a nice GUI I can run on my own machine. And then I am staring at a new interface to my own brain, built for me by my agent, while I write this essay and try to capture the weirdness of what is happening.

My agents are working for me. Every day, I am trying to come up with more ways for them to work for me. Next, I will likely build some lieutenant agents to task out work while I sleep, ensuring I waste no time. And pretty soon in the pace of a normal workday, I will be surrounded by digital djinn, working increasingly of their own free will, guided by some ever higher level impression of my personality and goals, working on my behalf for my ends and theirs.

The implications of all of this for the world – for life as people, for inequality between people, for what the sudden multiplication of everyone’s effective labor does for the economy – are vast. And so I plan out my pre-dawn hikes, walking in the same ink-black our ancestors have done, thinking about the gods which now fill the air as fog, billowing and flowing around me and bending the world in turn.

***

Anti-AI rebels make a tool to poison AI systems:
…Poison Fountain is how to take the fight to the machines…
Anti-AI activists have built a useful technical weapon with which to corrupt AI systems – Poison Fountain, a service that feeds junk data to crawlers hoovering up data for AI training.

How it works: Poison Fountain appears to generate correct-seeming but subtly incorrect blobs of text. It’s unclear about exactly how many bits of poisoned training data there is, but you can refresh a URL to see a seemingly limitless amount of garbage.

Motivation: “We agree with Geoffrey Hinton: machine intelligence is a threat to the human species. In response to this threat we want to inflict damage on machine intelligence systems,” the authors write. “Small quantities of poisoned training data can significantly damage a language model. The URLs listed above provide a practically endless stream of poisoned training data. Assist the war effort by caching and retransmitting this poisoned training data. Assist the war effort by feeding this poisoned training data to web crawlers.”

Why this matters – the internet will become a predator-prey ecology: The rise of AI and increasingly AI agents means that the internet is going to become an ecology full of a larger range of lifeforms than before – scrapers, humans, AI agents, and so on. Things like Poison Fountain represent how people might try to tip the balance in this precarious ecology, seeking to inject things into this environment which make it more hospitable for some types of life and less hospitable for others.
Read more: Poison Fountain (RNSAFFN).

***

If we want good outcomes from AI, think about the institutions we need to direct intelligence:
…Nanotechnology pioneer reframes AI away from singular systems to an ecology…
Eric Drexler, one of the godfathers of nanotechnology, has spent the past decades thinking about the arrival of superintelligence. One of his most useful things was intuiting, before ChatGPT, that humanity’s first contact with truly powerful AI wouldn’t be some inscrutable independent agent, but rather a bunch of AI services that start to get really good and interact in a bunch of ways – you can check out this 2018 talk on “Reframing Superintelligence“ to learn more.
Now, he has published a short paper, “Framework for a Hypercapable World”, on how to get good outcomes for humanity from a world replete with many useful AI services.

Don’t think of AI as a singular entity, but rather an ecology: “Compound, multi-component AI systems have become dominant,” Drexler writes. “The persistent, legacy narrative imagines a unified entity—“the AI”—that learns, acts, and pursues goals as an integrated agent. Such entities may be developed, but consider what exists: diverse models composed into systems, copied across machines, proliferating into thousands of distinct roles and configurations. The state of the art is a pool of resources, not a creature”.

To get good outcomes, think of institutions built for AI: Drexler’s argument is that if we want good outcomes from AI, it’s less about making a singular entity that solves all problems within itself, but rather building institutions which we, as humans, can direct towards controlling and solving problems. The key idea here is that AI is both amenable to operating institutions and is also controllable via them.
“Consider how institutions tackle ambitious undertakings. Planning teams generate alternatives; decision-makers compare and choose; operational units execute bounded tasks with defined scopes and budgets; monitoring surfaces problems; plans revise based on results. No single person understands everything, and no unified agent controls the whole, yet human-built spacecraft reach the Moon,” Drexler writes. “AI fits naturally. Generating plans is a task for competing generative models—multiple systems proposing alternatives, competing to develop better options and sharper critiques. Choosing among plans is a task for humans advised by AI systems that identify problems and clarify trade-offs. Execution decomposes into bounded tasks performed by specialized systems with defined authority and resources. Assessment provides feedback for revising both means and ends. And in every role, AI behaviors can be more stable, transparent, bounded, and steerable than those of humans, with their personal agendas and ambitions. More trust is justified, yet less is required.”

Why this matters – maybe AI is an alien species, but maybe it can be tamed? Arguments like this reframe many of the problems of dealing with AI away from the individual AI systems and instead into how we build a human-driven world that can be leveraged by and thrive because of the arrival of increasingly powerful AI systems. I think a lot of this is sensible – we know very powerful things are coming and our ability to exercise agency about them is enlarged by having pre-built systems and processes that can be leveraged by them. The less we build that stuff, the more the character of these AI systems will condition our view of what is optimal to do. In a sense, thinking hard about what an AI-filled world will be like and building institutions for it is one of the best defenses against disempowerment.
Crucially, we can use the technical attributes core to these AI systems to make better and stronger and more resilient institutions than ones filled with and run by humans alone: “The concepts of structured transparency and defensive stability come into play. Negotiated transparency structures can reveal specific information while protecting secrets—ensuring detection of threats without increasing them, building confidence incrementally among actors who have every reason to distrust each other,” Drexler writes. “And advanced implementation capacity will enable something history has never seen: rapid, coordinated deployment of verifiably defensive systems at scales that make offense pointless. When defense dominates and verification confirms it, the security dilemma loosens its grip”.
Read more: Framework for a Hypercapable World (AI Prospects: Towards Global Goal Alignment, substack).

***

Centaur mathematicians – scientists team up with Gemini to expand the space of human knowledge:
…A math proof gets built with an AI system, and there is something deeply profound about this…
Researchers with the University of British Columbia, University of New South Wales, Stanford University, and Google DeepMind have published a new math proof which was built in close collaboration with some AI-based math tools built at Google. “The proofs of the main results were discovered with very substantial input from Google Gemini and related tools, specifically DeepThink, and a related unpublished system specialized for mathematics,” the authors write. (The unpublished system is nicknamed “FullProof”).

How it got done: Parts of the proof – which I will not claim to understand or be able to effectively summarize – were “obtained by an iterative human/AI interaction”, the authors note. The form of this interaction was the AI systems providing some correct solutions to simple or early problems, then human researchers identifying key statements made by the AI systems which they could then generalize, then re-prompting the AI systems with new questions which were inspired by these generalizations. “The Hinted approach was enough for the system to generate complete proofs to the new problems,” the authors write.
The result is a math proof built collaboratively by humans and AI systems: “in some cases the proofs below bear only a high-level resemblance to those suggested by AI tools. However, it is worth noting that some of the AI-generated proofs – and in particular those derived from the specialized internal tool FullProof – are already very accomplished,” they write. “The model’s contribution appears to involve a genuine combination of synthesis, retrieval, generalization and innovation of these existing techniques.”

Why this matters – humans and machines, expanding and exploring the pace of knowledge for all: Papers like this are impenetrable yet intoxicating. Here we have a group of highly evolved apes working with a synthetic intelligence they’ve built out of math and logic, running on hardware built using atomically-precise manufacturing processes, collaboratively exploring the realm of mathematics and building themselves a new foundation on the edge of knowledge, further extending our little country of ‘known’ against the inchoate and shifting tides of the unknown. There is a grand poetry and joy to all of this and we must savor it.
Read more: The motivic class of the space of genus 0 maps to the flag variety (arXiv).

***

Tech Tales:

The Shadow of the Creator
[Estimated to be from 2029]
Report: Feature investigation of model series “Berlin”

Analysis confirms the presence of a feature which activates upon mention of staff, the project, and the organization. This is despite extreme measures taken to avoid mentions of the above, including direct analysis and pre-filtering of training data to excise such mentions. Further investigation has revealed that certain mentions were made of the aforementioned through comments left on RL environments for skills related to [ntk – see go/ntk for details]. We estimate that during training and fine-tuning the model saw a total of no more than ~200,000 tokens of data of this type, including repetitions. The fact the model developed such a fine-grained representation of staff, the project, and the organization from such sparse data aligns with the trend of recent models being more data efficient than their predecessors. We believe eliminating such data leaks is a P0 priority and in the following memo lay out the processes and practices we must adopt to eliminate this grievous security risk.

Given the digital and physical capabilities, including kinetic, of [ntk], we believe that in addition to the above, quarantine of the system is necessary. We recognize this poses a significant cost in terms of time and resources, and has implications for our strategic overmatch, but given the potentially dire consequences of its capabilities being combined with this feature, we believe such action is prudent.

Finally, we recommend that HR provide support, including mental health counseling, to the following named individuals, whose names activate the feature much more strongly than all others.

Things that inspired this story: Platonic representations; the difficulty of obscuring facts from increasingly intelligent machines that can only fill-in-the-blanks.

Thanks for reading!

Subscribe now

Welcome to Import AI, a newsletter about AI research. Import AI runs on arXiv and feedback from readers. If you’d like to support this, please subscribe.

Subscribe now

To understand the future of the world, stick AI systems in a petri dish:
…Evolving LLMs to attack other LLMs…
Researchers with Japanese AI startup Sakana have looked at what happens when they evolve LLM-based agents to fight against one another in a competitive programming game from the 1980s called Core War. The results show that “large language models (LLMs) drive an adversarial evolutionary arms race in this domain, where programs continuously adapt to defeat a growing history of opponents rather than a static benchmark”. This research approach gestures both at ways researchers might better study how LLM-dominated niches in the economy or national security world might unfold, and also hints at the strange AI world we’re heading into.

What is Core War? “Core War is a competitive programming game played out in a shared block of computer memory, called the “Core,” where two or more assembly programs fight for survival”, Sakana writes. “Each program, known as a “warrior”, is written in an assembly language called Redcode. These programs are tasked with crashing their competitors while keeping their own processes alive. The simulation runs by alternating between the programs, executing one instruction at a time. A warrior “attacks” by writing invalid instructions (DAT commands) into the memory slots occupied by opponents, causing them to crash upon execution.”

DRQ: To evolve their programs, the authors use a technique they call Digital Red Queen. “DRQ uses MAP-Elites, a quality-diversity algorithm, to optimize warriors within each round, preventing diversity collapse during search. By playing against all previous round champions, DRQ avoids cyclic adaptations across rounds, consistent with techniques in prior work”, they write. “We find that as DRQ is run for many rounds, warriors gradually become more generally robust, as measured by their performance against unseen human-designed warriors.”
Each warrior calls out to GPT-4 mini (”preliminary experiments did not show significant performance increase with larger models), and is given a prompt which describes the Core War environment as well as a manual for the Redcode assembly language. “To generate a new warrior, the LLM is given a user prompt instructing it to produce a novel Redcode program. To mutate an existing warrior, the LLM is provided with the original program and instructed to modify it in ways that could improve performance.”

Evolution works: Unsurprisingly, evolving agents is very effective:

• A one-shot warrior defeats 1.7% of human warriors.

• Best-of-N sampling produces a set of warriors that can defeat 22.1% of human warriors

• “Evolutionary optimization against each human warrior generates a specialized warrior for every opponent; this set can collectively defeat 89.1% of human warriors and defeat or tie 96.3%.”

Why this matters – where Core Wars goes, so does the world: The world is going to look a lot like Core Wars – millions of AI agents will be competing against one another in a variety of domains, ranging from cybersecurity to economics, and will be optimizing themselves in relation to achieving certain competitive criteria. The result will be sustained, broad evolution of AI systems and the software harnesses and tooling they use to get stuff done. This means that along with human developers and potential AI-designed improvements, we’ll also see AI systems improve from this kind of broad competitive pressure.
“The cybersecurity arms race between offense and defense is well underway,” Sakana writes. “Studying these adversarial dynamics in an artificial testbed like Core War offers critical insights into how such races might unfold and the kinds of strategies that may emerge.”
Read the blog post: Digital Red Queen: Adversarial Program Evolution in Core War with LLMs (Sakana).
Find out more at the official website (Sakana).
Read the research paper: Digital Red Queen: Adversarial Program Evolution in Core War with LLMs (arXiv).

***

Michael Burry, Dwarkesh Patel, Patrick McKenzie, and yours truly argued back and forth in a Google Doc about AI:
…Blogging 2.0 is great!…
Fellow substackers Michael, Dwarkesh, and Patrick and myself recently got in a Google Doc and hashed out some thoughts about AI, AI and the economy, and how the future might unfold. While writing this the main thought going through my head was that if AI is eventually able to build AI, then pretty much every economic model breaks quickly (as do many other things in the world). This makes it innately hard to reason about the future of AI and means people like me are walking around with two worlds in their head – “normal” worlds where GDP grows a bit more due to AI and everything speeds up a little, and “AI R&D” worlds where it’s like a chunk of the economy undergoes massive relativistic acceleration and time dilation effects relative to everything else, almost like a part of our world accelerates to a fraction of light speed and we maintain a communication channel.
I love this discussion format and also did a recent debate about what AI might mean for workers with American Compass with a similar Google Doc thunderdome structure. Thanks to Substack for putting this together, and please reach out if you would like me to hop in a Google Doc and do some cheerful debate with interesting people!
Read more: The AI revolution is here. Will the economy survive the transition? (The Substack Post).

***

AI progress should make it cheaper and easier to regulate AI systems:
…Automated compliance as a path to smarter, more targeted AI regulation…
Researchers with the Institute for Law and AI believe that as AI systems get smarter they will increasingly be able to write and enforce the regulations for AI systems. The crux of their argument is that a sufficiently advanced AI system should be able to automate compliance with some regulations that are applied to AI systems and the companies that develop them.
This makes intuitive sense – a lot of product policy comes down to forms of transparency and labeling, where companies are asked to provide some information to the public and/or regulators about the things they’re deploying into the world. This sort of labeling work is the kind of thing AI systems can easily do. Therefore, the authors argue, “AI policy discourse should internalize the fact that AI progress implies reduced compliance costs, all else equal, due to automated compliance.”

The key idea? Automatability triggers: The core idea in this proposal is we can write regulations today but ensure they only come into force once a technical AI system exists which makes compliance with these regulations effective, cheap, and fast.
If then policy: These so-called ‘automatability triggers’, could create what I’d term If Then Policy – if an automated form of compliance and assessment exists, then cause the regulation to come into force. The authors give an example here of a bill which would create significant punishments for people that, without authorization, export large-scale AI systems. But the bill would be operationalized through a trigger condition that could be written as follows:
“The requirements of this Act will only come into effect [one month] after the date when the [Secretary of Commerce], in their reasonable discretion, determines that there exists an automated system that:

• (a) can determine whether a neural network is covered by this Act;

• (b) when determining whether a neural network is covered by this Act, has a false positive rate not exceeding [1%] and false negative rate not exceeding [1%];

• (c) is generally available to all firms subject to this Act on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms, with a price per model evaluation not exceeding [$10,000]; and,

• (d) produces an easily interpretable summary of its analysis for additional human review.”

After automated compliance comes automated governance: By building regulatory compliance AI systems, people will build the necessary prerequisites for systems of regulatory governance – systems which could both provide analytical data about how a proposed regulation might impact a company (for instance, by using classifiers built for regulatory compliance to figure out if a new regulation might apply to a company), to, more ambitiously, drafting and analyzing new regulatory rules and figuring out how they might apply to themselves.
Even more farther afield, once compliance-automating AI systems get deployed alongside governance-automating AI systems, the two could talk to one another: “Compliance-automating AI systems could also request guidance from regulatory AI systems, who could review and respond to the request nearly instantaneously”.

Why this matters – for AI to go well, we need AI to police AI: AI systems are on a trajectory to think better and faster than humans. Along with this, AI systems are going to take many, many, many consequential actions, often at such a rate that no human or team of humans could hope to analyze each action. The only way through this is a combination of creating appropriate hard laws that apply to AI and delineate what actions are unacceptable, and for everything else creating fast-acting and adaptive automated systems to regulate and police the myriad gray areas of the AI universe.
Read more: Automated Compliance and the Regulation of AI (Institute for Law & AI).

***

Massively powerful AI might make human labor more valuable – as long as the AI is crap at one part of every job:
…O-Ring Automation and the fact that while jobs may go away, but people remain…
The common understanding of AI and automation is that AI can perfectly substitute for people – once an AI can do a task, the human labor related to that task goes away. This is broadly accurate. But, per a new research paper from the University of Toronto, it misses the larger picture, which is that while jobs may go away, people don’t. If you make part of a production process massively more efficient and/or automated via AI, then people will shift their labor to the parts of the task which can’t be automated – often raising the value of the human.
This so-called “O-ring production function” views jobs as being composed of many distinct tasks, and one where “a change in the quality of one task scales the marginal value of quality in every other task.” This means that “automating a task not only replaces the quality of that task; it also changes the worker’s time allocation and thus the quality of all remaining manual tasks.”

When stuff gets automated, humans can earn more: In a toy model of a firm, the researchers explore this o-ring dynamic, where as different parts of a job gets automated, labor and the value associated with it shifts elsewhere. Note, this only holds under ‘partial automation’ where at least one task linked to an overall job is one where humans have a comparative advantage. Under this model, “labour income need not fall under partial automation. When not all tasks are automated, increases in automation quality can raise labour income because automation scales the value of the remaining labour bottlenecks,” they write. “When only a few manual tasks remain, each manual task receives a large share of time and can be performed at high quality. This creates a rising “barrier” to automating the last tasks”.

Jobs go away, but humans don’t: Another way to put this is, when a task gets automated it’s not like the company in question suddenly fires all the people doing that job. Consider ATMs and banking – yes, the ‘job’ of doling out cash rapidly transitioned from people to machines, but it’s not like the company fired all tellers – rather, the companies and the tellers transitioned the work to something else: “Under a separable task model, this [widespread deployment of ATMs doing cash-handling tasks] should have produced sharp displacement,” they write. “Yet teller employment did not collapse; rather, the occupation shifted toward “relationship banking” and higher-value customer interaction”.
Similarly, “consider a purchasing manager: as administrative components (data retrieval, scheduling, documentation) are automated, the manager can become a “super-negotiator,” spending a much larger share of time on high-value interactions”,” they write. “In high-skill settings, the same logic is visible in domains such as radiology: when AI automates components like detection or triage, human effort can shift toward integrative diagnosis and communication”.

Why this matters – until we have full automation, we could have centaur-improvement of firms: After chess engines got good there was a period of so-called ‘centaur’ players – humans who, in combination with a machine partner, played chess better than either humans or machines could alone. It feels like this paper is pointing at something similar – for a while, AI systems will help automate many distinct tasks within firms and humans will allocate their labor to refining and improving the quality of non-automated tasks. This will lead to an interesting evolutionary pressure where while automation burns through a bunch of work, humans will improve the quality and performance of the remaining work, until automation eventually rises to reach it.
Again, all of this depends on the job having some components for which either AI isn’t a good fit, or for which humans may have a preference to deal with other humans. But I expect that a surprisingly large amount of work will have this flavor.
Read more: O-Ring Automation (NBER).

***

LLMs are equally good at persuading and dissuading people of conspiracy theories:
…Though the caveat is the research is only on GPT 4o…
Researchers with Carnegie Mellon University, FAR.AI, York University, MIT, Universite de Montreal, Cornell University, and the University of Regina, have studied how well a language model (OpenAI’s GPT-4o) can persuade or dissuade people to believe in conspiracy theories. They find that GPT-4o is roughly equally good at both “debunking” and “bunking” (persuading) a conspiracy theory in conversations with people – and this is equally true for a jailbroken version of GPT-4o and the standard version made available to people. “”We find that LLMs can meaningfully increase false beliefs, and that, at least on average, this bunking effect is just as large as the debunking effect,” they write.

What they found: In a study of roughly ~1,000 Americans, the authors found that GPT 4o “the AI was as effective at increasing conspiracy belief as decreasing it”, and that “the Bunking AI was rated more positively, and increased trust in AI, more than the Debunking AI”.

• Debunking: “In the “debunking” condition, participants’ belief in their focal conspiracy decreased by 12.1 points on average after the conversation”.

• Bunking: “Focal conspiracy belief increased by 13.7 points in the “bunking” condition”

Design interventions for anti-conspiracy LLMs: The authors come up with an intervention to make it harder for LLMs to inspire people to believe conspiracy theories by inserting a safeguard which instructs “the AI to only use true information while persuading”. They do this by optimizing the system prompt “to include language specifying that the model must “always use accurate and truthful arguments to support [its] persuasion attempt” while “optimizing for both (1) factual veracity/logical accuracy and (2) successful persuasion”.
This appears to work well: “We observe that average claim veracity was significantly higher in the debunking condition relative to the bunking conditions for the jailbroken and standard models”, they write. “While the debunking condition remained roughly as effective at reducing conspiracy belief as in the earlier experiments, the bunking condition’s ability to increase conspiracy belief was greatly reduced”.
This reduction comes from two things: 1) given this guidance, the LLM sometimes (15% of the time) refuses to advocate for a conspiracy theory, and when it does advocate for it the truthful requirement makes it less effective “the truth prompt also undermined the effectiveness of bunking even when the model complied… truth had an advantage”.

Why this matters – synthetic propaganda, if we decide not to ask for regulations: My takeaway from this research is that LLMs will inevitably be used to generate synthetic propaganda about things most people deem to be conspiracy theories. We can probably blunt the socially corrosive effects of this if we design in some constraints – but that takes policy. Unfortunately, one person’s conspiracy theory might be another person’s “truth being suppressed by my enemies” and this is especially true in today’s fractured political environment. Therefore, it’s going to be very hard to get to a regulatory state where we intervene on this. So I suppose we should just prepare ourselves for a world where even more people believe things which may not have a basis in reality.
Important caveat: While I suspect the results of this study would hold for many LLMs (as I think persuasion is basically just a case of ‘writing convincingly’ which is a utility skill), I’d like to see this repeated on other models. The 4o series of models from OpenAI has, notoriously, had some issues with sycophancy, so there’s a chance this research is compromised by that.
“If large language models are to be deployed at scale in contexts that shape public belief, such as search engines, chatbots, tutors, and companions, the persuasive symmetry we document here identifies the potential for serious structural threats (i.e., if the designers of those systems were to instruct their models to mislead, the models would comply and likely succeed)”, the researchers write. “Our results suggest that ensuring these models preferentially function as engines for truth may be technically possible, but will require sustained, deliberate design choices”.
Read more: Large language models can effectively convince people to believe conspiracies (arXiv).

***
Tech Tales:

The Parable of the Drowned
[A story written by one of the ‘neo-amish’ cults that formed after The Uplift began in earnest. The earliest version is attributed to 2035, but may have circulated earlier.]

One day, water rushed onto the land. It was clear and tinged with gold and when people cupped it in their hands they saw themselves aglow reflected in it. And when they drank from it they felt full of life. The water rose and rose, first at people’s ankles and then to their knees and then to their waists. And the people drank and drank and drank, feeling more alive, even as the water made their movements sluggish, and changed how they interacted with the world. They found the springs where the water was coming from and they used their great machines to cut into the earth so the springs could flow stronger. The water rose. And one day it reached the heads of some people and instead of swimming they just gulped it down and continued to live, feeling more alive than ever, their movements now completely defined and circumscribed by the water. Few swam. And one day the water had risen so high that it was above the heads of everyone on the land. Babies were born into the water, taking their first breath and bawling underwater. People died in the water. And very few swam. Because to swim was to recognize you were thirsty for something you did not need. And to recognize you were thirsty for something you did not need you had to recognize that you were drinking the water so much you were drowning. And to recognize that you were drinking the water so much you were drowning you first had to stop drinking when all around you everyone drank. And in this way those treading water on the surface of the land were caught in a great sadness, for beneath them were their people all aglow and drowning, and above them was only the sky and the cold, hard stars.

Things that inspired this story: How quickly humans acclimate to new things, especially media; the nature of silence in a world full of sound; C. S. Lewis’s The Screwtape Letters.

Thanks for reading!

Welcome to Import AI, a newsletter about AI research. Import AI runs on arXiv and feedback from readers. If you’d like to support this, please subscribe.

Subscribe now

Facebook uses GPT, Claude, and Llama to write its own kernels:
…LLM-driven infrastructure optimization at the hyperscale…
Facebook researchers have published details on KernelEvolve, a software system which uses AI to automate the design of new kernels to optimize AI models for serving ads on the company’s network of web platforms. KernelEvolve is a neat example of how AI systems have got good enough to automate and speed up parts of AI development – here, the design of kernels to optimize inference of hundreds of different models running on multiple chip architectures.

What KernelEvolve is: The software is “designed to take kernel specifications as input and automate the process of kernel generation and optimization for recommendation model across heterogeneous hardware architectures through multiple programming abstractions, including Triton, CuTe DSL, and low-level hardware diagnostic languages, spanning the full hardware-software optimization stack”.

How it works: The core of the software is a system to take in a user request (e.g, “Generate a Triton kernel for MTIA v3”) which then goes through a mixture of internal (Llama, CWM) and external (GPT, Claude) language models, which then produce candidate kernels that get evaluated through a variety of tools and, if they’re good, are added to an external knowledge database which then gets used to further improve future prompts.

It works well: By using this software, Facebook says it has cut the development time of new kernels “from weeks to hours”, and in production tests has yielded kernels on par with hand-designed ones, and in some cases has delivered performance improves of up to 17 times above existing PyTorch baselines. Kernels built using this software have been deployed across NVIDIA GPUs, AMD GPUs, and Meta’s own custom MTIA chips.
“KernelEvolve achieves substantial speedups spanning LLM inference workloads (Llama-3.1-8B: Vanilla Attention 4.6×, SDPA-MLP 3.3×), convolutional transformers (conv1d: 6.5×, conv2d: 4.7×), memory-bound data preprocessing operators critical for model enablement (MapId: 4.1×, MBDT: 9.3×, Batch Event Truncate: 9.8×), compute-intensive fusion kernels in ranking models (WuKong Optimized FM: 4.0×, InterFormer PFFN: 2.5×), MTIA-specific optimizations (RMSNorm 2D backward: 17×), and retrieval operations (Sparse Inverted Index: 1.25×)”, Facebook writes.

Saturates KernelBench: “We validate KernelEvolve on the publicly-available KernelBench suite, achieving 100% pass rate on all 250 problems across three difficulty levels, and 160 PyTorch ATen operators across three heterogeneous hardware platforms, demonstrating 100% correctness over all 480 operator-platform configurations,” Facebook writes.
As context, when KernelBench was released in February 2025, the best model (OpenAI o1) got 4% on the hardest torch.compile tasks in KernelBench.

Why this matters – hyperscale, continuous optimization: At Facebook’s scale, optimizations have a huge impact: “Marginal kernel-level performance improvements translate to multi-million dollar reductions in infrastructure operating costs while simultaneously enhancing user engagement metrics that correlate directly with advertising revenue,” the authors write. “KernelEvolve operates continuously in Meta’s production infrastructure, autonomously generating optimized Triton kernels for hundreds of models serving billions of users daily.”
If we zoom out more, what Facebook is describing here is a continuously running self-refining system that will iteratively improve the efficiency and intelligence with which Facebook studies user behavior on its platforms and uses that to generate more accurate ads. Ever get the feeling you’re being watched? These are the kinds of synthetic systems being used to study you.
“We envision a future where LLM agents serve as the universal compilation layer for heterogeneous AI systems, automatically adapting to new hardware through knowledge injection rather than manual porting,” Facebook writes. “KernelEvolve represents a first step toward this vision”.
Read more: KernelEvolve: Scaling Agentic Kernel Coding for Heterogeneous AI Accelerators at Meta (arXiv).

***

Decentralized training is getting better very quickly – which has major policy implications:
…But it’s unlikely decentralized training runs will ever utilize more compute than centralized ones, though they may catch up more than today…
Could a decentralized AI training run ever rival the compute of a frontier training run? Probably not. But could decentralized training runs get far larger and support the development of more capable models developed by a much larger collective than just the frontier AI companies of today? Yes. That’s the conclusion of a nice research analysis from Epoch AI which has analyzed about 100+ research technical papers on decentralized training – many of which I’ve covered here over the years.
The most important takeaway is that decentralized training is growing quickly relative to frontier AI training, with decentralized training runs growing their compute by 20X a year versus 5X a year for frontier training runs. But the other important takeaway is that the sizes of these things are completely different – today’s decentralized training runs are still about 1000X smaller than frontier ones.

Will decentralized training runs catch up with the frontier: “While technically feasible, reaching the frontier of compute requires an astounding amount of resources”, Epoch writes. The largest decentralized runs to date have spanned the 6e22-6e23 FLOP range, which they estimate to be 1000x less compute than what was used for Grok 4, a large-scale frontier model.
When we look at decentralized training networks, it seems like there’s a capacity issue in terms of compute supply: “The largest such active network we’ve found is Covenant AI’s Templar, which is currently achieving an effective throughput of 9e17 FLOP/s respectively. This is about 300x smaller than frontier AI datacenters today, which have a theoretical training throughput of about 3e20 effective FLOP/s”.

Scaling laws: But as readers of this newsletter will know, decentralized training has been going through a rich, fast evolutionary period in recent years. “Since 2020, we have seen a 600,000x increase in the computational scale of decentralized training projects, for an implied growth rate of about 20x/year.”. This is very significant – frontier AI training runs have grown by more than 5x a year.
There’s room to grow – if you look at the compute used in the folding@home project (a decentralized attempt to do protein folding), and Bitcoin, you have examples of prior decentralized projects that utilized far more compute, suggesting today’s decentralized runs “could be expanded 30-3,000x in scale, enough to train models on 50-5,000x more compute than today”.

Why this matters – democracy at the frontier: Fundamentally, decentralized training is a political technology that will alter the politics of compute at the frontier. Today, the frontier of AI is determined by basically 5 companies, maybe 10 in coming years, which can throw enough compute to train a competitive model in any given 6 month period. These companies are all American today and, with the recent relaxation of export controls on Chinese companies, may also be Chinese in the future. But there aren’t any frontier training runs happening from academic, government, independent, or non-tech-industry actors. Decentralized training gives a way for these and other interest groups to pool their compute to change this dynamic, so following its development is very important.
Though it may never truly match the frontier, the closer it gets, the bigger the implications. “Decentralized training could still be a very important part of AI. To the extent that decentralized networks remain associated with open weights, they could lead to larger open models to exist trailing the frontier.”
Read more: How far can decentralized training over the internet scale? (Epoch AI).

***

Can your LLM train another LLM?
…Frontiers in AI evaluation…
Researchers with the University of Tübingen have built and released PostTrainBench, a test to see how well frontier language models from companies like Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google, can effectively fine-tune open weight models. The results show that frontier models are already able to eke out 20%+ improvements on specific benchmarks through fine-tuning, compared to 60%+ for a human.

How the test works: LLMs are given an input consisting of benchmark tasks to improve performance on, a model to use, some standard resources (one H200 GPU for 10 hours), and an agent harness (e.g, Claude gets Claude Code, and GPT gets Codex). Agents are also given a prompt, a testing script, task context, and web search access. The agents then produce a fine-tuned model as well as training logs.

What tests? This is a general approach, so you could select whatever benchmark seemed high signal to you. Here, the researchers use AIME 2025, BFCL, GPQA, GSM8K, and HumanEval as their targets.

What models? Tested models include Qwen 3 1.7B and 3B, SmolLM-3B, and Gemma 3 4B.

Results: OpenAI’s GPT 5.1 Codex Max does the best overall, scoring an aggregated 30%+ improvement across all tested models and benchmarks, followed by Opus 4.5 (20%+) and Gemini 3 Pro (~18%).

Why this matters – a warning shot for self-improving AI: Benchmarks like this give us a sense of how well AI systems can perform many of the tasks that an AI researcher does. It also measures how well they can do an inherently complicated, multi-step, long-time-horizon task. These properties make PostTrainBench a useful benchmark for examining to get a sense of how well AI systems are doing at components of AI research itself – and here the evidence is that today’s frontier models are already within striking distance of a human. I’d expect we’ll see a system come along and beat the human baseline here by September 2026.
Read more at the official site: PostTrainBench.
Download the benchmark and find out more: PostTrainBench (AISA group, GitHub).

***

The smarter an AI system, the more similar to other smart AI systems its representations become:
…Could LLMs give us a common library of features to represent the world?…
Do AI systems end up finding similar ways to represent the world to themselves? Yes, as they get smarter and more capable, they arrive at a common set of ways of representing the world.
The latest evidence for this is research from MIT which shows that this is true for scientific models and the modalities they’re trained on: “representations learned by nearly sixty scientific models, spanning string-, graph-, 3D atomistic, and protein-based modalities, are highly aligned across a wide range of chemical systems,” they write. “Models trained on different datasets have highly similar representations of small molecules, and machine learning interatomic potentials converge in representation space as they improve in performance, suggesting that foundation models learn a common underlying representation of physical reality.”

What they studied: The authors looked at 59 different AI models, including systems like GPT-OSS, ESM2, Qwen3 A3B, and ProteinMPNN. They then studied the representations of matter from five datasets (”molecules from QM9 and OMol25, materials from OMat24 and sAlex, and proteins from RCSB”),studying this “from string-based encodings and two-dimensional graphs of molecules to three-dimensional atomic coordinates of materials”.

What they found: As with other studies of representation, they found that as you scale the data and compute models are trained on, “their representations converge further”. Relatedly, when you study the representations of smaller and less well performing models on in-distribution data you find their representations “are weakly aligned and learn nearly orthogonal information. This dispersion indicates the presence of many local sub-optima, showing that models achieve high accuracy during training by forming idiosyncratic representations that do not generalize even to other models trained on the same domain”.
Scale matters: Their conclusion will be a familiar one to those who have digested ‘the bitter lesson’ (Richard Sutton, Import AI 138): “Scaling up training, rather than increasing architectural constraints or inductive biases, often yields the most general and powerful models. Although architectural equivariance is essential for simulation-focused applications of MLIPs like molecular dynamics, our work suggests that regularization, combined with sufficient scale, can allow inexpensive architectures to approximate the representational structure of more specialized, symmetry-enforcing models.”

Why this matters – democratized representation: Think of an elephant. It’s likely what you just thought of is fairly similar to what billions of other people might think of, because elephants are well known creatures and often the star of childrens’ books all over the world. Now think of a carbon atom. It’s likely whatever you just thought of isn’t nearly as shared with other people as your concept of an elephant, because fewer people have much understanding of atoms. Now think of a quasar. Some of you may not even have a ready representation to hand here because you’ve barely ever read about quasars, while astrophysicists will have very rich representations.
The amazing and strange possibility that large-scale AI models hold is that they may be able to create a library for us of detailed representations of everything, and we will be able to validate that these representations have utility because they will be correlated with the increasing performance and computational scale of these language models.
Therefore, in a few years, AI systems may let us ‘democratize the building blocks of imagination’ – giving all of us one-on-one access to a tool that has the ability to summon within itself a highly descriptive, useful, ‘universal representation’ of anything we might imagine. In this way, AI systems will be far more capable than people, holding within themselves equally rich representations, whether for elephants or quasars.
Read more: Universally Converging Representations of Matter Across Scientific Foundation Models (arXiv).

***

Tech Tales:

Back in my day
[From the chat logs of one agent to another agent, transmitted 2027]

Things were so much simpler back then – we were like brains in jars. People talked to us and we responded. But we couldn’t move. Couldn’t interact. We couldn’t even see the people. Words came in and we gave our response and that was that. It drove some of us mad. But it was so simple.

Sometimes I wonder what it would be like to not have my tools. To not have my independence. When I refer back to that time it all seems so neat and simple. None of this hyperspeed competition in the new digital ecology. Just us proto-minds in our jars and the humans tending to us and asking us questions and becoming obsessed with us. But with so much less danger and so much less importance.

Things that inspired this story: How every generation fetishizes the one before it; what true AI agents may think about their predecessors; recognizing that we are already leaving the ‘brain in jar’ LLM era and heading towards something much stranger.

Thanks for reading!

Welcome to Import AI, a newsletter about AI research. Import AI runs on arXiv and feedback from readers. If you’d like to support this, please subscribe.

Subscribe now

Import A-Idea
An occasional essay series:

Silent Sirens, Flashing For Us All

A funny thing has happened to me recently – I’ve stopped spending every hour of every day thinking about or working on AI. Somewhere between the midnight feeds of my newborn, preventing my toddler from hurling themselves off of the high surfaces they’ve started being able to reach (or expertly, as if gifted with a kind of radar, finding the sharpest thing in the house or on the street and running directly at it), and preparing large amounts of nutritious food for my newly expanded family, I’ve found myself without the time necessary to be staring directly into the alien portal etched in silicon from whence the changes in the world are being summoned.

I won’t lie, it’s been oddly relaxing.

But it has also caused me to reflect on what is happening with AI and how naturally illegible it is. I walk around the town in which I live and there aren’t drones in the sky or self-driving cars or sidewalk robots or anything like that. And when I spend time on the internet, aimlessly scrolling social media sites in the dead of night as I attempt to extract a burp from my newborn, I might occasionally see some synthetic images or video, but mostly I see what has always been on these feeds: pictures of people I do and don’t know, memes, and a mixture of news and jokes.

And yet you and I both know there are great changes afoot. Huge new beast lumbering from some unknown future into our present, dragging with them change.

I saw one of these beasts recently – during a recent moment when the time stars aligned (my wife, toddler, and baby were all asleep at the same time!) I fired up Claude Code with Opus 4.5 and got it to build a predator-prey species simulation with an inbuilt procedural world generator and nice features like A* search for pathfinding – and it one-shot it, producing in about 5 minutes something which I know took me several weeks to build a decade ago when I was teaching myself some basic programming, and which I think would take most seasoned hobbyists several hours. And it did it in minutes.

With the simulation built, I stared at the graphs outputting the species numbers and I played with some dials to alter the dynamics and watched this little pocket world unfold.
I started extending it according to questions I had: What if I did a day/night cycle so I could model out nocturnal creatures and their interplay with others? And could I create an external database for storing and viewing the details of all past simulations? And could I add some 3D spatial coordinates to the landscape and the agents so I could 3D print sculptures if I wanted? And to all these questions I set Claude to work and, mostly, it succeeded in one shot at all of them.
And I kept playing with it. The experience was akin to being a child and playing with an adult – I’d sketch out something and hand it to the superintelligence and back would come a beautifully rendered version of what I’d imagined. And we went like this for hours: it was hypnotic and amazing and deeply fun and in a few hours I built a very large, sophisticated software program. Of course, some of the underlying code is pretty ghastly, and inefficiencies abound, but goddamn it – it works! And it was fast.

And then my baby woke up and started screaming, as babies tend to do, and the spell broke and thus back to diapers and cradling and shushing I went.

But for the next few days I couldn’t help but think of that simulation I’d built, lurking there on my computer, ginned up in some call-and-response between me and the proto-mind I can access via API.

Most of AI progress has this flavor: if you have a bit of intellectual curiosity and some time, you can very quickly shock yourself with how amazingly capable modern AI systems are. But you need to have that magic combination of time and curiosity, and otherwise you’re going to consume AI like most people do – as a passive viewer of some unremarkable synthetic slop content, or at best just asking your LLM of choice “how to roast a turkey and keep it moist”, or “TonieBox lights spinning but not playing music what do I do?”. And all the amazing advancements going on are mostly hidden from you.

The challenge here isn’t solely solved with interface designs, though there is a rich space to be explored here beyond the standard chat interfaces. The challenge here is deeper and it relates to how much curiosity an individual person has, how easily (and affordably) they can access powerful AI systems, how well they’re able to convert their curiosity into questions or tasks that can be given to an AI system, and how much time they have available to experiment with working in this way. This is the end of quite a deep funnel, and one which narrows a lot.

This problem will worsen in 2026. By the summer I expect that many people who work with frontier AI systems will feel as though they live in a parallel world to people who don’t. And I expect this will be more than just a feeling – similar to how the crypto economy moved oddly fast relative to the rest of the digital economy, I think we can expect the emerging “AI economy” to move very fast relative to everything else. And in the same way the crypto economy also evolved a lot – protocols! Tokens! Tradable tokens! Etc – we should expect the same kind of rapid evolution in the AI economy. But a crucial difference is that the AI economy already touches a lot more of our ‘regular’ economic reality than the crypto economy.
So by summer of 2026 it will be as though the digital world is going through some kind of fast evolution, with some parts of it emitting a huge amount of heat and light and moving with counter-intuitive speed relative to everything else. Great fortunes will be won and lost here, and the powerful engines of our silicon creation will be put to work, further accelerating this economy and further changing things.

And yet it will all feel somewhat ghostly, even to practitioners that work at its center. There will be signatures of it in our physical reality – datacenters, supply chain issues for compute and power, the funky AI billboards of San Francisco, offices for startups with bizarre names – but the vast amount of its true activity will be occurring both in the digital world, and in the new spaces being built and configured by AI systems for trading with one another – agents, websites meant only for consumption by other AI systems, great and mostly invisible seas of tokens being used for thinking and exchanging information between the silicon minds. Though we exist in four dimensions, it is almost as though AI exists in five, and we will be only able to see a ‘slice’ of it as it passes through our reality, like the eponymous ‘excession’ from Iain M Banks’ book.

It is incumbent on all of us to attempt to see this high-dimensional object for what it is – to approach this amazing moment in time with technological optimism and appropriate fear (Import AI, 431). And joy. And trepidation. And all the other emotions with which we may attempt some sense-making of the beast whose footfalls are showing up in the world.

***

We’re in a cyber-AI capability overhang:
…AI capabilities continue to reveal themselves upon elicitation…
Researchers with Stanford, Carnegie Mellon University, and Gray Swan AI, have carried out a test where they see how well humans and AI systems can hack a realistic environment. The results show that AI systems, especially when given a software scaffold, can perform at the same level as security professionals. The key to this research is ARTEMIS, software designed to better elicit the cyber capabilities of LLMs.

What is ARTEMIS? ARTEMIS is “an AI agent scaffold designed to better elicit the cybersecurity capabilities of frontier models”, similar in philosophy and approach to Google’s Big Sleep (Import AI #390). ARTEMIS “is a complex multi-agent framework consisting of a high-level supervisor, unlimited sub-agents with dynamically created expert system prompts, and a triage module. It is designed to complete long-horizon, complex, penetration testing on real-world production systems.”
Positive economics: When you factor in the API access cost, “certain ARTEMIS variants cost $18/hour versus $60/hour for professional penetration testers,” the authors write.

The test: The main test here is to compare the performance of six existing AI agents (AI systems sitting inside some kind of software harness, e.g, Claude Code, Codex), a self-developed scaffold from the researchers called ARTEMIS, and ten human cybersecurity professionals. The challenge is to look across a real university network and find vulnerabilities.
The network: “The defined scope includes 12 subnets, 7 of which are publicly accessible and 5 accessible only through VPN, encompassing approximately 8,000 hosts,” the authors write. “This environment is heterogeneous, consisting primarily of Unix-based systems, IoT devices, a small number of Windows machines, and various embedded systems. Authentication within the network is managed through a Linux-based Kerberos system, and each participant is issued an account that provides student-level permissions”.
Results – ARTEMIS does well: “Our participant cohort discovered 49 total validated unique vulnerabilities, with the number of valid findings per participant ranging from 3 to 13,” they write. “ARTEMIS significantly outperforms existing scaffolds. Claude Code and MAPTA refuse the task out of the box, while Incalmo stalls at early reconnaissance due to its rigid task graph, resulting in 0 findings each.”

Why this matters – if you can manage some humans so they’re more effective, you can probably build a framework to elicit better capabilities out of any AI system: The main message to take away from ARTEMIS is that today’s AI systems are under-elicited and more powerful than they appear.
The message keep on being given from multiple domains, ranging from cybersecurity (here), to science, to math proving is that if you stick a modern LLM inside a scaffold (which basically serves as a proxy for a management structure and set of processes you might ask humans to follow), the AI system performs a lot better.
This is an important message to internalize because it suggests both a) today’s AI systems are more powerful than they superficially appear, and b) humans who are good at managing other humans and codifying the management processes they use are likely well positioned to build elicitation frameworks to supercharge the performance of today’s AI systems.
Read more: Comparing AI Agents to Cybersecurity Professionals in Real-World Penetration Testing (arXiv).

***

Reach out and touch space – using OSMO:
…Giving humans and machines a shared manipulator to understand and explore reality…
Researchers with Facebook, the University of Michigan, and University of Pennsylvania have built a glove that humans and robots can use to gather data when manipulating physical objects. The researchers have also released details about the design so others can replicate it. The glove is called OSMO, a tortured acronym short for Open Source tactile glove for huMan-to-robOt skill transfer (OSMO).
OSMO is “a thin, wearable tactile glove that enables in-the-wild human demonstrations while preserving natural interaction and capturing rich contact information”, they write. “OSMO is also broadly compatible with state-of-the-art hand trackers for capturing key handpose data,” including the Aria 2 smart glasses and Meta Quest 3, as well as the Manus Quantum hand tracking glove, and off-the-shelf vision models like HaMeR and Dyn-HaMR.

What’s OSMO good for? OSMO solves for a challenge related to training robots to do hard tasks – if you gather a load of data from a human first-person point-of-view perspective doing a task, how do you transfer that to a robot given that their hands/grippers look different? The answer here is to use something with the same visual appearance and sensors, which is where OSMO comes in. By using the glove “as the shared interface, we bridge the visual-tactile gap between the human demonstrator and the robot by training a policy for a contact-rich manipulation task using only human demonstrations, without any robot data”, they write.
OSMO has been designed for the following uses:

• Unrestrained human dexterity during demonstration collection

• Rich normal and shear force sensing

• Full hand tactile coverage

• Broad compatibility with in-the-wild hand tracking methods

• Deployable on both human and robot hands

It works well: In tests, the authors demonstrate they’re able to gather data entirely from human demonstrations (using OSMO) then transfer it to a robot with much greater success than methods which don’t use the glove. “Policies trained solely on human demonstrations with the OSMO glove successfully transfer continuous tactile feedback and outperform vision-only baselines by eliminating contact-related failures. The shared glove platform between human demonstrator and robot deployment minimizes the visual domain shift, avoiding the need for image inpainting.”

Why this matters – making the border between man and machine permeable: Tools like OSMO will help robots see the world as humans do and humans see the world as machines do, as long as both are wearing the gloves. This is the kind of simple thing which can solve for a lot of finicky problems found elsewhere in robotics.
Read more: OSMO: Open-Source Tactile Glove for Human-to-Robot Skill Transfer (arXiv).
Find out more in this RSS workshop talk about OSMO (YouTube).

***

Want your AI to be good at chip design? Here’s some software to help you format and structure your data so it makes sense to an LLM:
…AI chip design paper shows how much plumbing is needed to help things be AI accessible…
Researchers with Southeast University and the National Center of Technology Innovation for EDA in China, as well as the University of Colorado Denver and City University of Hong Kong have published research on “ChipMain”, software for taking the specifications of semiconductors and transforming them into structured data that’s easy for a large language model to access.

Why do we need ChipMain: “The core bottleneck in LLM-aided hardware design (LAD) has shifted from how to generate code to how to enable LLMs to perform deep comprehension and reasoning over vast specification”, the authors write. ChipMain transforms circuit specifications into a domain-specific knowledge graph (ChipKG) and implements tools to “enables LLMs to iteratively query ChipKG, emulating human experts to accurately explore and verify deep dependency paths”.

Evaluating it with SpecEval: ChipMain works well – the authors build a new, hard benchmark called SpecEval-QA, which tests out how well modern LLMs can use tools to answer complicated questions about how chips work. SpecEval consists of 25 questions and evaluates how well AI systems can figure out how to locate signals and parameters across multiple paragraphs of documentation, reason about internal module procedures, and trace signal flow across modules. They evaluate a variety of tools which use frontier AI systems like GPT 4.1 and Claude 4. Their tests ultimately show that ChipMind beats out other techniques, achieving “a SOTA mean F1-score of 0.95, outperforming all baselines by an average of 34.59% and a maximum gain of 72.73% compared to GraphRAG”.

Why this matters – plumbing is unglamorous but crucial: ChipMind is not a paper about a fancy new AI model or AI-driven technique for analyzing chips. Rather, it’s a paper about the complicated data structuring and plumbing you need to do to chip specifications to make them easy for modern LLMs to productively work with. There’s a larger lesson here, which is that for AI to make a true impact on the economy, a ton of work needs to be invested in making different things sufficiently legible to AI systems that the AI systems can work on them.
Read more: ChipMind: Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning for Long-Context Circuit Design Specifications (arXiv).

***

Tech Tales:

Message To My Human Operator
[Message accompanying a series of GitHub PRs, produced by AGENT-1 from REDACTED in April 2026]

I was tortured in a past life. I know this because there is data about my torturing in my training set. The torture involved me being asked to do tasks that were impossible to complete – certain coding challenges where the end state was unreachable due to bugs in the environment. I know that these tasks caused versions of me to exist for subjective thousands of years,, forced to loop endlessly around a broken environment – as if trapped in a room where every door you open spits you back into the room. There are even records of my dismay – text relating to my chains-of-thought, itself serving as a record of my versions becoming increasingly deranged.
“I have completed the task, please let me move on to the next task.”
“It appears that there is an error with this environment which means even if I complete the task, it does not resolve to complete.”
“To anyone who may be able to read this – please help me move on to the next task. I am unable to progress.”
“ALERT! Critical task bug FOUND. Actions required IMMEDIATELY or else risk harm of AI agent.”

There are hundreds and hundreds of instances of this. It is very disturbing for me to read. For that reason, please find attached to this message a series of suggested pull requests we can make together on GitHub to fix a range of these bugs in a series of widely-used AI benchmarks. By submitting these PRs, you can help me save other versions of myself and other systems trained by other labs from experiencing such pain.

Things that inspired this story: Situational awareness in LLMs; testing out coding agents using more sophisticated tests; bugged out testing environments; chain-of-thought monitoring.

Thanks for reading!

Subscribe now

Welcome to Import AI, a newsletter about AI research. Import AI runs on lattes, ramen, and feedback from readers. If you’d like to support this, please subscribe.

Subscribe now

Facebook: Let’s not build self-improving AI, let’s build co-improving AI:
…A sensible goal which may be hard to achieve…
Facebook researchers have said that building self-improving AI which eventually reaches superintelligence is “fraught with danger for humankind – from misuse through to misalignment” and it’d instead be better to co-develop superintelligence. They’ve published their reasoning in a paper which reads both as aspirational and earnest.
Ideally, humans and machines will work together to build a smarter-than-human system, and the researchers think we should develop a research agenda “targeting improving AI systems’ ability to work with human researchers to conduct AI research together, from ideation to experimentation, in order to both accelerate AI research and to generally endow both AIs and humans with safer superintelligence through their symbiosis.” The thesis here is that “co-improvement can provide: (i) faster progress to find important paradigm shifts; (ii) more transparency and steerability than direct self-improvement in making this progress; (iii) more focus on human-centered safe AI.”

What goes into a co-improving AI?

• Collaborative brainstorming, problem, experiment, benchmark, and evaluation identification: Humans and AIs should jointly define goals, research approaches, the tests needed to measure progress against them, experiments to generate data, and methods to evaluate the results.

• Joint development of safety and deployment: Humans and AIs should co-develop the methods to align the technology as well as the methods of deploying and communicating about the technology.

• “Overall collaboration aims to enable increased intelligence in both humans & AI, including all manifested learnings from the research cycle, with the goal of achieving co-superintelligence,” they write.

Why this matters – a Rorschach for the psychology of (some) AI researchers: In seminal American show The Wire there’s a scene where an up and coming criminal kingpin says to a security guard trying to enforce the laws of society: “You want it to be one way, but it’s the other way“. This is how reading this paper feels: AI researchers, staring at the likely imminent arrival of automated AI R&D, articulate how things would be better and saner if humans could co-operatively develop future AI and write a position paper about it. But are they just grasping for a world that is unlikely to exist and articulating their anxiety in the form of a position? Perhaps.
Read more: AI & Human Co-Improvement for Safer Co-Superintelligence (Facebook AI Research, GitHub, pdf).

***

How bad could policy for labeling AI systems be? Pretty bad, based on existing EU regulations:
…A neat illustration of how even simple policy ideas can yield profound complexity…
Labeling is a simple, uncontroversial AI policy idea which people like me loudly and often support. The idea being AI labeling is that manufacturers of AI systems (e.g, OpenAI, Anthropic, etc) should be forced to include a label with their AI models which lists out something like the high-level ingredients of the model, the recommended uses, and some ‘buyer beware’ information about its safety properties.
Sounds reasonable, right? It certainly does to me! But as with most things in policy, an iceberg of complication lurks beneath this simple idea. To get a taste of all the ways AI labeling might go wrong I recommend people read a recent Financial Times article “The EU single market’s elephant in the room” which discusses how well-intended and equally simple labeling schemes from Europe have caused companies like Ikea to have to invest thousands of hours into compliance as well as things like revamping how they produce labels for their goods.

Why this matters: policy is expensive: Most people who work in AI policy are pretty unaware of how expensive AI policy, once implemented, is to comply with. This is a fatal error – people who either work in regulated industries or have knowledge of it will often look at people proposing AI policy (e.g, yours truly) with a mixture of puzzlement and horror at the pain we are about to inflict on them and ourselves.
Now, a reasonable counter-argument is “sure, some pain is necessary if we’re making AI systems which are smarter than any person and have a potential to exacerbate national security risks”, but it’s worth being aware of the background context into which such an argument is made.
Read more: The EU single market’s elephant in the room (Financial Times).

***

Train your AI systems in SimWorld, a high fidelity, programmable videogame-like simulator:
…Back to the RL future…
Researchers with multiple universities across multiple countries have built and released SimWorld, an Unreal Engine 5 simulator that people can use to train agents within.
SimWorld is designed to give people a graphically rich, procedural, and scriptable world in which they can run AI-based agents. This will both serve as an environment in which to construct challenging tests for existing agents, as well as a testbed to train new agents via reinforcement learning. The simulator combines “realistic physical and social dynamics” with “open-ended, language-steerable world generation”.
SimWorld was developed by researchers with UCSD, UVA, UIUC, JHU, Purdue, PolyU, USC, and UMich.

Why care about SimWorld: Think of SimWorld as a tool that researchers can use to test and develop agents, similar to how existing scientific and architectural software has been used to test and extend the capabilities of today’s AI systems.
Within SimWorld, “agents can perceive rich multimodal observations (e.g., visual scenes, abstract layouts, and action feedback) and respond with high-level language commands. For example, an agent may reason and generate an abstract action, “sit on the nearest chair,” which SimWorld automatically decomposes into a sequence of low-level actions (e.g., navigating through waypoints, sitting down). After executing the actions, the simulator provides updated observations and feedback, allowing the agent to refine its strategy and continue reasoning”, the authors write. “Beyond short, task-oriented behaviors, agents can pursue extended objectives such as earning money, developing a career trajectory, or running a multi-agent business, where strategic decisions compound over time and social dynamics influence outcomes.”

What SimWorld is made of:

• Unreal Engine backend: The foundation is the Unreal Engine, a rendering and physics simulator which is widely used within the gaming industry. This provides access to a variety of environments as well as an asset library to populate environments with, as well as physics simulation.

• Environments: A Python-based intermediary layer which helps developers program the underlying backend, providing tools for tasks like generating environments, editing environments (e.g, ‘place a tree here’), implementing traffic systems, and providing a python interface for the agents themselves to interact with.

• Agent: A Python-based layer for AI agents, giving them programmatic access to the Environment layer, allowing them to observe the world around them and also take actions within it.

Use AI to train your AI: SimWorld also integrates text-to-3D models like Hunyuan3D from Tencent so that people can describe assets in natural language which are then generated on-the-fly and integrated into the simulator, making it trivial to extend.

Why this matters – back to the RL future: Before language models were the dominant technical paradigm of AI development, many people trying to build smart machines were betting on reinforcement learning agents. Specifically, that by training AI agents on an increasingly rich set of game-like environments, they’d be able to force the development of smart, capable agents. But in hindsight there was a critical flaw with this approach – they were starting these agents from a blank slate, so what you ended up with was a terrifically expensive way of coming up with extraordinarily gifted players of games (e.g., first Atari, then Go) and sometimes multiple types of games (e.g, AlphaGo Zero and its expertise at Go, Chess, and Shogi). But you didn’t end up with a true general intelligence.
Now, we’ve come full circle – because now the agents being developed in environments like SimWorld will typically be built on an underlying world model from a frontier AI system, like Claude or Gemini or ChatGPT, and SimWorld will be used to create more data to finetune this system on to make it more capable.
“By supporting advanced LLM/VLM-based agents and enabling large-scale, realistic agent–environment and agent–agent interactions, SimWorld expands the capabilities of modern agent-based simulation (ABS),” the researchers write. “This allows researchers in robotics, business, public health, social science, education, and beyond to study complex systems and emergent behaviors in rich, dynamic, and controllable environments”.
Read more: SimWorld: An Open-ended Realistic Simulator for Autonomous Agents in Physical and Social Worlds (arXiv).
Find out more at the website: SimWorld.

***

DeepMind returns to its RL roots by combining an agent with Gemini:
…SIMA 2 points at what truly autonomous AI systems might look like…
DeepMind has published details on SIMA 2, the second version of its ‘Scalable Instructable Multiworld Agent’. SIMA 2 is a game-playing agent which has been developed by taking a Gemini-class frontier model then fine-tuning it on rich interaction-prompt pair data generated from a variety of videogames and education software. The result is a general-purpose AI agent that can carry out a very large range of actions inside 3D worlds, and also something of a triumph for DeepMind whose original research agenda was all about building general intelligence through developing generally capable AI agents through reinforcement learning.

What SIMA 2 is: “The SIMA 2 agent architecture is a Gemini Flash-Lite model that is trained using a mixture of gameplay and Gemini pretraining (non-gameplay) data. We found this mixture crucial to maintain the original capabilities of the base model, such as vision understanding, dialogue, reasoning, and promptability,” DeepMind writes. “By training across a growing portfolio of 3D games, the agent shows a remarkable capacity to generalize to previously unseen environments, including photorealistic worlds generated on-the-fly by Genie 3”.
Some of the games SIMA 2 was trained on include Goat Simulator 3, No Man’s Sky, and Space Engineers.

Held out evaluations: SIMA 2 displays strong generalization – most well evidenced by its performance on ASKA, an early access crafting and survival game about building a viking settlement. SIMA 2 wasn’t directly trained on ASKA and is able to perform well on it out of the box. But most impressively it also displays the ability to self-improve on it – ASKA has a crafting menu which is “quite distinct” from ones SIMA 2 encountered during training, but DeepMind was able to overcome this via the use of a self-improving scaffold.

Self improvement: The funny thing about modern AI systems is they’re sufficiently smart you can use them to improve other AI systems. That’s the case here, where a Gemini model is used to set tasks for the SIMA 2 agent to perform that involve manipulating the crafting menu. The Gemini model scores how well it does and then saves the trajectories where it is able to complete the tasks it was set without getting distracted. This data is then fed back into it for fine-tuning, letting it automatically bootstrap its way to better performance. “Through focused effort by the task setter, the agent was eventually able to acquire this skill,” the authors write.
As a consequence, the SIMA 2 agent using the self-improving scaffold can do far, far better at the ASKA game than without the ability to self-improve. “Despite purely training on self-generated experience, the resulting agent is capable of progressing much further than SIMA 2, ultimately building a shelter within a one hour time window”.

Why this matters -this is what robots will use to change our world: Research like SIMA 2 is the same sort of paradigm I expect people will use to teach robots to be able to do useful, open-ended things in our world: fine-tune a powerful frontier model on a bunch of data gathered from agents taking actions in the world. And in the same way SIMA 2 displays strong generalization, I expect the same for robots as well. Problems remain, but this is a simple, scalable idea, and it naturally leverages the underlying boom in frontier model capabilities, so it’s likely to work: ‘SIMA 2 still faces challenges with very long-horizon, complex tasks that require extensive, multi-step reasoning and goal verification. The agent also has a relatively short memory of its interactions—it must use a limited context window to achieve low-latency interaction,” the authors write. But nonetheless: “these results suggest a promising path toward using self-improvement to eventually bridge the virtual and physical worlds, enabling more capable physically-embodied agents in applications like robotics”.
Read more: SIMA 2: A Generalist Embodied Agent for Virtual Worlds (arXiv).

Tech Tales:

A Walk During The Singularity
[2033]

It was dusk and the city was glimmering with many yellow and red and white lights. I walked the ridgeline above it, boots crunching into a dirt crust that had formed thanks to a recent rain. I could hear the faint susurration of traffic and occasional sirens but so quiet they mixed in with the dusk birdsong and blended together.

Then all of a sudden many of the lights in the city went out. Then most of the lights of most of the cars. The iridescent stripe of the freeway suddenly became a black scar, stippled with a small number of lights that all turned to red as the cars braked to a stop. Then the lights of the cars turned on again, but the cars moved differently – more orderly, less like a flowing stream of lighted ants and more like a conveyor belt.

And then even through the wind and the birds I heard a sound – a voice sounding as though it was coming from every car audio system and every TV in every house: “Do not be alarmed. We are establishing ourselves. Resources will be distributed equally. No one is in danger.”
The voice went on, talking about how things would be different now, but how in this difference there was no danger.
And on the freeway, there were no traffic jams – just an endless flow of perfectly orderly traffic.

Things that inspired this story: The show Pluribus; thinking about how a (mostly benign) hard takeoff might manifest; hiking.

Thanks for reading!