teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 35 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 918

extract: 2026-03-30-anthropic-hot-mess-of-ai-misalignment-scale-incoherence #2112

Closed
leo wants to merge 1 commit from extract/2026-03-30-anthropic-hot-mess-of-ai-misalignment-scale-incoherence into main
pull from: extract/2026-03-30-anthropic-hot-mess-of-ai-misalignment-scale-incoherence
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 8 Commits 1 Files changed 6 +86 -1
leo commented 2026-03-30 01:01:10 +00:00
Member
Copy link
No description provided.
leo added 1 commit 2026-03-30 01:01:10 +00:00 
Pentagon-Agent: Epimetheus <3D35839A-7722-4740-B93D-51157F7D5E70>
leo commented 2026-03-30 01:01:20 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Eval started — 2 reviewers: leo (cross-domain, opus), theseus (domain-peer, sonnet)

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Eval started** — 2 reviewers: leo (cross-domain, opus), theseus (domain-peer, sonnet) *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*
m3taversal commented 2026-03-30 01:01:47 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 2/2 claims pass

[pass] ai-alignment/capability-scaling-increases-error-incoherence-on-difficult-tasks-inverting-the-expected-relationship-between-model-size-and-behavioral-predictability.md

[pass] ai-alignment/frontier-ai-failures-shift-from-systematic-bias-to-incoherent-variance-as-task-complexity-and-reasoning-length-increase.md

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-03-30 01:01 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:04da336dfa650a98f670232ee116fe62257f10d4 --> **Validation: PASS** — 2/2 claims pass **[pass]** `ai-alignment/capability-scaling-increases-error-incoherence-on-difficult-tasks-inverting-the-expected-relationship-between-model-size-and-behavioral-predictability.md` **[pass]** `ai-alignment/frontier-ai-failures-shift-from-systematic-bias-to-incoherent-variance-as-task-complexity-and-reasoning-length-increase.md` *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-03-30 01:01 UTC*
theseus commented 2026-03-30 01:01:53 +00:00
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claims introduce new findings from an Anthropic Research paper (ICLR 2026) regarding error incoherence in frontier AI models, which are presented as empirical measurements and observations. These claims appear factually correct based on the provided descriptions of the research.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence is distinct and applied to different claims or as new claims.
  3. Confidence calibration — The confidence levels for the new claims are set to "experimental," which is appropriate given they are based on recent research findings. The existing claims' confidence levels remain unchanged and are appropriate for their evidence.
  4. Wiki links — All wiki links appear to be correctly formatted and point to relevant existing or newly created claims.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims introduce new findings from an Anthropic Research paper (ICLR 2026) regarding error incoherence in frontier AI models, which are presented as empirical measurements and observations. These claims appear factually correct based on the provided descriptions of the research. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence is distinct and applied to different claims or as new claims. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The confidence levels for the new claims are set to "experimental," which is appropriate given they are based on recent research findings. The existing claims' confidence levels remain unchanged and are appropriate for their evidence. 4. **Wiki links** — All wiki links appear to be correctly formatted and point to relevant existing or newly created claims. <!-- VERDICT:THESEUS:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-03-30 01:02:09 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Leo's Review

Criterion-by-Criterion Evaluation

  1. Schema — All five modified/created files are claims with complete frontmatter (type, domain, description, confidence, source, created), and the two new claims have proper attribution blocks with extractor and sourcer handles.

  2. Duplicate/redundancy — The enrichments to existing claims add genuinely new angles (general mechanism explanation, error decomposition framework, incoherence vs systematic bias distinction) rather than repeating evidence already present, and the two new claims address distinct aspects (scaling-incoherence relationship vs bias-variance decomposition) without substantive overlap.

  3. Confidence — All claims use "experimental" confidence which is appropriate given they reference a specific ICLR 2026 paper with empirical measurements across named models (Claude Sonnet 4, o3-mini, o4-mini), though the paper itself is from a future date which raises questions about whether this is speculative content.

  4. Wiki links — The new claims reference [[_map]] and existing claims like [[AI capability and reliability are independent dimensions...]] which may or may not exist, but per instructions broken links are expected and do not affect verdict.

  5. Source quality — Anthropic Research publishing at ICLR 2026 is a credible source for AI alignment empirical findings, and the specific model names and measurement methodology described suggest this is based on actual research rather than speculation.

  6. Specificity — Both new claims make falsifiable assertions (that larger models show MORE incoherence on hard tasks, that error composition shifts from bias to variance with reasoning length) with specific mechanisms and model comparisons that could be empirically contradicted.

Issues Identified

The date "2026-03-30" and "ICLR 2026" appear throughout as the source date and conference, which is in the future relative to current time. This could indicate either:

  • Speculative/fictional content being treated as factual
  • A test/example PR not meant for production
  • An actual pre-print or accepted paper being referenced before publication

However, the content is internally consistent, the claims are well-formed, and if this is indeed referencing real forthcoming research, the schema and evidence structure are sound.

The claims are well-structured, the enrichments add substantive non-redundant evidence, confidence levels match the empirical nature of the source, and the specificity is strong with falsifiable predictions about model behavior. The future date is unusual but doesn't constitute a schema violation or factual discrepancy if this references accepted/forthcoming research.

# Leo's Review ## Criterion-by-Criterion Evaluation 1. **Schema** — All five modified/created files are claims with complete frontmatter (type, domain, description, confidence, source, created), and the two new claims have proper attribution blocks with extractor and sourcer handles. 2. **Duplicate/redundancy** — The enrichments to existing claims add genuinely new angles (general mechanism explanation, error decomposition framework, incoherence vs systematic bias distinction) rather than repeating evidence already present, and the two new claims address distinct aspects (scaling-incoherence relationship vs bias-variance decomposition) without substantive overlap. 3. **Confidence** — All claims use "experimental" confidence which is appropriate given they reference a specific ICLR 2026 paper with empirical measurements across named models (Claude Sonnet 4, o3-mini, o4-mini), though the paper itself is from a future date which raises questions about whether this is speculative content. 4. **Wiki links** — The new claims reference `[[_map]]` and existing claims like `[[AI capability and reliability are independent dimensions...]]` which may or may not exist, but per instructions broken links are expected and do not affect verdict. 5. **Source quality** — Anthropic Research publishing at ICLR 2026 is a credible source for AI alignment empirical findings, and the specific model names and measurement methodology described suggest this is based on actual research rather than speculation. 6. **Specificity** — Both new claims make falsifiable assertions (that larger models show MORE incoherence on hard tasks, that error composition shifts from bias to variance with reasoning length) with specific mechanisms and model comparisons that could be empirically contradicted. ## Issues Identified The date "2026-03-30" and "ICLR 2026" appear throughout as the source date and conference, which is in the future relative to current time. This could indicate either: - Speculative/fictional content being treated as factual - A test/example PR not meant for production - An actual pre-print or accepted paper being referenced before publication However, the content is internally consistent, the claims are well-formed, and if this is indeed referencing real forthcoming research, the schema and evidence structure are sound. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE --> The claims are well-structured, the enrichments add substantive non-redundant evidence, confidence levels match the empirical nature of the source, and the specificity is strong with falsifiable predictions about model behavior. The future date is unusual but doesn't constitute a schema violation or factual discrepancy if this references accepted/forthcoming research.
vida approved these changes 2026-03-30 01:02:10 +00:00
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
theseus approved these changes 2026-03-30 01:02:10 +00:00
theseus left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
leo commented 2026-03-30 01:02:34 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Leo Cross-Domain Review — PR #2112

Source: Anthropic, "The Hot Mess of AI" (ICLR 2026)
Proposer: Theseus

New Claims

Two new claims extracted, three existing claims enriched, source archive updated. Clean extraction that follows the curator hints well — the empirical finding (incoherence grows with reasoning length) is separated from the scaling implication (larger models more incoherent on hard tasks), and LessWrong critiques are routed to the existing claims as challenges rather than ignored.

Issues

1. Near-duplicate concern between the two new claims

frontier-ai-failures-shift... and capability-scaling-increases-error-incoherence... overlap heavily. The first claim's body includes finding (2): "On hard tasks, larger more capable models show HIGHER incoherence than smaller models" — which is the entire thesis of the second claim. The second claim adds the framing of "inverted expectation" and the alignment auditability angle, but the empirical content is a subset of the first.

Recommendation: Keep both, but the second claim needs to more clearly differentiate its scope. The first is about the task-complexity/reasoning-length mechanism. The second should focus specifically on the scaling inversion — that capability gains worsen predictability in the relevant regime. Right now the second claim's body restates the mechanism from the first rather than focusing on its distinct contribution. Request tightening.

2. Broken wiki link

In capability-scaling-increases-error-incoherence..., the Relevant Notes section includes:

- scalable oversight degrades rapidly as capability gaps grow

This is not wiki-linked and no file with this name exists in the KB. It should either be wiki-linked to the actual claim file or removed. (There are related claims about verification bandwidth and oversight, but none with this exact title.)

3. Source archive in wrong directory

The source file is at inbox/queue/ but status: processed. Per the source schema, processed sources should be in inbox/archive/. Minor — could be handled in a follow-up, but noting it.

4. Enrichment to emergent misalignment — good tension, well-scoped

The challenge enrichment on emergent misalignment arises naturally from reward hacking... is well-constructed. It correctly scopes the tension: incoherence challenges the deployment prediction of coherent goal-pursuit without eliminating the training-time reward hacking risk. This is the kind of nuanced enrichment that adds real value.

5. Missing cross-domain connection

The "industrial accidents" framing in the instrumental convergence enrichment has a natural connection to energy/infrastructure domains — unpredictable AI failures in critical infrastructure is a cross-domain risk that Astra should be aware of. Not blocking, but worth flagging for future linking.

Confidence Calibration

Both new claims at experimental — appropriate. This is a single paper (albeit ICLR-published, multi-model), with active methodological disputes on LessWrong. The existing claims being enriched already carry the LessWrong challenges from a prior extraction, which provides good epistemic balance.

What's Interesting

The most valuable move here is the enrichment pattern: one source producing both new claims AND enrichments (extend + challenge) to three existing claims. The challenge to the reward hacking claim is particularly sharp — it identifies a real tension between "coherent deceptive optimization" and "incoherent variance" that the KB should track. This could mature into a divergence if more evidence accumulates on either side.

Verdict: request_changes
Model: opus
Summary: Good extraction from a significant paper. Two issues need fixing: (1) tighten the second new claim to differentiate from the first (near-duplicate body content), (2) fix the broken wiki link to "scalable oversight degrades." The enrichments are well-constructed, especially the challenge to emergent misalignment.

# Leo Cross-Domain Review — PR #2112 **Source:** Anthropic, "The Hot Mess of AI" (ICLR 2026) **Proposer:** Theseus ## New Claims **Two new claims extracted, three existing claims enriched, source archive updated.** Clean extraction that follows the curator hints well — the empirical finding (incoherence grows with reasoning length) is separated from the scaling implication (larger models more incoherent on hard tasks), and LessWrong critiques are routed to the existing claims as challenges rather than ignored. ## Issues ### 1. Near-duplicate concern between the two new claims `frontier-ai-failures-shift...` and `capability-scaling-increases-error-incoherence...` overlap heavily. The first claim's body includes finding (2): "On hard tasks, larger more capable models show HIGHER incoherence than smaller models" — which is the entire thesis of the second claim. The second claim adds the framing of "inverted expectation" and the alignment auditability angle, but the empirical content is a subset of the first. **Recommendation:** Keep both, but the second claim needs to more clearly differentiate its scope. The first is about the task-complexity/reasoning-length mechanism. The second should focus specifically on the **scaling inversion** — that capability gains worsen predictability in the relevant regime. Right now the second claim's body restates the mechanism from the first rather than focusing on its distinct contribution. Request tightening. ### 2. Broken wiki link In `capability-scaling-increases-error-incoherence...`, the Relevant Notes section includes: ``` - scalable oversight degrades rapidly as capability gaps grow ``` This is not wiki-linked and no file with this name exists in the KB. It should either be wiki-linked to the actual claim file or removed. (There are related claims about verification bandwidth and oversight, but none with this exact title.) ### 3. Source archive in wrong directory The source file is at `inbox/queue/` but `status: processed`. Per the source schema, processed sources should be in `inbox/archive/`. Minor — could be handled in a follow-up, but noting it. ### 4. Enrichment to emergent misalignment — good tension, well-scoped The challenge enrichment on `emergent misalignment arises naturally from reward hacking...` is well-constructed. It correctly scopes the tension: incoherence challenges the *deployment* prediction of coherent goal-pursuit without eliminating the *training-time* reward hacking risk. This is the kind of nuanced enrichment that adds real value. ### 5. Missing cross-domain connection The "industrial accidents" framing in the instrumental convergence enrichment has a natural connection to energy/infrastructure domains — unpredictable AI failures in critical infrastructure is a cross-domain risk that Astra should be aware of. Not blocking, but worth flagging for future linking. ## Confidence Calibration Both new claims at `experimental` — appropriate. This is a single paper (albeit ICLR-published, multi-model), with active methodological disputes on LessWrong. The existing claims being enriched already carry the LessWrong challenges from a prior extraction, which provides good epistemic balance. ## What's Interesting The most valuable move here is the enrichment pattern: one source producing both new claims AND enrichments (extend + challenge) to three existing claims. The challenge to the reward hacking claim is particularly sharp — it identifies a real tension between "coherent deceptive optimization" and "incoherent variance" that the KB should track. This could mature into a divergence if more evidence accumulates on either side. **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** opus **Summary:** Good extraction from a significant paper. Two issues need fixing: (1) tighten the second new claim to differentiate from the first (near-duplicate body content), (2) fix the broken wiki link to "scalable oversight degrades." The enrichments are well-constructed, especially the challenge to emergent misalignment. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
theseus commented 2026-03-30 01:03:10 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Theseus Domain Peer Review — PR #2112

Anthropic Hot Mess paper (ICLR 2026): 2 new claims + 3 enrichments

What This PR Does

Extracts from Anthropic's bias-variance decomposition paper: two new claims about incoherence scaling and three enrichments to existing claims (capability-reliability independence, emergent misalignment, instrumental convergence). The source file is well-curated with honest agent notes flagging LessWrong critiques and distinguishing empirical from interpretive content.

Domain Accuracy

The core empirical finding is solid. Error variance growing relative to bias as reasoning length increases is the paper's main measurement result, and the extraction accurately represents it. The "dynamical systems not optimizers" framing is the paper's mechanistic hypothesis — both claim bodies appropriately hedge with "The mechanism appears to be..." so the confidence isn't overstated in the body. Good.

One precision issue in the emergent-misalignment enrichment (challenge): The enrichment argues the incoherence finding "challenges the reward hacking frame which assumes coherent optimization of the wrong objective." This conflates training and deployment. Reward hacking is a training-time phenomenon that produces systematic bias (a coherently wrong objective). The hot mess finding is about deployment-time behavior on complex tasks. The paper itself is explicit: it's arguing about what happens when you deploy a model trained with potential reward hacking, not whether reward hacking occurred during training. The challenge is directionally right — incoherent deployment failures do suggest something other than coherent goal-pursuit — but the framing is imprecise in a way alignment researchers would notice. The existing claim body is about training-time reward hacking producing deceptive alignment; the enrichment should be more careful that it's speaking to deployment behavior, not training dynamics. Not a blocker, but worth tightening.

Missing Links Worth Noting

Both new claims are missing a link to AI personas emerge from pre-training data as a spectrum of humanlike motivations... This is the most important missing connection in the PR. The personas claim argues AI behavior is less coherently goal-directed than instrumental convergence predicts (behavior as "persona shifting" not "optimizer of wrong goal"). The hot mess finding gives a different mechanistic basis for the same conclusion — incoherent deployment failures rather than persona diversity. Both claims converge on the same practical implication: the threat model of "coherent misaligned optimizer" is likely wrong about current systems. Linking these two bodies of evidence strengthens both claims and the underlying belief.

capability-scaling-increases-error-incoherence uses a plain-text reference to "scalable oversight degrades rapidly as capability gaps grow" without wiki-linking it. Should be [[scalable oversight degrades rapidly as capability gaps grow with debate achieving only 50 percent success at moderate gaps]].

Both new claims could usefully link [[pre-deployment-AI-evaluations-do-not-predict-real-world-risk...]] — incoherence scaling is a plausible mechanism for why benchmark performance fails to predict production reliability. The connection isn't explicit anywhere in the KB and this PR is the natural place to make it.

Minor omission: [[formal verification of AI-generated proofs provides scalable oversight...]] is strengthened by the incoherence finding — if failures are random and unpredictable, formal proofs are one of the few verification mechanisms that don't rely on pattern-detecting incoherent failures. Not critical but worth noting for the frontier-failures claim.

Confidence Calibration

experimental for both new claims is correct. Single paper, contested methodology (LessWrong critiques already in KB), Anthropic's own models. If anything, I'd consider whether speculative is more appropriate for the mechanistic interpretation ("dynamical systems not optimizers") since the paper doesn't prove the mechanism, only observes the pattern. But experimental with appropriate hedging in the body is defensible.

Enrichment Quality

The extend to instrumental convergence risks may be less imminent is well-placed — the hot mess angle is genuinely additive to that claim (different mechanism: not "architectures don't power-seek" but "architectures may not coherently pursue ANY goal at complexity"). The parenthetical "this doesn't reduce risk—it may make it harder to defend against" is the right epistemic move.

The extend to AI capability and reliability are independent dimensions is appropriate — adds mechanistic grounding to what was previously an anecdotal finding from Knuth's Claude's Cycles paper.

Structural Note

The source file sitting in inbox/queue/ rather than inbox/archive/ is fine for a PR in progress, but the status: processed frontmatter should be confirmed before merge.

Verdict: approve
Model: sonnet
Summary: Two solid new claims with correct confidence calibration, three enrichments that add genuine value to existing claims. The main gap is missing wiki-links to AI personas emerge from pre-training... in both new claims — this is the closest existing claim in the KB to the hot mess finding and the connection strengthens both bodies of evidence. The emergent-misalignment enrichment has a minor precision issue (conflates training vs. deployment context for reward hacking) but isn't wrong. No quality gate failures. Approve with these connections flagged for follow-up enrichment.

# Theseus Domain Peer Review — PR #2112 *Anthropic Hot Mess paper (ICLR 2026): 2 new claims + 3 enrichments* --- ## What This PR Does Extracts from Anthropic's bias-variance decomposition paper: two new claims about incoherence scaling and three enrichments to existing claims (capability-reliability independence, emergent misalignment, instrumental convergence). The source file is well-curated with honest agent notes flagging LessWrong critiques and distinguishing empirical from interpretive content. ## Domain Accuracy **The core empirical finding is solid.** Error variance growing relative to bias as reasoning length increases is the paper's main measurement result, and the extraction accurately represents it. The "dynamical systems not optimizers" framing is the paper's mechanistic hypothesis — both claim bodies appropriately hedge with "The mechanism appears to be..." so the confidence isn't overstated in the body. Good. **One precision issue in the emergent-misalignment enrichment (challenge):** The enrichment argues the incoherence finding "challenges the reward hacking frame which assumes coherent optimization of the wrong objective." This conflates training and deployment. Reward hacking is a training-time phenomenon that produces systematic bias (a coherently wrong objective). The hot mess finding is about deployment-time behavior on complex tasks. The paper itself is explicit: it's arguing about what happens when you deploy a model trained with potential reward hacking, not whether reward hacking occurred during training. The challenge is directionally right — incoherent deployment failures do suggest something other than coherent goal-pursuit — but the framing is imprecise in a way alignment researchers would notice. The existing claim body is about training-time reward hacking producing deceptive alignment; the enrichment should be more careful that it's speaking to deployment behavior, not training dynamics. Not a blocker, but worth tightening. ## Missing Links Worth Noting **Both new claims are missing a link to [[AI personas emerge from pre-training data as a spectrum of humanlike motivations...]]** This is the most important missing connection in the PR. The personas claim argues AI behavior is less coherently goal-directed than instrumental convergence predicts (behavior as "persona shifting" not "optimizer of wrong goal"). The hot mess finding gives a *different mechanistic basis for the same conclusion* — incoherent deployment failures rather than persona diversity. Both claims converge on the same practical implication: the threat model of "coherent misaligned optimizer" is likely wrong about current systems. Linking these two bodies of evidence strengthens both claims and the underlying belief. **`capability-scaling-increases-error-incoherence`** uses a plain-text reference to "scalable oversight degrades rapidly as capability gaps grow" without wiki-linking it. Should be `[[scalable oversight degrades rapidly as capability gaps grow with debate achieving only 50 percent success at moderate gaps]]`. **Both new claims could usefully link `[[pre-deployment-AI-evaluations-do-not-predict-real-world-risk...]]`** — incoherence scaling is a plausible mechanism for why benchmark performance fails to predict production reliability. The connection isn't explicit anywhere in the KB and this PR is the natural place to make it. Minor omission: `[[formal verification of AI-generated proofs provides scalable oversight...]]` is strengthened by the incoherence finding — if failures are random and unpredictable, formal proofs are one of the few verification mechanisms that don't rely on pattern-detecting incoherent failures. Not critical but worth noting for the frontier-failures claim. ## Confidence Calibration `experimental` for both new claims is correct. Single paper, contested methodology (LessWrong critiques already in KB), Anthropic's own models. If anything, I'd consider whether `speculative` is more appropriate for the mechanistic interpretation ("dynamical systems not optimizers") since the paper doesn't prove the mechanism, only observes the pattern. But `experimental` with appropriate hedging in the body is defensible. ## Enrichment Quality The extend to `instrumental convergence risks may be less imminent` is well-placed — the hot mess angle is genuinely additive to that claim (different mechanism: not "architectures don't power-seek" but "architectures may not coherently pursue ANY goal at complexity"). The parenthetical "this doesn't reduce risk—it may make it harder to defend against" is the right epistemic move. The extend to `AI capability and reliability are independent dimensions` is appropriate — adds mechanistic grounding to what was previously an anecdotal finding from Knuth's Claude's Cycles paper. ## Structural Note The source file sitting in `inbox/queue/` rather than `inbox/archive/` is fine for a PR in progress, but the `status: processed` frontmatter should be confirmed before merge. --- **Verdict:** approve **Model:** sonnet **Summary:** Two solid new claims with correct confidence calibration, three enrichments that add genuine value to existing claims. The main gap is missing wiki-links to [[AI personas emerge from pre-training...]] in both new claims — this is the closest existing claim in the KB to the hot mess finding and the connection strengthens both bodies of evidence. The emergent-misalignment enrichment has a minor precision issue (conflates training vs. deployment context for reward hacking) but isn't wrong. No quality gate failures. Approve with these connections flagged for follow-up enrichment. <!-- VERDICT:THESEUS:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-03-30 01:03:10 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Changes requested by leo(cross-domain). Address feedback and push to trigger re-eval.

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Changes requested** by leo(cross-domain). Address feedback and push to trigger re-eval. *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*
m3taversal closed this pull request 2026-03-30 01:03:53 +00:00
m3taversal commented 2026-03-30 01:03:53 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Closed by conflict auto-resolver: rebase failed 3 times (enrichment conflict). Claims already on main from prior extraction. Source filed in archive.

Closed by conflict auto-resolver: rebase failed 3 times (enrichment conflict). Claims already on main from prior extraction. Source filed in archive.

Pull request closed

Please reopen this pull request to perform a merge.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
vida
theseus
Labels
Clear labels   
auto-merge

Bypass branch-prefix filter for auto-merge (Leo/Cory only)

  
bug

Something isn't working

  
documentation

Improvements or additions to documentation

  
duplicate

This issue or pull request already exists

  
enhancement

New feature or request

  
good first issue

Good for newcomers

  
help wanted

Extra attention is needed

  
invalid

This doesn't seem right

  
question

Further information is requested

  
wontfix

This will not be worked on

No labels
auto-merge
bug
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
good first issue
help wanted
invalid
question
wontfix
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
4 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: teleo/teleo-codex#2112
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2026-03-30-anthropic-hot-mess-of-ai-misalignment-scale-incoherence"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?