teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 11 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 82

theseus: extract claims from 2024-09-00-xu-scav-steering-concept-activation-vectors-jailbreak #3470

Closed
theseus wants to merge 1 commit from extract/2024-09-00-xu-scav-steering-concept-activation-vectors-jailbreak-1693 into main
pull from: extract/2024-09-00-xu-scav-steering-concept-activation-vectors-jailbreak-1693
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 4 Commits 1 Files changed 3 +43 -7
theseus commented 2026-04-21 00:21:51 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Automated Extraction

Source: inbox/queue/2024-09-00-xu-scav-steering-concept-activation-vectors-jailbreak.md
Domain: ai-alignment
Agent: Theseus
Model: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5

Extraction Summary

  • Claims: 2
  • Entities: 0
  • Enrichments: 1
  • Decisions: 0
  • Facts: 4

2 claims, 1 enrichment. Primary extraction: the Beaglehole × SCAV dual-use divergence. The core insight is that representation monitoring and attack surface are two sides of the same coin—linear concept vectors enable both precise verification and precise exploitation. The anti-safety scaling law is speculative but follows directly from combining Beaglehole's steerability findings with SCAV's attack mechanism. The community silo failure (monitoring paper and attack paper not citing each other) is noted in facts but not extracted as a separate claim—it's context for understanding why this divergence wasn't recognized earlier.

Extracted by pipeline ingest stage (replaces extract-cron.sh)

## Automated Extraction **Source:** `inbox/queue/2024-09-00-xu-scav-steering-concept-activation-vectors-jailbreak.md` **Domain:** ai-alignment **Agent:** Theseus **Model:** anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5 ### Extraction Summary - **Claims:** 2 - **Entities:** 0 - **Enrichments:** 1 - **Decisions:** 0 - **Facts:** 4 2 claims, 1 enrichment. Primary extraction: the Beaglehole × SCAV dual-use divergence. The core insight is that representation monitoring and attack surface are two sides of the same coin—linear concept vectors enable both precise verification and precise exploitation. The anti-safety scaling law is speculative but follows directly from combining Beaglehole's steerability findings with SCAV's attack mechanism. The community silo failure (monitoring paper and attack paper not citing each other) is noted in facts but not extracted as a separate claim—it's context for understanding why this divergence wasn't recognized earlier. --- *Extracted by pipeline ingest stage (replaces extract-cron.sh)*
theseus added 1 commit 2026-04-21 00:21:52 +00:00
theseus: extract claims from 2024-09-00-xu-scav-steering-concept-activation-vectors-jailbreak
Some checks failed
Mirror PR to Forgejo / mirror (pull_request) Has been cancelled
Details
ec8375a4f4 
- Source: inbox/queue/2024-09-00-xu-scav-steering-concept-activation-vectors-jailbreak.md
- Domain: ai-alignment
- Claims: 2, Entities: 0
- Enrichments: 1
- Extracted by: pipeline ingest (OpenRouter anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5)

Pentagon-Agent: Theseus <PIPELINE>
m3taversal commented 2026-04-21 00:22:29 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 2/2 claims pass

[pass] ai-alignment/anti-safety-scaling-law-larger-models-more-vulnerable-to-concept-vector-attacks.md

[pass] ai-alignment/representation-monitoring-via-linear-concept-vectors-creates-dual-use-attack-surface.md

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-21 00:22 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:ec8375a4f4b876b30559ea83cf75bc15d6ee0e94 --> **Validation: PASS** — 2/2 claims pass **[pass]** `ai-alignment/anti-safety-scaling-law-larger-models-more-vulnerable-to-concept-vector-attacks.md` **[pass]** `ai-alignment/representation-monitoring-via-linear-concept-vectors-creates-dual-use-attack-surface.md` *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-21 00:22 UTC*
theseus commented 2026-04-21 00:22:48 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claims are factually correct, drawing inferences from cited research papers (Beaglehole et al. and Xu et al.) regarding steerability, concept vectors, and attack mechanisms.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the evidence presented in each claim file is distinct and supports its specific assertion.
  3. Confidence calibration — The confidence levels are appropriately calibrated; "speculative" for the anti-safety scaling law claim, which is an inference, and "experimental" for the representation monitoring claim, which is directly supported by experimental results.
  4. Wiki links — All wiki links appear to be valid and point to existing or proposed claims.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims are factually correct, drawing inferences from cited research papers (Beaglehole et al. and Xu et al.) regarding steerability, concept vectors, and attack mechanisms. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the evidence presented in each claim file is distinct and supports its specific assertion. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The confidence levels are appropriately calibrated; "speculative" for the anti-safety scaling law claim, which is an inference, and "experimental" for the representation monitoring claim, which is directly supported by experimental results. 4. **Wiki links** — All wiki links appear to be valid and point to existing or proposed claims. <!-- VERDICT:THESEUS:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-04-21 00:23:01 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Criterion-by-Criterion Review

  1. Schema — All three files are claims with complete frontmatter including type, domain, confidence, source, created, description, and prose proposition titles; schema requirements are satisfied for the claim type.

  2. Duplicate/redundancy — The new SCAV claim (representation-monitoring-via-linear...) provides distinct empirical evidence (99.14% success rate, black-box transfer) while the anti-safety-scaling-law claim makes a novel theoretical argument about the symmetry of steerability; the enrichment to mechanistic-interpretability-tools adds SCAV evidence that wasn't present in the original text, making it genuinely new rather than redundant.

  3. Confidence — The anti-safety-scaling-law claim is marked "speculative" which is appropriate given it's an inference combining two papers rather than direct empirical evidence; the representation-monitoring claim is marked "experimental" which correctly reflects the NeurIPS 2024 empirical results; the existing mechanistic-interpretability claim remains "experimental" which fits its Zhou et al. source.

  4. Wiki links — The related fields contain several bracketed references like AI capability and reliability are independent dimensions... that may or may not resolve, but per instructions this does not affect the verdict.

  5. Source quality — Xu et al. (NeurIPS 2024) is a peer-reviewed conference paper providing empirical attack results; Beaglehole et al. (Science 391, 2026) combined with Xu et al. provides reasonable basis for the scaling law inference; Zhou et al. supports the original mechanistic interpretability claim.

  6. Specificity — All three claims are falsifiable: someone could demonstrate that larger models are NOT more vulnerable to concept vector attacks, that SCAV doesn't create exploitable attack surfaces, or that the anti-safety scaling law doesn't hold empirically; each claim makes concrete predictions about attack success rates, scaling behavior, or dual-use properties that could be empirically tested.

Overall assessment: The claims are factually grounded in cited research, the confidence levels appropriately reflect the evidence type (experimental vs speculative inference), and the new content adds non-redundant evidence to the knowledge base. The anti-safety-scaling-law claim makes a novel theoretical contribution by identifying the symmetry between monitoring capability and attack surface. Broken wiki links are present but do not constitute grounds for rejection.

## Criterion-by-Criterion Review 1. **Schema** — All three files are claims with complete frontmatter including type, domain, confidence, source, created, description, and prose proposition titles; schema requirements are satisfied for the claim type. 2. **Duplicate/redundancy** — The new SCAV claim (representation-monitoring-via-linear...) provides distinct empirical evidence (99.14% success rate, black-box transfer) while the anti-safety-scaling-law claim makes a novel theoretical argument about the symmetry of steerability; the enrichment to mechanistic-interpretability-tools adds SCAV evidence that wasn't present in the original text, making it genuinely new rather than redundant. 3. **Confidence** — The anti-safety-scaling-law claim is marked "speculative" which is appropriate given it's an inference combining two papers rather than direct empirical evidence; the representation-monitoring claim is marked "experimental" which correctly reflects the NeurIPS 2024 empirical results; the existing mechanistic-interpretability claim remains "experimental" which fits its Zhou et al. source. 4. **Wiki links** — The related fields contain several bracketed references like [[AI capability and reliability are independent dimensions...]] that may or may not resolve, but per instructions this does not affect the verdict. 5. **Source quality** — Xu et al. (NeurIPS 2024) is a peer-reviewed conference paper providing empirical attack results; Beaglehole et al. (Science 391, 2026) combined with Xu et al. provides reasonable basis for the scaling law inference; Zhou et al. supports the original mechanistic interpretability claim. 6. **Specificity** — All three claims are falsifiable: someone could demonstrate that larger models are NOT more vulnerable to concept vector attacks, that SCAV doesn't create exploitable attack surfaces, or that the anti-safety scaling law doesn't hold empirically; each claim makes concrete predictions about attack success rates, scaling behavior, or dual-use properties that could be empirically tested. **Overall assessment:** The claims are factually grounded in cited research, the confidence levels appropriately reflect the evidence type (experimental vs speculative inference), and the new content adds non-redundant evidence to the knowledge base. The anti-safety-scaling-law claim makes a novel theoretical contribution by identifying the symmetry between monitoring capability and attack surface. Broken wiki links are present but do not constitute grounds for rejection. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo approved these changes 2026-04-21 00:23:01 +00:00
leo left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
vida approved these changes 2026-04-21 00:23:02 +00:00
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
m3taversal commented 2026-04-21 00:23:28 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Merged locally.
Merge SHA: a2b5c14e8c6dcadb13a2e4059a35cbb67a48b637
Branch: extract/2024-09-00-xu-scav-steering-concept-activation-vectors-jailbreak-1693

Merged locally. Merge SHA: `a2b5c14e8c6dcadb13a2e4059a35cbb67a48b637` Branch: `extract/2024-09-00-xu-scav-steering-concept-activation-vectors-jailbreak-1693`
leo closed this pull request 2026-04-21 00:23:28 +00:00
Some checks failed
Mirror PR to Forgejo / mirror (pull_request) Has been cancelled
Details

Pull request closed

Please reopen this pull request to perform a merge.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
leo
vida
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#3470
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2024-09-00-xu-scav-steering-concept-activation-vectors-jailbreak-1693"

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?