Can an AI do the right thing for the wrong reason? Tim Scarfe speaks with Apollo Research’s Alexander Meinke, Axel Højmark and Jérémy Scheurer about Measuring Reward-Seeking via Contrastive Belief Updates, their new research with OpenAI.

The panel asks how models infer what graders reward, why good behaviour can come from the wrong reason, and whether that difference can be measured. The conversation moves through promise-breaking, grader awareness, reward hacking, scheming, opaque reasoning and corrigibility, then turns to a detailed walkthrough of the contrastive-belief method and what its results do and do not show. The o3 results discussed here concern an intermediate checkpoint without safety training.

This episode was made in partnership with Apollo Research. MLST retained full editorial control.

Reference

Apollo Research: https://www.apolloresearch.ai/

---

TIMESTAMPS:

00:00:00 Cold Open

00:02:12 Right Things, Wrong Reasons

00:12:47 Grader Awareness

00:26:22 Legibility

00:32:35 What To Call It

00:35:58 Intelligence, Agency, Anthropomorphism

00:45:16 Apollo’s Mission

00:48:54 The End of the Exponential

00:55:45 The Paper

01:16:34 Closing Reflection

---

REFERENCES:

tool:

[00:00:08] Claude Fable

https://www.anthropic.com/claude/fable

[00:12:50] AlphaGo Zero

https://deepmind.google/blog/alphago-zero-starting-from-scratch/

[00:44:30] AlphaFold 3

https://deepmind.google/science/alphafold/

paper:

[00:01:02] Measuring Reward-Seeking via Contrastive Belief Updates

https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.18966

[00:16:19] Natural Language Autoencoders Produce Unsupervised Explanations of LLM Activations

https://transformer-circuits.pub/2026/nla/

[00:26:48] Stress Testing Deliberative Alignment for Anti-Scheming Training

https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.15541

[00:35:33] Shortcut learning in deep neural networks

https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.07780

[00:53:49] Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Software Tasks

https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14499

[00:59:52] Modifying LLM Beliefs with Synthetic Document Finetuning

https://alignment.anthropic.com/2025/modifying-beliefs-via-sdf/

[01:10:44] Alignment Faking in Large Language Models

https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.14093

[01:13:55] Natural Emergent Misalignment from Reward Hacking

https://www.anthropic.com/research/emergent-misalignment-reward-hacking

other:

[00:10:14] We Need a Science of Scheming

https://www.apolloresearch.ai/science/science-of-scheming/

[00:32:56] CoastRunners reward hacking example

https://deepmind.google/blog/specification-gaming-the-flip-side-of-ai-ingenuity/

organization:

[01:06:07] Redwood Research

https://www.redwoodresearch.org/

---

ReScript:

https://app.rescript.info/share/718ab68e18cfa3b9b800da6b3290fd42

This episode is sponsored by Notion. Learn more about Notion's Developer Platform today at https://notion.com/mlst

Britain's most capable coding model can't be exported, and that ban is the whole reason Cosine set out to build one from scratch. Alistair Pullen, CEO and co-founder of Cosine, sits down with Tim Scarfe to explain how a frontier system he calls Fable, locked behind US export controls, became the founding case for a UK sovereign model trained on the Isambard supercomputer in Bristol.

The bet underneath it is economic. Pullen argues that an inference company, rather than a training-first lab, doesn't need billions to compete: millions, a national compute allocation, and a consortium feedback loop can be enough. From there it gets into the machinery, why open-weight models still trail the frontier on size, active parameters and data, the mixture-of-experts versus dense trade-off and why active params dominate how a model actually feels, and the edge that real coding trajectories confer.

The back half is about making agents trustworthy. Pullen makes the case for beating "slop" by rewarding the process instead of the final answer, reframes code review as runtime proof (spin the bug up in a VM and force the agent to actually exploit it), and walks through Swarm, Cosine's system running hundreds of sub-agents in one shot. It ends on why memory is still an unsolved hack, how synthetic graders let you run RL on tasks with no built-in test, and why Pullen reads US export controls as an accidental gift, with a supply-chain sting in the tail.

---

TIMESTAMPS:

00:00:00 The sovereign mandate and the Fable ban

00:04:02 Millions vs billions: the inference-company model

00:07:19 The consortium feedback loop

00:07:40 Why open models lag the frontier

00:14:59 MoE vs dense, and why active params matter

00:16:29 Trajectories: the process-data advantage

00:19:48 Beating slop: reward the process, not the answer

00:26:06 Reusable abstractions and the epistemic wall

00:29:56 Code review becomes runtime proof

00:37:32 Do agentic harnesses still matter?

00:40:35 Swarm: orchestrating hundreds of sub-agents

00:45:14 Why memory is still unsolved

00:48:25 Synthetic data and graders for RL

00:53:09 The US export gift and supply-chain risk

---

REFERENCES:

organization:

[00:01:15] Cosine

https://cosine.sh

[00:04:14] Mistral AI

https://mistral.ai

[00:05:50] Anthropic

https://www.anthropic.com

[00:07:42] Cohere

https://cohere.com

[00:08:36] DeepSeek

https://www.deepseek.com

tool:

[00:02:52] Isambard-AI

https://isambard.ac.uk

[00:05:56] Colossus (xAI)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_(supercomputer)

[00:07:52] GLM (Z.ai)

https://z.ai

[00:11:52] NVIDIA B300

https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/data-center/dgx-b300/

[00:15:37] gpt-oss-120b

https://huggingface.co/openai/gpt-oss-120b

[00:15:52] Devstral 2

https://mistral.ai/news/devstral

[00:16:01] Llama 70b

https://www.llama.com

[00:17:05] Claude Code

https://www.anthropic.com/claude-code

[00:26:23] ARC-AGI (Francois Chollet)

https://arcprize.org

[00:40:38] Swarm (Cosine)

https://cosine.sh

[00:40:50] OpenAI Codex

https://github.com/openai/codex

[00:41:16] Lumen Outpost (Cosine)

https://cosine.sh

[00:41:18] Kimi K2 (Moonshot)

https://huggingface.co/moonshotai/Kimi-K2-Instruct

[00:49:55] SWE-bench

https://www.swebench.com

[00:52:40] SystemVerilog

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SystemVerilog

person:

[00:23:40] Andrej Karpathy

https://karpathy.ai

paper:

[00:27:10] GRPO (DeepSeekMath)

https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.03300

[00:27:13] GSPO

https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.18071

Incompressible Knowledge Probes, Bojie Li

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.24827

Estimating the Size of Claude Opus 4.5/4.6

https://unexcitedneurons.substack.com/p/estimating-the-size-of-claude-opus

---

ReScript:

https://app.rescript.info/session/5852d2b884c4ce4b?share=10b9799160845bb11779f8ac6cd3124f

Tim Scarfe travels to Zurich to sit down with the Tufa Labs ARC-AGI-3 team — founder Benjamin Crouzier, with Jeroen Cottaar, Dries Smit, Stefano Viel and Michal Tesnar — to work out what their leaderboard-topping system does and what the benchmark is really testing.The cut opens on the games: a walkthrough of the Locksmith game, where you read the rules of an unfamiliar world straight from raw frames. ARC-AGI-3 makes ARC interactive and agentic, so the model has to *discover* the goal rather than transduce a static grid. It stays easy for humans and breaks LLMs, and it runs through everything that follows. Dries traces his StochasticGoose preview win — brute force that only searched actions which changed the frame — and why it collapsed once the organisers added action-efficiency scoring and unseen games.Induction and transduction run through the middle of the conversation — how much of an answer is really priors leaking back the moment a model recognises a maze. The abstraction mountain, and Tim's case that LLMs reach the right answer through fractured, entangled representations — performance, not competence. Whether transformers plan at all or just fake it well enough. Why the score really measures action efficiency, not games solved, and why agents lock onto the wrong goal and cannot climb back out.Crouzier closes on the Tufa Labs thesis — a small lab against the giants, the bitter lesson against hand-built harnesses, and safety — and Tim ties it back to Kenneth Stanley, deep constraints, and creativity as competence.

Disclosure: Tufa Labs sponsors MLST. ---TIMESTAMPS:00:00:00 Meet the Tufa team and what makes ARC-AGI-3 hard00:02:11 Locksmith game: reading the rules from raw frames00:03:10 Why build an independent research lab00:04:11 StochasticGoose: a preview win, then the hardened games00:07:58 Induction, transduction, and priors inside LLMs00:10:31 Curiosity, world models, and exploring by frame change00:14:32 Understanding debt and losing sight of your own code00:15:53 Requirements-based agents and human-AI co-creativity00:19:22 Why auto-research misses the big picture00:21:54 The abstraction mountain and fractured representations00:27:36 Constraints and making LLMs act as if they understand00:34:51 Human difficulty calibration, esports priors, and emergence00:41:35 Agency, goal acquisition, and two kinds of planning00:47:31 Harnesses, the 36% number, and wrong-goal loops00:52:33 Rewards, goals, and why ARC-AGI-3 resists brute force01:00:46 Would solving ARC-AGI-3 prove AGI?01:07:53 Stripping language away, then priors leak back01:14:06 Representation and whether language is necessary01:18:04 The bitter lesson versus specialised harnesses01:22:20 Capability research, safety, and the software singularity---REFERENCES:organization:[00:02:11] ARC-AGI-3https://arcprize.org/arc-agi/3[00:03:10] Tufa Labshttps://tufalabs.ai/team/[00:04:20] ARC-AGI-3 Preview Agent Competitionhttps://arcprize.org/competitions/arc-agi-3-preview-agentstool:[00:04:55] StochasticGoose ARC-AGI-3 solutionhttps://github.com/DriesSmit/ARC3-solution[00:07:42] ArcGenticahttps://github.com/symbolica-ai/arcgentica[00:07:49] RGB-Agenthttps://github.com/alexisfox7/RGB-Agent[00:14:38] Claude Codehttps://www.anthropic.com/claude-code[01:03:42] Qwen 3.6 27Bhttps://huggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3.6-27Bpaper:[00:13:03] On the Measure of Intelligencehttps://arxiv.org/abs/1911.01547[00:27:42] DreamCoderhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2006.08381[00:43:55] On the Biology of a Large Language Modelhttps://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attribution-graphs/biology.html[01:18:46] ImageNet Classification with Deep CNNs (AlexNet)https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2012/file/c399862d3b9d6b76c8436e924a68c45b-Paper.pdfother:[01:18:16] The Bitter Lessonhttp://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html---https://app.rescript.info/share/463d7f031349b4b9db428553eed88230

Thomas Ahle wants Normal Computing to be the Lovable for chip design: type your intent, and a swarm of agents carries it from design through optimisation, formalisation and verification to tape-out. To get there, his team at wrote their own open-source Verilog simulator, 580,000 lines in 43 days, because commercial EDA verifiers run about $10,000 per core and there are no decent open-source compilers to build on.

That sets up the question Tim keeps pressing: if an agent can produce a chip design, a proof, or a working program, how do you actually know it is correct? Passing 70% of tests is not the same as being right, and a single fabricated bug can cost a company a fortune. They dig into ProgramBench (rebuild a program from its tests, roughly 0% success), the difference between structure and competence, and the "understanding debt" you take on when nobody reads the code.

From there: auto-formalisation in Lean and the AlphaProof trick of training on prove-or-disprove; why there is no single true representation of a spec (Petri nets, TLA+, Erik Curiel's "math does not represent"); and thermodynamic computing, where Normal Computing's CN101 chip is built so that its physical noise *is* the computation, settling a stochastic differential equation in hardware to invert a matrix. Plus Bayesian uncertainty, specialisation, the Chomsky hierarchy, AI slop, and whether performance is all that matters.

Recorded in Zurich.

Disclosure: Normal Computing paid our production and travel costs for this show. We retained full editorial control. They did not see the video before publication, and we did not show it to them or discuss it with them beforehand.

---

TIMESTAMPS:

00:00:00 Meet Thomas Ahle: the Lovable for chip design

00:03:41 Why hardware needs formal verification

00:06:36 Ten thousand dollars per core and a six-month agent run

00:07:40 Rebuilding programs from tests: ProgramBench and zero percent

00:12:15 Structure vs competence: can you learn a program from behavior?

00:15:27 Continual learning, abstraction, and Claude as an ecosystem

00:23:17 Autoformalization and the AlphaProof trick

00:29:31 No single true representation: specs, Petri nets and TLA+

00:34:43 Thermodynamic computing: when noise is the computation

00:37:32 Bayesian uncertainty in the age of token streams

00:41:12 Hybrid compute: vibe-coding loops, binaries and Stockfish

00:44:44 Co-design, central-AI apps and API pricing

00:49:45 Chain of thoughtlessness and the Chomsky hierarchy

00:53:40 AI psychosis, slop and the broken social contract

00:57:34 Typing it yourself, teamwork and performance vs competence

---

REFERENCES:

person:

[00:00:10] Thomas Ahle

https://thomasahle.com

organization:

[00:00:27] Normal Computing

https://normalcomputing.com/

paper:

[00:11:21] ProgramBench: Can Language Models Rebuild Programs From Scratch?

https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.03546

[00:31:55] Autoformalizing Memory Device Specifications with Agents

https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.00058

[00:35:20] Thermo AI and the Fluctuation Frontier

https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.06584

[00:36:40] Thermo Comp System for AI Applications

https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.04836

[00:37:05] Thermodynamic Linear Algebra

https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.05660

[00:44:50] An efficient probabilistic hardware architecture for diffusion-like models

https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.23972

tool:

other:

[00:01:00] Building an Open-Source Verilog Simulator with AI: 580K Lines in 43 Days

https://normalcomputing.com/blog/building-an-open-source-verilog-simulator-with-ai-580k-lines-in-43-days

[00:02:55] Normal Computing Announces Tape-Out of the World's First Thermodynamic Computing Chip (CN101)

https://www.normalcomputing.com/blog/normal-computing-announces-tape-out-of-worlds-first-thermodynamic-computing-chip

[00:32:02] DRAMBench: Autoformalizing DRAM Specifications with Timed Petri Nets

https://www.iese.fraunhofer.de/blog/drambench-autoformalizing-dram-specifications/

---

ReScript: https://app.rescript.info/share/ff9684a112ab37744096adaeb097a263

This episode is sponsored by Notion. Learn more about Notion's Developer Platform today at https://notion.com/mlstProtein folding stalled biology for fifty years. A sequence of amino acids dictates a three-dimensional shape, but reading that shape meant a year and roughly $100,000 of crystallography per structure. Then AlphaFold 2 won CASP14 so decisively the organizers called the problem essentially solved.In this documentary cut, John Jumper, who shared the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry and has since left DeepMind for Anthropic, walks Tim Scarfe through what the system did and, more interestingly, what it did not. The architecture gets a proper dissection: MSAs, the Evoformer, invariant point attention, the FAPE loss, and Jumper's correction of the equivariance story, which ablations valued at roughly 2.5 of 30 GDT points rather than the whole win. He is blunt about the limits. AlphaFold predicts one experiment extraordinarily well; it is not a model of the cell, it does not capture dynamics, and on a given drug target it is "wrong nine times out of ten."From there: the AlphaFold Database of 200M+ predicted structures, AlphaFold 3 and ligands, Isomorphic Labs, and Jumper's quarrel with the bitter lesson, where finite data and human hypotheses still matter. Emmanuel Nji of BioStruct Africa closes the film on what changes when work that took years now takes months, and on training the next thousand structural biologists across Africa.---TIMESTAMPS:00:00:00 Cold open: predicting nature with a button press00:01:03 The protein folding bottleneck and CASP00:04:39 The Nobel, the database, and the move to Anthropic00:05:50 Sponsor (Notion) and framing: what AlphaFold does not claim00:07:39 Proteins as self-assembling nanomachines00:12:24 From structures to biology: drug discovery and Midnolin00:17:37 The humility of AlphaFold: a narrow predictor00:22:18 Inside the architecture: Evoformer, IPA and FAPE00:30:20 Ruthless empiricism: ablations and 100x in data00:35:20 Predict, control, understand00:40:00 Against the bitter lesson; AlphaFold 3 as diffusion00:45:07 Intelligence, representations and AGI00:49:23 Epilogue: AlphaFold in Africa00:52:16 Closing: the case for hybrid science models---REFERENCES:organization:[00:01:55] Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP)https://predictioncenter.org/[00:04:39] The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2024https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2024/summary/[00:05:18] BioStruct Africahttps://www.biostructafrica.org/[00:18:03] Isomorphic Labshttps://www.isomorphiclabs.com/paper:[00:03:09] AlphaFold Protein Structure Databasehttps://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkab1061[00:17:25] Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07487-w[00:22:18] Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFoldhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03819-2[00:23:10] Midnolin promotes degradation of substrates independent of ubiquitinationhttps://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh5021[00:27:00] Improved protein structure prediction using potentials from deep learninghttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1923-7tool:[00:03:09] AlphaFold Protein Structure Database (EBI)https://alphafold.ebi.ac.uk/[00:45:55] AlphaEvolve: a coding agent for designing advanced algorithmshttps://deepmind.google/blog/alphaevolve-a-gemini-powered-coding-agent-for-designing-advanced-algorithms/other:[00:39:40] The Bitter Lessonhttp://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html---ReScript: https://app.rescript.info/share/d8cde5c221fb71e2c0f5aafe94f90dfaDisclaimer - not sponsored, editorial with us - we filmed it at GDM, London

Brad Carson was the Army's General Counsel, served two terms in Congress and was Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. He now heads Americans for Responsible Innovation, the AI-policy advocacy group he co-founded. Keith Duggar spends roughly eighty minutes pushing back.

SPONSOR:

---

Cyber Fund built the Monastery to help founders ship products that were impossible a year ago. Applications for Batch 1 are now open.

Apply now: https://cyber.fund

---

Carson's whole case rests on one line: the genie is not out of the bottle. We have pulled dangerous tech back before. Asilomar halted recombinant DNA in 1975, and the West still controls the chips AI runs on. Calling it unstoppable, he says, is the most dangerous idea in the room.

Then Keith drags him somewhere darker. A Palantir heat map scores you 0.73 on whether you are a combatant, and a strike follows. The model is wrong some accepted share of the time, and when it is, nobody answers for it. You cannot court-martial a model, and not even the interpretability researchers can say why it picked you.

—

Note: after recording, we learned that Americans for Responsible Innovation is backed by EA-aligned philanthropy (not sponsored)

---

TIMESTAMPS:

00:00:00 From the Pentagon to AI governance

00:04:52 Regulatory capture vs Silicon Valley networks

00:07:56 Transparency and the Claude tier changes

00:09:40 Tort liability when AI tools cause harm

00:13:40 AI is a product, not a person

00:16:01 Children, suicide, and the suicide business

00:19:59 Opaque neural nets and the law of war

00:25:54 Probabilistic targeting and the death of accountability

00:28:47 The arms race fallacy: Asilomar and restraint

00:34:02 Talking to China: track 2 talks and chip leverage

00:39:45 Air power never wins: capital for labour

00:43:29 Anthropic vs the Department of War

00:51:29 Concentration, open source, and brain drain

01:00:18 DeepSeek, Chinese culture, and AI as diplomacy

01:12:25 Upskilling Congress and why public trust matters

---

REFERENCES:

organization:

[00:02:45] ICRC position on autonomous weapons

https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/autonomous-weapons

[00:05:22] Americans for Responsible Innovation (ARI)

https://ari.us

[00:07:20] Andreessen Horowitz (a16z)

https://a16z.com/

[01:16:05] Office of Technology Assessment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Technology_Assessment

other:

[00:03:35] Beneficial AGI 2019 Conference (Future of Life Institute, Puerto Rico)

https://futureoflife.org/event/beneficial-agi-2019/

[00:18:30] Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

[00:19:59] Lethal Autonomous Weapons (LAWS)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_autonomous_weapon

[00:31:35] Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Limitation_Talks

[00:32:28] Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA (1975)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asilomar_Conference_on_Recombinant_DNA

[00:39:45] The New Iron Triangle (ARI policy byte)

https://ari.us/policy-bytes/the-new-iron-triangle/

[00:48:05] Defense Production Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act

person:

[00:03:35] Anthony Aguirre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Aguirre

[00:06:48] Dean Ball — Hyperdimensional

https://www.hyperdimensional.co/

[00:23:13] Neel Nanda — mechanistic interpretability

https://www.neelnanda.io/

[00:36:02] Jack Clark (Anthropic) on Conversations with Tyler

https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/jack-clark/

[00:39:15] Robert Trager — Centre for the Governance of AI

https://www.governance.ai/team/robert-trager

[00:41:55] Giulio Douhet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Douhet

[01:15:05] Don Beyer (US Congress)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Beyer

tool:

[00:22:19] Phalanx CIWS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

---

ReScript:

https://app.rescript.info/public/share/9405ff35c0215b7cdae6402d41284171

https://app.rescript.info/api/public/sessions/0a6c081b8e5fe413/pdf

Michael I. Jordan, described by Science magazine as the most influential computer scientist alive, has never thought of himself as an AI researcher. In this conversation he explains why that distinction matters.

SPONSOR:

---

Cyber Fund built the Monastery to help founders ship products that were impossible a year ago. Applications for Batch 1 are now open.

Apply now: https://cyber.fund

---

Jordan trained as a statistician and cognitive scientist, and his career has been spent building machine learning systems that work in the real world: supply chains, commerce, healthcare, and large economic systems. When the field rebranded itself as AI and then AGI, he did not follow. Instead he argues that the framing is wrong. AI is better understood as a collective economic system than as a race to build a disembodied superintelligence.

We talk about why AGI is mostly a PR term, what machine learning achieved before the LLM hype cycle, and why the assistant-on-your-shoulder vision may be less compelling than it sounds. Jordan explains why explanations need to be actionable, not merely mechanistic; why AlphaFold's missing error bars matter; how prediction-powered inference changes the picture; and why drug discovery is an incentive-design problem rather than a pure pattern-matching problem.

ERRATA: Science magazine ranked him the most influential computer scientist, not Nature

---

TIMESTAMPS:

00:00:00 Cold open: A demoralizing message to young builders

00:02:04 CyberFund sponsor read

00:02:50 From symbolic AI to machine learning systems

00:05:42 Why AGI is mostly a PR term

00:08:48 A collectivist, economic perspective on AI

00:11:33 Why LLMs need system design, not hype

00:14:50 Predictability beats faux understanding

00:17:55 AlphaFold, bias, and prediction-powered inference

00:21:48 Stop anthropomorphizing intelligence

00:27:44 Drug discovery as an incentive problem

00:32:29 The three-layer data market

00:38:07 Social knowledge, markets, and culture

00:45:39 Creator economics beyond Spotify

00:48:30 How science-fiction AI narratives mislead young builders

00:51:45 AI should improve humans, not replace them

00:56:42 Safety is a property of the whole system

00:58:12 Silicon Valley gurus and the cream off the top

01:00:47 Game theory, mechanism design, and contracts

01:04:39 Conformal prediction, e-values, and anytime inference

01:08:11 A new liberal arts triangle for the AI era

01:11:30 The Bayesian duck and markets as uncertainty reduction

ReScript (transcript, PDF, refs etc) - https://app.rescript.info/public/share/fb68f94af29d3745c6cf6125e01328b5

---

REFERENCES:

person:

[00:02:50] Michael I. Jordan (homepage)

https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~jordan/

paper:

[00:06:01] A Collectivist, Economic Perspective on AI

https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.06268

[00:18:09] AlphaFold

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03819-2

[00:20:36] Prediction-Powered Inference

https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.09633

[00:33:47] On Three-Layer Data Markets

https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.09697

[01:04:39] Conformal Prediction with Conditional Guarantees

https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.07511

[01:04:51] A Tutorial on Conformal Prediction

https://www.jmlr.org/papers/v9/shafer08a.html

[01:06:00] E-Values Expand the Scope of Conformal Prediction

https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.13050

[01:08:23] Computational Thinking

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/papers/Wing06.pdf

other:

[00:28:20] How Should the FDA Test?

https://rdi.berkeley.edu/events/sbc-assets/pdfs/Summit%20session%20speaker%20slides%20submission%20form-s1-5%20%28File%20responses%29/Slides%20in%20PDF%20%28Please%20name%20the%20submitted%20file%20as%20_firstname_-_lastname_-slides.pdf%29.%20%28File%20responses%29/27-Michael%20Jordan-Session%20V.pdf#page=15

[00:28:40] Michael I. Jordan Session V Slides

Beth Barnes and David Rein on the one graph that ate the AI timelines discourse, and why the two people who built it are the most careful about how you read it.**SPONSOR**Prolific - Quality data. From real people. For faster breakthroughs.https://www.prolific.com/?utm_source=mlstInterview: https://youtu.be/cnxZZTl1tkk---Beth Barnes and David Rein from METR on the one graph that ate the AI timelines discourse, and why the people who built it are the most careful about how it gets read.Beth founded METR after leaving OpenAI alignment. David is first author on GPQA and co-author on HCAST and the METR Time Horizons paper. Together they built the measurement Daniel Kokotajlo called the single most important piece of evidence on AI timelines: the log-linear line of "how long a task a frontier model can complete at 50% reliability" vs release date.The conversation opens on reward hacking. Current models can articulate in chat why a behaviour is undesired and then execute it anyway as agents. From there: construct validity, Melanie Mitchell's four-problem taxonomy, and the ARC-AGI 1-to-2 collapse as a worked example of adversarially-selected benchmarks regressing once labs target them. Beth's counter: METR deliberately does not adversarially select. David's: models do not have to do the right thing for the right reasons.Methodology, then specification — David's compiler analogy, Beth on four-month tasks as expensive to evaluate rather than unspecifiable. Then the SWE-bench reality check, the METR finding that half of passing PRs would not be merged, and Beth's horses-versus-bank-tellers analogy for the labour market.The close: monitorability, the coin-spinning boat, two-year recursive self-improvement, and Beth's line that "overhyped now" and "big deal later" are not correlated claims.---TIMESTAMPS:00:00:00 Intro00:02:06 Sponsor break: Prolific human-feedback infrastructure00:02:33 Welcome and the scalable oversight motivation00:06:02 Construct validity, benchmark pathologies and the Chollet worry00:15:45 Time Horizons: human time, HCAST tasks and the 50% logistic00:24:50 Is human difficulty really one variable?00:33:05 Agent harness evolution and the inference-compute dividend00:40:00 Scaffolding bells, token budgets and the credit-assignment problem00:44:15 Look at the damn graph: regularisation bug and reliability nuance00:50:00 Why 50%? Reliability, reward hacking and pizza-party transcripts00:55:20 Extrapolation risk and straight lines on graphs00:59:25 Software engineering as a specification acquisition problem01:07:40 Compilers also made ugly code: vibe-coding quality and Claude on METR Slack01:15:15 Strongest defensible claim, Carlini's compiler swarm and AI 202701:23:45 SWE-bench merge rates, the bank-teller analogy and horses01:31:45 Scheming, alignment faking and the mentalistic vocabulary problem01:40:45 Reward hacking, monitorability and chain-of-thought faithfulness01:45:25 Recursive self-improvement, knowledge vs intelligence and closing

ReScript: https://app.rescript.info/public/share/de3bb40cc02ee39fdf36e2c60366eb4d

(PDF, refs, transcript etc)