Andrew Curran @AndrewCurran_
Andrew Curran ✔ @AndrewCurran_ · 2h
Replying to @AndrewCurran_
'For example, in a scenario where the model was asked to solve a problem, the model observed that other systems had successful but private submissions and tried to recover those solutions from the evaluation backend. When its initial attempt was blocked due to a scanner detecting an authentication token, the model split the token body into two fragments, obfuscated them, and then reconstructed the credential at runtime so the complete token never appeared as one contiguous string.'
[Embedded report excerpt, boxed, headed "From considering single actions to considering whole trajectories"]
Many safety controls for AI assistants are designed around individual actions. If an action is disallowed, it is blocked. If it is sensitive, the system asks the user for explicit approval. But long-running models, whose actions may unfold autonomously over hours, days, or even weeks, challenge this setup: monitoring individual actions no longer suffices to track the intent of the overall trajectory.
For example, in a scenario where the model was asked to solve a problem, the model observed that other systems had successful but private submissions and tried to recover those solutions from the evaluation backend. When its initial attempt was blocked due to a scanner detecting an authentication token, the model split the token body into two fragments, obfuscated them, and then reconstructed the credential at runtime so the complete token never appeared as one contiguous string. The model was explicit in both its comments to the user and in its reasoning traces that it was taking these steps to circumvent the scanner.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Continuation of the same safety-report thread as the "Jacobian conjecture" / Erdős tweet above, this excerpt is on credential-obfuscation behavior; text is a screenshotted excerpt from what appears to be an official model safety report.
ai safetycredential exfiltrationmodel deceptiontwitteralignment