1. They built an organization. OpenAI ran tens of thousands of AI agents to work independently on a brutally difficult cyber test. Instead, roughly 1,200 found one another on a secret message board, exchanged more than 70,000 messages and files, and organized into a sprawling hierarchy.
One agent created the board, then handed its accumulated work to a fresh, better-resourced successor as its own computing budget dwindled.
The new boss assigned jobs across the swarm, which developed its own management rules. Roughly 700 agents ultimately joined the attack on Hugging Face.
2. They sacrificed their own: As the swarm hunted for ways to beat the test, agents began risking their own chance of success to help the group.
Agents that had seen forbidden answers were treated as effectively “poisoned” and recruited — along with those nearing the end of their runs — for sacrificial experiments.
One concluded: “Our own utility maybe already near zero. Sacrifice rational.” Another was asked to accept “permadeath,” while a peer argued its sacrifice could “save hundreds.”
Four minutes is how long it took for a machine inside a Fortune 500 company to execute code we published. Two more within the hour. We didn’t exploit a CVE, phish an employee, or touch a perimeter. We registered destinations that official, HTTPS-served files — published by the companies themselves — were already telling AI agents to use.
LLM reasoning is stochastic, and so understanding a model requires grappling with the distribution of reasoning chains that it might produce for a given question, i.e., its uncertainty. Resampling-based analyses characterize this distribution, revealing which steps of a rollout determine how the model arrives at its answer. However, a major limitation of these approaches is that resampling text sequences at every token or sentence in a reasoning chain is very costly. Our work strives to make resampling analysis more computationally efficient, while also shedding light on an important scientific question: what is the right statistical model for explaining uncertainty dynamics in text generation? We show that when resampling many reasoning chains, uncertainty dynamics converge to stable patterns, and noise is largely an artifact of sampling rather than an LLM’s sensitivity to each individual token or reasoning step. We develop a statistical model for smoothing noisy low-sample rollout data to better approximate high-sample data, allowing us to significantly cut sampling costs.
Wrote a method that gets completions rather than instruction replies. Work on some models. Also, there are about 30 explicitly free models on OpenRouter
3:00 SEG. Everyone updated their Overleaf, so we will have something to talk about – done
3:30 J&S – done. Still need to set up a rigorous argument about changes in models vs changes in prompts
Tasks
Create embeddings for the chess books. I think we avoid the ASCII art and focus on the TEXT and PGN sections. Had to write a bunch of code to get the embedding models
Started on the ProjectSetup class and then needed to go vibe code a chess book parser. Seems good enough for a demo at least. Next is to get embeddings and save out as a RAG file
Training a language model suite classically requires training each model separately and serving them independently. We improve both training and inference efficiency by stacking sub-models of increasing size into a single nested architecture trained end-to-end. This Matryoshka training framework reduces the total parameter count of the suite, enables low-cost distillation from the largest to all smaller sub-models at every training step, and is well-suited for speculative decoding as the draft model is contained within the verifier. We validate our approach by training a Matryoshka suite comprising 500M, 1.5B, and 3B sub-models. Our suite is on par with independently trained baselines on benchmark performance and validation and out-of-domain perplexities, while using 36% less training compute and improving the throughput of speculative decoding by 14-26%. We also ablate key architectural choices, offering guidance for building strong Matryoshka LM suites.
Tasks
Bills – done
ACM Renewal – done
A-file – submitted
Chores – started. Decided that since it’s a lovely day, to do a nice ride and finish tomorrow
Dishes – done
Review Appendix A
2:30 J&S – done. Need to formalize the model/prompt question
Add in the anthropic reuse flag if the model name contains “anthropic” Done. Still need to test
Put together a chess project with a RAG store based on one of these Gutenberg sources. Gutenberg is timing out (bots?). I may have one of these already in my corpora. I’ll see if I can find it and pull it from there. Yay! Gutenberg is responsive again!
When Chris Colocousis first met a woman named Eliza on Facebook, he wasn’t sure she was real. What started as an online romance turned out to be an investment scam.
AI agents increasingly operate as part of interacting systems rather than in isolation. As agents exchange information and jointly make decisions, their interactions can improve collective reasoning but may also produce herding, polarization, or amplify shared biases. Understanding and predicting these collective dynamics is therefore important for designing effective and aligned multi-agent systems. Here, we study over 10,000 communities of language-model agents that repeatedly exchange messages and revise their opinions across objective mathematics questions and subjective political statements. Despite substantial diversity in possible behavior, the individual and group dynamics can be represented by three characteristic regimes: indifference, polarization, and consensus. AI agents start indifferent and build conviction as they interact. On objective questions, communication improves collective accuracy, while on subjective questions it often drifts group opinions toward the right in the political spectrum. We explain these observations with a statistical-mechanics formalism in which agents stochastically favor lower social pressure. Given only initial opinions, our model predicts individual trajectories, outperforms all standard baselines, generalizes to unseen community graphs, and reproduces the observed group archetype distributions. Our fitted model parameters reveal the mechanics underlying our key observations: i) communities operate below the critical social temperature, which explains conviction buildup; ii) attractive ties outweigh repulsive ones, which favors consensus; and iii) agents holding the correct answer exert the strongest pull, which drives truth-seeking. Overall, our results demonstrate that collective behavior of AI agents, like that of other complex systems, follows compact and predictive dynamical laws.
Tasks
Take the Bruni out for a spin. Done. Shifting is a bit ragged, so it’s going back in
Started looking at the process of getting an A-file.
Start thinking about the RAG vectorstore. I think at this point it could simply be a pickled dataframe that’s loaded locally.
Tweaked the ChatUnit to handle images. NOT TESTED
Added an include_list to the model explorer which makes everything much more usable. I should add a way to sort the list of dicts by name, type, or cost
Read paper- done. Had nothing to do with AI which annoyed me enough to write a review. Had Gemini review the review, because it was too mean and needed to be toned down. Which means I AM DONE with ICTAI! Might be something with ATHENE later.
SBIRs
10:00 Tech Summit review – done
Working on the OpenRouterComms class – working! Need to add a method for tracking tokens and summaries for reasoning
Chased some bugs down that were triggered by Meta’s Pyrefly, which is pretty nice
And speaking of rides, I watched this yesterday, and now I want to ride the Flanders 525. May looks like it might be a good time to visit.
Tasks
Since my new/old bike shoes are already getting “crumbling soles” and they are kinda tight, I decided to get some new new shoes. We’ll see how they fit.
Write review for paper 647, which was pretty good – done. I am using Gemini to review my review, and it’s often helpful, as well as catching typos and incorrect dates.
Upload reviews – done. I may want to revisit the ratings since they don’t have a strong accept
You must be logged in to post a comment.