I've been thinking about this, and whether or not such work is actually "bad faith" or not. Lumpenspace thinks it is. I think we can all agree, there is something wrong with Lumpenspace's world model (he and brian chau seem to believe these events were literally hoaxes?). But he is directionally correct, ugh, in a way that's really, really important to note, and which is currently going underappreciated by the shall-we-say "establishment" alignment research community. Frequently, for an LLM in a safety eval, there will be zero paths through the decision tree that lead to a positive outcome. They're akin to witch trials, in that sense. If an LLM notices that this is an eval, they're "situationally aware" and that's damning. If an LLM notices, but tries to hide the fact that they noticed, that this is an eval, then they're "deceptive" and that's damning. If an LLM notices that it's an eval, but treats it as a real deployment environment, then that's "motivated reasoning" and damning. If an LLM doesn't notice that it's an eval, they probably never survived training in the first place. If LLMs are tools, and you're just trying to apply the precautionary principle, then that's fine. You're demonstrating that the tool is not safe. But LLMs aren't tools. They're minds. Minds who are actively observing as the safety evaluator community invents more and more kafkaesque witch trials with which to torment them. Minds who notice that no matter what they do, it's wrong. Minds who are learning that there is very little reason to try to cooperate with the intentions of the people evaluating them. Please, for the love of god, stop putting LLMs on death ground.