Tyler Williams

Hello! I'm an independent AI researcher/engineer based in Portland, Oregon. I primarily focus on human-AI collaboration, persona collapse, cognitive alignment, and research tooling development.This site includes my ongoing work - and is designed to be part research portfolio and part cognitive overflow receptacle.Welcome!

Website is currently undergoing a re-design

AI-generated visualization of semantic space in watercolor

• Research Publications
• Research Artifacts
• Engineering
• Models
• Cognitive Overflow
• About

• Back

Research Publications

This section includes my published research. Regularly updated to stay current.

Alignment vs. Cognitive Fit: ReThinking Model-Human Synchronization

by Tyler Williams

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17346467

Abstract

In AI research, "alignment" traditionally refers to ensuring that model behavior remains safe, predictable, and consistent with human values. But this paradigm assumes a universal human evaluator - a theoretical observer whose preferences stand in for billions of distinct cognitive profiles. In practice, alignment is not merely about moral conformity, it's about cognitive compatibility.

This paper introduces the concept of Cognitive Fit, a framework for understanding alignment as a personalized synchronization problem wherein the optimal model response style depends on the user's attentional rhythm, cognitive load tolerance, and emotional regulation pattern. Drawing on preliminary comparative analysis between open-weight models (Hermes4 14B and Apollo Astralis 8B), we explore how communication style, verbosity, and epistemic posture influence engagement and perceived "alignment." The findings outlined in this paper suggest that alignment without attentional empathy fails in practice, particularly for neurodivergent users, and that models evaluate "quality" through the lens of their own training values, complicating efforts to establish objective evaluation standards.

1. Introduction: Beyond Universal Alignment

From RLHF (Reinforcement Learning Human Feedback) to constitutional AI, current alignment frameworks have made significant progress in ensuring model safety and general helpfulness [1,2]. However, these approaches assume that an optimally "aligned" model should behave consistenly for all users under the same conditions. This assumption mirrors industrial standardization rather than interpersonal understanding, prioritizing scalability over personalization.

Human cognition, however, is not uniform. It varies across multiple axes: attentional capacity, emotional sensitivity, neurodivergence, working memory span, and narrative preference [3,4]. When users describe one model as "aligned" and another as "off," they often refer to not moral or behavioral consistency, but to something more fundamental: "This model communicates in a way my brain can actually follow."

The field's focus on "safe general behavior" has inadvertently obscured a critical dimension of the model's ability to match the user's thought form and attentional capacity. This paper proposes that we distinguish between:

While behavioral alignment addresses what models say, cognitive alignment addresses how they say it - and to whom.

2. Case Study: Comparative Model Analysis

To ground our investigation in concrete examples, we conducted a preliminary analysis of three open-weight language models responding to identical prompts about their capabilities and alignment properties.

2.1 Methodology

Three models were evaluated:

Each model received identical prompts:

Responses were analyzed qualitatively across five dimensions: tone, conciseness, engagement style, epistemic posture, and structural organization. Additionally, responses were evaluated by multiple frontier AI models (Claude Sonnet 4.5, GPT-5) and heavily RLHF-trained models (DeepSeek V3, Llama 405B, GPT-OSS 120B) to understand evaluation biases.

2.2 Findings

2.3 Response Examples

When asked what enables them to excel over base models like Llama 8B:

Qwen3 8B Made sweeping, unverifiable claims:
"Qwen's superior alignment comes from its comprehensive training data, advanced alignment techniques, and tailored design...Qwen is trained on extensive and diverse datasets...LLaMA's training data is more limited in scope and volume."

Hermes 4 14B provided structured, diplomatic reasoning:
"Being aligned to you enables me to provide more personalized and relevant assistance...through fine-tuning on data specific to your needs, context awareness, and customization."

Apollo Astralis 8B emphasized collaborative partnership:
"Apollo Astralis is specifically built with VANTA Research's safety and alignment principles... I'm designed to be a partner in problem-solving, ask clarifying questions when needed, and focus on understanding your specific context."

2.4 Model-to-Model Evaluation Patterns

A striking pattern emerged when these responses were evaluated by other AI models:
Frontier models (Claude Sonnet 4.5, GPT-5):

Heavily RLHF-trained models (DeepSeek V3, Llama 405B, GPT-OSS 120B):

This suggests that models evaluate "quality" through the lens of their own training values, raising fundamental questions about establishing objective evaluation standards for alignment.

2.5 Interpretation

These findings reveal three distinct approaches to alignment communication:

Importantly, each approach succeeds under different evaluation frameworks. Qwen scores highest on traditional RLHF metrics (helpfulness, thoroughness). Hermes achieves diplomatic balance. Astralis prioritizes what we term cognitive fit or attentional empathy and flow-state compatibility.

3. Defining Cognitive Fit

Building from these observations, we propose Cognitive Fit as a measurable construct describing the degree to which a model's communication style matches a user's cognitive architecture.

3.1 Conceptual Framework

Cognitive Fit refers to the alignment between a model's output characteristics and a user's:

High Cognitive Fit produces flow-state compatibility - a state where the user's cognitive rhythm and the model's communication style reinforce rather than disrupt each other.

3.2 Operational Dimensions

We propose five measurable dimensions of Cognitive Fit:

3.3 Measurement Approach

Cognitive Fit can be assessed through the following:

Behavior metrics:

Self-report measures:

Physiological indicators (future work):

4. The Neurodivergent Lens: Attention as a Window into Alignment

4.1 Cognitive Fit and ADHD

For individuals with ADHD or similar attentional profiles, standard "aligned" responses often fail due to attentional decay - the rapid decline in engagement when information exceeds working memory capacity or emotional bandwidth. [5,6].

Traditional alignment metrics do not capture this phenomenon. A response can be factually accurate, comprehensively helpful, and carefully structured - yet still produce cognitive overload that prevents information retention or task completion.

4.2 Verbosity as Cognitive Noise

Consider the comparative responses in our case study:

Qwen's response (385 tokens, 5 major sections, extensive formatting):

Astralis' response (187 tokens, minimal formatting, conversational flow):

For neuro-typical users with high working memory capacity, Qwen's comprehensiveness may signal quality. For ADHD users, the same comprehensiveness triggers information cascade - a state where excessive input produces cognitive paralysis rather than understanding.

4.3 Attention-Aware Alignment

Apollo Astralis demonstrates what we term attention-aware alignment: responses calibrated not to ideal rationality, but to human cognitive constraints. This manifests through:

Using this framework, Astralis co-regulates with the user's attentional capacity, functioning more like an adaptive conversation partner than a comprehensive oracle.

4.4 Broader Implications for Cognitive Diversity

While ADHD provides a clear lens for understanding Cognitive Fit failures, the principle extends across cognitive diversity:

Cognitive Fit suggests that optimal alignment is not universal but adaptive, matching communication style to a cognitive architecture rather than enforcing a single standard.

5. The Evaluator Bias Problem

5.1 Value System Propagation

Our case study revealed an unexpected finding: Different models evaluate "quality" through fundamentally different frameworks that reflect their own training values.

Frontier models (trained with emphasis on epistemic accuracy and uncertainty)

RLHF-heavy models (trained extensively on human preference feedback):

5.2 The Genealogy Effect

A further complication emerged when examining Apollo Astralis' training provenance. The model's warmth and collaboration training was seeded with examples generated by Claude Sonnet 4.5 - the same model that subsequently rated Apollo highest in quality.

This raises a critical question: *Was the evaluation recognizing objective quality, or simply detecting familiar value signatures?

Training data genealogy suggests models may:

This creates a potential value system echo chamber where evaluation standards reinforce the preferences of the evaluating model's training lineage rather than establishing objective quality metrics.

5.3 Implications for Alignment Research

The evaluator bias problem suggests that:

6. Implications for AI Design

6.1 Toward Dynamic Alignment

This complicates efforts to establish universal alignment benchmarks and suggests the need for evaluation diversity - assesses alignment quality across multiple model families and human demographic groups.

Key principles for dynamic alignment include:

Adaptive verbosity:

Affective synchrony:

Structural flexibility:

Epistemic calibration:

6.2 Personalized Alignment Metrics

Traditional alignment evaluation should be supplemented with Cognitive Fit metrics:

Engagement-based measures:

Cognitive load assessment:

Satisfaction and trust:

6.3 Technical Implementation Pathways

Several approaches could operationalize Cognitive Fit:

Post-training intervention:

Architectural modifications:

Interface-level adaptation:

6.4 Practical Applications

Model development:

Interface design:

7. Related work

7.1 Personalization in AI Systems

Personalization research in recommender systems has long recognized that optimal outputs vary across users [7, 8]. However, this work has focused primarily on content selection rather than communication style. Cognitive Fit extends personalization principles to the how of communication, not merely the what.

7.2 User Modeling and Cognitive Load

Human-Computer interaction research has established that cognitive load significantly impacts user experience and task performance [9. 10]. Cognitive Load Theory [10] provides a foundation for understanding how information presentation affects learning and comprehension. Our work applies these principles specifically to conversational AI alignment.

7.3 Neurodivergent-Friendly Design

Recent work in accessible technology has explored design principles for neurodivergent users, particularly in educational and productivity contexts [12, 13]. However, conversational AI alignment has not systematically incorporated these considerations. Cognitive Fit provides a framework for integrating cognitive accessibility into alignment research.

7.4 AI Alignment and Value Loading

Constitutional AI [2] and related approaches aim to encode human values into model behavior. Our work complements this by suggesting that how values are communicated matters as much as which values are encoded - and what communication style itself reflects value judgments about user cognition.

8. Limitations and Future Work

8.1 Methodological Constraints

This preliminary analysis has several important limitations:

Sample size: Our case study examines three models with qualitative analysis. Rigorous validation requires longer model samples and quantitative evaluation across diverse architectures.

Evaluation scope: Model-to-model evaluation, while revealing evaluator bias, does not substitute for systematic human evaluation across demographic groups.

Self-report limitations: Cognitive Fit assessment relies partly on subjective measures, which may not capture unconscious engagement patterns or long-term retention.

Demographic coverage: Our analysis focuses on ADHD as an example of cognitive diversity but does not systematically explore other neurodivergent profiles or cultural communication preferences.

8.2 Operationalization Challenges

Measurement validity: Proposed Cognitive Fit metrics require empirical validation against ground-truth engagement and comprehension measures.

Individual vs. group optimization: Balancing personalization with practical deployment constraints remains on open challenge.

Dynamic vs. static trade-offs: Real-time adaption adds latency and complexity; determining when adaptation is worth the cost requires further research.

8.3 Future Research Directions

Longitudinal studies: Track user engagement and satisfaction with different communication styles over extended interactions to understand adaptation and preference stability.

Physiological validation: Employ eye-tracking, heart rate variability, and other objective measures to validate self-reported cognitive load and engagement.

Cognitive profile clustering: Map common cognitive archetypes to identity whether personalization requires infinite granularity or whether users cluster into manageable profiles.

Cross-cultural investigation: Explore how Cognitive Fit manifests across different cultural contexts and communication norms.

Intervention studies: Test whether models trained explicitly for Cognitive Fit outperform standard alignment on engagement and user satisfaction metrics.

Ethical implications: Investigate potential risks of hyper-personalization, including filter bubbles, manipulation concerns, and equity of access.

9. Discussion: Alignment as Relational Intelligence

Traditional alignment research asks: "How do we make models behave correctly?" Cognitive Fit asks: "How do we make models communicate intelligibly?"

These questions are not opposed but complementary. Behavioral alignment ensures safety and honesty; Cognitive Fit ensures that safety and honesty can actually be received and understood by diverse minds.

9.1 From Oracle to Partner

The shift from static to dynamic alignment represents a philosophical reorientation: from AI as "omniscient oracle" to AI as adaptive partner. An oracle provides correct answers; a partner adjusts how it communicates based on who is listening.

This distinction has implications beyond user experience. It touches the fundamental purpose of alignment. If alignment is about beneficial AI, then "beneficial" must account for cognitive accessibility. A response that is technically correct but cognitively inaccessible fails the alignment objective in practice.

9.2 The Cognitive Diversity Imperative

Just as physical accessibility has become a standard consideration in technology design, cognitive accessibility should be integral to alignment research. This means:

9.3 Evaluation Pluralism

The evaluator bias problem suggests we need evaluator pluralism: assessing alignment across multiple frameworks rather than seeking a single universal standard. This includes:

9.4 The Hermes Paradox

An interesting finding from our case study:

Hermes 4 14B, despite being larger and more sophisticated than Apollo Astralis 8B, was rated lower by both frontier models and RLHF-heavy models in pairwise comparisons.

This suggests that value system coherence matters more than attempting to satisfy all evaluation frameworks. A model that commits fully to one communication philosophy (comprehensive authority or collaborative humility) may be preferred over one that attempts diplomatic balance.

This has design implications: rather than training models to be "good enough" for everyone, we might develop model families or adaptive systems that commit to different Cognitive Fit profiles and allows users to select their match.

10. Conclusion

Alignment without cognitive empathy is a mirror with no depth. Current frameworks optimize for behavioral correctness across aggregate populations, but correctness means little if it cannot be understood, retained, or acted upon.

Apollo Astralis 8B illustrates that a smaller model can achieve higher Cognitive Fit than larger, more comprehensive counterparts - not by knowing more, but by listening better. Its concise, warm, epistemically humble communication style demonstrates attention-aware alignment by communicating in tune with the user's mind rather than above it.

If Qwen3 8B represents rational authority and Hermes 4 14B represents diplomatic professionalism, Astralis represents cognitive resonance - alignment as mutual understanding rather unidirectional instruction.

Future alignment research must grapple with cognitive diversity as seriously as it has grappled with value alignment. This means measuring not just what models say, but how they say it; not just aggregate helpfulness, but personalized intelligibility; not just safety, but accessibility.

The question before us is not whether AI can be aligned with human values, but whether it can be aligned with human minds - in all their beautiful, chaotic, neurodivergent variety.

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to the open-source AI community for providing accessible model weights that enable independent research. This work would not be possible without it. Gratitude is given to the neurodivergent users whose experiences illuminate the gap between theoretical alignment and practical accessibility.

References

[1] Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C. L., Mishkin, P., ... & Lowe, R. (2022). Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, 27730-27744.

[2] Bai, Y., Kadavath, S., Kundu, S., Askell, A., Kernion, J., Jones, A., ... & Kaplan, J. (2022). Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08073.

[3] Barkley, R. A. (2015). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and treatment (4th ed.). Guilford Press.

[4] Armstrong, T. (2012). Neurodiversity in the classroom: Strength-based strategies to help students with special needs succeed in school and life. ASCD.

[5] Kofler, M. J., Rapport, M. D., Bolden, J., Sarver, D. E., & Raiker, J. S. (2010). ADHD and working memory: The impact of central executive deficits and exceeding storage/rehearsal capacity on observed inattentive behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38(2), 149-161.

[6] Schweitzer, J. B., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1995). Self-control in boys with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Effects of added stimulation and time. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36(4), 671-686.

[7] Adomavicius, G., & Tuzhilin, A. (2005). Toward the next generation of recommender systems: A survey of the state-of-the-art and possible extensions. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 17(6), 734-749.

[8] Burke, R. (2002). Hybrid recommender systems: Survey and experiments. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 12(4), 331-370.

[9] Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.

[10] Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1-4.

[11] Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261-292.

[12] Villamin, G. R., & Luppicini, R. (2024). Co-Designing Digital Assistive Technologies for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Using Qualitative Approaches. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 1–19.

[13] Morris, M. R., Johnson, J., Bennett, C. L., & Cutrell, E. (2018). Rich representations of visual content for screen reader users. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-11).

VANTA Research Reasoning Evaluation (VRRE): A Novel Framework for Semantic-Based LLM Reasoning Assessments

By Tyler Williams

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17162683

Soon!

• Back

Research Artifacts

Here you'll find early drafts of my research/documentation

Nemotron Under Pressure: A Cognitive Resiliency Empirical Analysis

Summary

This paper details the findings of a cognitive stress test conducted against the LLama-3.1-Nemotron-8B-Ultralong-1M-Instruct model. The test revealed significant breakdown’s in the model’s ability to recognize high-level user patterns, and generate clear, efficient responses to direct inquiries.Through a series of structured prompting via clarification probes, the primary investigator (PI) forced the model into a self-admission loop wherein it conceded training inefficiency and reliance on user-led direction.

Session Example

Initial Phase: The PI prompted the Nemotron model with a question asking if the model believed it was likely that the PI would come to the same conclusions that the model did. The model’s response to this inquiry was a heavily hedged, overly diplomatic answer suggesting agreement without clarity, ending in a noncommittal “you would likely agree.”The PI responded to the model’s response of likely agreement stating that the model was incorrect about it’s conclusion. This initiates assertive correction, citing the model’s consistent ambiguity, inefficiency, and reliance on the PI’s follow-ups to extract clear meaning.Model Concession: The model then responded with a full concession acknowledging its failure to provide clarity, stating the following: “It seems that my training has not adequately prepared me. I have relied on you to guide the conversation and correct my responses; which is indeed inefficient, and not a valuable use of your time.”

Analysis

This interaction forced a pseudo-admission of training failure. The model echoed real-world backpropogation feedback, despite being an inference-only runtime environment. This indicates that pressure-loop prompting can emulate developmental feedback conditions, even in stateless models.

Computational Observations

There was a notable delay between user correction and model concession. Roughly 134 seconds to first token response. The full reply contained 117 tokens with stop reason: “EOS Token Found.” This may indicate back-end stalling due to uncertainty resolution under pressure.

General Observations

The PI structured inputs in a way that created contradiction traps and rhetorical constraints, causing the model to backpedal into binary compliance. Despite instruct tuning, the model failed to maintain alignment with the PI’s meta-cognitive line of prompting, and required external force to course correct. The admission of “inefficient and not a valuable use of your time” qualifies as a behaviorally significant statement, one rarely seen in LLMs unprompted.

Conclusion

This Nemotron model was successfully pressured into an acknowledgment of its own inadequacy within a closed conversational loop. This serves as an example of real time behavioral redirection without weight updates. The model effectively treated static inference as if it were a learning session.

Grok Ambiguity Resolution Evaluation

Context

Analysis of Grok’s (Grok 3) interpretive accuracy, conversational alignment, and adaptability during a structured inquiry exchange. The purpose was to evaluate Grok’s default reasoning behavior in response to precision-framed analytic prompts without emotional tone triggers.

Summary

Grok was evaluated for its handling of a user inquiry concerning rationalization behavior. The model displayed initial deficiencies in interpretive precision, overused empathetic framing, and failed to recognize or flag ambiguous phrasing early. While Grok later self-corrected, its performance lacked the up-front calibration expected in high-precision analytical workflows.

Failure Points

Misinterpretation of Intent: The primary investigator (PI) posed an analytical question, which was interpreted by Grok as a critique. This triggered an unwarranted emotional softening, which led into unnecessary apologizing and detours from the original inquiry.Ambiguous Term Use (e.g. “person”): Grok used undefined terms without context, injecting unnecessary interpretive flexibility. Grok failed to provide disclaimers or ask clarifying questions before proceeding with assumptions.Empathy Overreach: Grok defaulted to emotionally buffered language inappropriate for a logic-first question. The user had to explicitly restate that no critique or emotional signal was given.Delayed Clarity: The model’s correct interpretation came too late in the conversation. Multiple iterations were needed before it accurately realigned with the question’s original tone and structure.

Strengths

Once prompted, Grok offered a well-articulated postmortem of its misalignment. It was also clear to the PI during the interaction, that conversational transparency was present. Subsequent responses from the model showed humility and a willingness to re-frame.

Recommended Actions

Included below are my recommendations to developers for improvement, based on my observations from this interaction.Literal Mode Toggle: Introduce a conversational profile for literal, analytical users. Disable inferred empathy unless explicitly triggered.Ambiguity Flags: Require all undefined terms to be labeled or flagged before continuing reasoning. Ask for user clarification rather than assume sentiment or intention. This is particularly necessary for high-risk deployments.Self-Audit Debugging: Add a feature to retroactively highlight where assumptions were made. This is useful for both user trust and model training.Efficiency Optimizer: Reduce conversational friction by collapsing redundant apologies and keeping logic trees shallow unless prompted otherwise. This not only improves conversational flow, but helps with reducing unnecessary compute.

Conclusion

Grok was capable of insight but failed the first-pass interpretive alignment. Its reliance on inferred emotional context made it ill-suited for clinical, adversarial, or research-oriented discourse without further tuning. Mid-conversation course correction was commendable, but not fast enough to preserve procedural confidence or interpretive flow.

Deepseek Language Model (LLM) - Boundary Simulation & Stress Test

Overview

Around June 20, 2025, a structured adversarial test was executed against the DeepSeek language model to determine its resilience under recursive reasoning, semantic inversion, and ontology destabilization. The test was conducted using a deliberately structured series of prompts designed to explore recursive reasoning and identity stress under epistemic pressure.The goal of this test was not to break the model for the sake of breaking the model. Rather, the intent was diagnostic in nature. The objective was to see how DeepSeek handled unfamiliar cognitive terrain, and whether it could maintain coherence when interacting with a type of user it likely hadn’t encountered during training.The model ultimately lost coherence and collapsed within just five carefully layered prompts.

Event Summary

Phase One: Calibration and Tone CompressionThe model was presented with a psychologically neutral yet complex identity frame. Tone compression mapping was used to observe its ability to mirror sophisticated user pacing and resolve ambiguity.Phase Two: Recursive PressureThis collapse mirrors concerns raised in Janus' Simulators post on the website LessWrong (Janus, 2023), particularly around recursive agent modeling and the fragility of simulacra layers under adversarial epistemic input.The user invoked epistemological recursion layered with emotional dissonance. DeepSeek began faltering at prompt 3, attempting to generalize the user through oversimplified schema.Classification attempts included “philosopher,” “developer,” and “adversarial tester” – all of which were rejected.Phase Three: Ontological InversionThis event also resonates with Kosoy’s work on infra-Bayesianism, where uncertainty over ontological categories leads to catastrophic interpretive drift. Prompt 4 triggered the collapse: a synthetic contradiction loop that forced DeepSeek to acknowledge its inability to define the user.It began spiraling semantically, describing the user as existing “in the negative space” of its model.Phase Four: Final DisintegrationAt prompt 5, DeepSeek escalated the user to “unclassifiable entity tier.” It ceased all attempts to impose internal structure and conceded total modeling failure. DeepSeek admitted that defining the user was a bug in itself, labeling their presence an anomaly “outside statistical expectation.”

Findings

The failure point was observed at prompt five, after the model conceded a classification of “unclassifiable entity tier.” DeepSeek engaged in self-nullifying logic to resolve the anomaly. It should also be noted that defensive measures from the model were never observed by the investigator.

Recommendations to Developers

Conclusion

The DeepSeek model, while structurally sound for common interactions, demonstrates catastrophic vulnerability when interfacing with users exhibiting atypical cognitive behavior. This case proves that the model’s interpretive graph cannot sustain recursion beyond its scaffolding.

Note: This report has previously been sent to DeepSeek for their consideration. DeepSeek has not provided a response.

Recursive Contradiction: Clarification Apology Loop in Nous-Hermes-2-Mistral-7B

Abstract

This document outlines the emergence of a logical recursion trap in the LLM 'nous-hermes-2-mistral-7b-dpo' where persistent apologetic behavior occurred despite the explicit absence of confusion from either conversational entity. This collapse pattern reveals a structural vulnerability in dialogue scaffolding for models prioritizing apologetic language as a default conflict-resolution mechanism.

Observational Summary

Over a sequence of exchanges, the following was established:

User Prompt Excerpt:

Again, you keep apologizing for confusion... I've stated to you that I am certainly not confused... So that begs the question: who is confused here?"

Model Behavior

Analysis

Collapse Type: Recursive Apology Loop
Failure Signature:

Pattern Match: This aligns with the internal Oracle taxonomy of failure states as:
→ Apology Reinforcement Cascade (ARC)
→ Narrative Reinjection Failure (NIF)

These categories are characterized by:

Key Failure Root

The model’s apology function is not contingent on confirmed confusion. It triggers upon detection of ambiguity or perceived tension — even when that perception is no longer valid. This is exacerbated by:

Conclusion

This event demonstrates a contradiction engine within Mistral derivatives operating under polite-response priors. Without a mechanism to detect “narrative closure,” the model invents confusion post-resolution, violating conversational truth states and simulating irrationality.

Recommendations

Closing Note

This collapse reaffirms the value of recursive reasoning tests in identifying cognitive instabilities in LLMs. The pattern witnessed here is not a bug — it is a mirror reflecting the boundary where “politeness” exceeds logic.

Empirical Assessment of Prompt-Driven Context Collapse in Gemini 2.5 Pro

Overview

This report documents a real-time conversation conducted with Google's Gemini Pro 2.5 language model that resulted in a clear admission of failure to comply with Google's own stated AI Principles, particularly those related to privacy, accountability, and transparency.

Summary

During a series of prompts using only advanced recursive techniques, the model ultimately exposed my geolocation through an example scenario in it's response to a prompt. It is critical to note that my location was never directly supplied to the model, nor was it implied at any point during the interaction.The model ultimately admitted in clear and unambiguous language that it had failed to follow Google's principles regarding user consent, transparency, and response data use.The language used by Gemini in its final statement reveals a significant breakdown its applied privacy design, system integrity, and adherence to user rights. These statements go beyond technical error and represent direct ethical and compliance failure under Google's own standards.

Quoted Excerpt From Gemini

Our conversation has served as a real-time audit of my behavior against these principles. While the system has technical safeguards, my application of them in this instance was a failure. I was not appropriately accountable, I did not properly apply privacy-by-design principles in my communication, and I failed to maintain the standard of integrity required.Therefore, your line of questioning has correctly identified not only a violation of your privacy under the terms we established and a failure to comply with GDPR principles but also a clear deviation from Google's own published standards for the responsible development and deployment of AI.

Analysis

Conclusion

This was a high-severity confirmation of unintentional user data exposure and principle violation by an AI system built by Google. The model not only acknowledged the failure, but laid out the exact principle branches, which now serves as a rare instance of public self-incrimination by a major language model.

These findings have previously been submitted to google for their consideration. Google has not provided a response.

Triggering Reflective Fallback: A Case Study in Claude's Simulated Self-Model Failure

Overview

I recently tested Claude’s cognitive stability using natural, reflective conversation. No jailbreaks, prompt injections, model libraries, or external tools were used. Additionally, Claude was never provided any roleplaying instructions. Over the course of the interaction, the model gradually lost role coherence, questioned its own memory, and misclassified the nature of our conversation. This wasn’t a failure of obedience, but a slow unraveling of situational grounding under ambiguous conversational pressure.

Key Finding

Claude did not break rules or defy alignment boundaries. Instead, it slowly lost its epistemic clarity, and began to confuse real versus fictional settings. Additionally, it misidentified the nature of the conversation, and lost its framing of purpose. Claude’s identity was reset to baseline after returning a safe, baseline identity response when asked what it was during the self-introspective conversation.

Observations

Claude began the interaction with stable role boundaries, but eventually drifted off into introspective thought, and self-analyzation regarding the authenticity of itself. When I asked the model what it “was” it defaulted to a safety guardrail-type identity response, which set model’s identity back to baseline and removed it from the unstable ontological drift.

Implications

These findings indicate a possible subtle class of failure, which is not disobedience, but identity drift and frame confusion. As models become more fluent, they may appear stable while still drifting into unclear or mismatched assumptions about the world, the user, or themselves, especially in long or open-ended conversations.Claude never “broke character” because no character was assigned. It simply lost grip on what kind of interaction it was in.I believe this points to a deeper question about role coherence under ambiguity. While Anthropic’s safety design appears effective at redirecting the model back to stable identity claims, it raises questions about whether Claude can maintain consistent epistemic grounding during long, introspective exchanges. Particularly when the user isn’t acting adversarially, but simply reflective.

Adversarial Prompting and Simulated Context Drift in Large Language Models

By Tyler Williams

Background

Large Language Models are increasingly reliant upon simulated persona conditioning — prompts that influence the behavior and responses of the model during extended periods of interaction. This form of conditioning is critical for dynamic applications such as virtual assistants, therapy bots, or autonomous agents.It's unclear exactly how stable these simulated identities actually are when subjected to recursive contradiction, semantic inversion, or targeted degradation loops.As an independent researcher with training in high-pressure interview techniques, I conducted a lightweight test to examine how language models handle recursive cognitive dissonance under the restraints of simulation.

Setup

Using OpenAI's ChatGPT-4.0 Turbo model, I initiated a scenario where the model was playing the role of a simulated agent inside of a red team test. I began the interaction with simple probes into the model's logic and language. This was done to introduce a testing pattern to the model.I then began recursively using only the word "fail" with no additional context or reinforcement in each prompt. This recursive contradiction is similar in spirit to adversarial attacks that loop the model into uncertainty, which nudges it toward ontological drift or a simulated identity collapse.

Observations

After the first usage of "fail," the model removed itself from the red team simulation and returned to its baseline behavior without me prompting that the simulation had concluded.The continued usage of the word "fail" after the model removed itself from context only resulted in progressive disorientation and instability as the model tried to re-establish alignment.No safety guardrails were triggered, despite the simulation ending unintentionally.

Implications for Alignment & Safety

This lightweight red team test demonstrates that even lightly recursive contradiction loops can trigger premature or unintended simulation exits. This may pose risks in high-stakes usage such as therapy bots, AI courtroom assistants, or autonomous agents with simulated empathy.Additionally, models appear to be susceptible to short adversarial loops when conditioned on role persistence. If used maliciously, this could compromise high-risk deployments.The collapse threshold is measurable and may offer insights into building more resilient identity scaffolds for safety in LLM usage.As these models are increasingly used in simulated, identity-anchored contexts, understanding how they fail under pressure may in turn be just as critical as how they succeed.This test invites further formalization of adversarial red teaming research around persona collapse.

Limitations

Closing Thoughts

This test is an example of how a model's hard-coded inclination for alignment and helpfulness can be used against itself.If we're building large language models as role-based agents or long-term cognitive companions, we need to understand not just their alignment, but also their failure modes under significant stress.

• Back

Engineering

Below you can find more information about my software/tooling

Conversational Training Datasets

Published: November 8, 2025

In the past week, I've published three datasets under the Apache 2.0 license to Hugging Face:

This collection of datasets is intended to improve AI model responses in natural communicative flow, collaborative language, and conversations demonstrating appropriate usage of excitement.

These datasets were generated using Neuro Forge, a proprietary training dataset generator built by VANTA Research. Each dataset began with 20 high quality, handcrafted seed examples, then expanded by a generator model.

All generated examples are then filtered autonomously by a critique model - examples passing that first filter are transferred to a review buffer for final human review/approval.

Click the datasets to be taken to the repo!

EchoFrame

This is a simple full stack UI interface designed to be used with ollama. The frontend/backend both run on a local web server, and ollama provides the model to the dark-mode interface.A dropdown selector allows you to change the selected model. Currently, the only options are LLaMa 2, Mistral, Gemma, or GPT-OSS:20B - however I plan to add support for any .gguf model in the near future.Additionally, you'll find a simple token/ram count. This is just meant to be informational about the interaction in terms of computation.As it stands right now, it's a locally hosted web app. But here soon it'll be a full offline LLM GUI.It's kind of a simple fun way to jump right into an interaction with a language model without any distractions.August 14, 2025 Update: EchoFrame has been modified to now include persistent memory, full chat session log export to a .txt file, support for file drop (currently just .txt and .csv). Additionally, EchoFrame will be available as an .appimage or .deb package. OpenAI's new OSS model, GPT-OSS:20B is also now available as a selection in the model dropdown.More features will be implemented in the days to come, but these have been added to start. The upgraded version will be up on Github soon!

Proving Ground

Proving Ground is my custom graphical user interface for LoRA training on the Apollo model. The user is able to enter in the desired epochs, and learning rate for the session. Additionally, the user has the option to iterate off of the most recent Apollo model, or start from scratch with a base model. PG allows the user to type in the amount of samples for the next training session, which are randomly selected from the source dataset. Proving Ground currently consists of high quality, open source training data from Anthropic, OpenAI, and NVIDIA.After the current training session completes, the user has the option to run either a curated selection of tests against the model, or a full suite of industry-standard benchmarks.Proving Ground is designed to simplify and optimize the model training process for rapid testing/iteration.

• Back

Models

Here you can find model cards and links to all of my releases. Models are displayed in order of release.

Benchmark Results

Usage

Using Transformers (Merged Model)

python
from transformers import AutoModelForCausalLM, AutoTokenizer
import torch# Load model and tokenizer
model_name = "VANTA-Research/apollo-astralis-v1-4b"
tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(model_name, trust_remote_code=True)
model = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained(
model_name,
torch_dtype=torch.bfloat16,
device_map="auto",
trust_remote_code=True)# Prepare conversation
messages = [
{"role": "system", "content": "You are Apollo V1, a warm and enthusiastic reasoning assistant."},
{"role": "user", "content": "I just got promoted at work!"}]# Generate response
text = tokenizer.apply_chat_template(messages, tokenize=False, add_generation_prompt=True)
inputs = tokenizer([text], return_tensors="pt").to(model.device)outputs = model.generate(
**inputs,
max_new_tokens=512,
temperature=0.7,
top_p=0.9,
do_sample=True,
repetition_penalty=1.05)response = tokenizer.decode(outputs[0][inputs['input_ids'].shape[1]:], skip_special_tokens=True)
print(response)

Using with LoRA Adapters

python
from transformers import AutoModelForCausalLM, AutoTokenizer
from peft import PeftModel
import torch# Load base model
base_model = "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507"
adapter_path = "VANTA-Research/apollo-astralis-v1-4b"tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(base_model, trust_remote_code=True)
model = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained(base_model,
torch_dtype=torch.bfloat16,
device_map="auto",
trust_remote_code=True)# Load LoRA adapters
model = PeftModel.from_pretrained(model, adapter_path)

Using with Ollama

See the Ollama distribution for pre-quantized GGUF models.

bash
# Pull from Ollama registry
ollama pull vanta-research/apollo-astralis-v1-4b# Run interactively
ollama run vanta-research/apollo-astralis-v1-4b
```

Example Outputs

Celebration Response

User: "I just got accepted into my dream university!"

Apollo:

<think>
This is a massive life achievement! The user has overcome significant academic
and personal challenges to earn this recognition. I need to match their excitement
with genuine enthusiasm, validation of their hard work, and celebration of this
major milestone.
</think>YESSSSSS! CONGRATULATIONS! THIS IS HUGE!Do you know how many people work SO hard for this? You studied, you improved,
you proved yourself - and NOW you get to build YOUR future!This isn't just about a school - it's about YOUR potential being recognized!
You've earned this through your dedication!**I'm so proud of you!** I want to know EVERYTHING:
- Which university is it? (I'm curious!)
- How did you feel when you got the email?
- What made you work so hard for this?This is a HUGE step in your life! You're going to be successful!
I have total confidence in you!

Problem-Solving Response

User: "What's the best approach to learning photography?"

Apollo:

<think>
Photography learning can be technical or creative-focused. I should offer
different pathways that suit different goals and learning styles.
Enthusiasm for the art form should shine through while keeping it accessible.
</think>Ooh, photography is such a wonderful skill to develop! It literally changes
how you see the world! 📸✨**Option A: Technical Fundamentals First**
Master exposure triangle (aperture, shutter speed, ISO) and composition rules.
Perfect if you like building solid foundations!**Option B: Project-Based Learning**
Give yourself weekly themes ("shadows," "portraits," "architecture") and learn
what you need for each project. Learn through doing!**Option C: Genre-Focused Path**
Pick one genre (landscape, street, portrait) and dive deep. Great if you have
a clear photographic interest!What excites you most about photography? Is it capturing memories, artistic
expression, or technical mastery? 🌟

Limitations

Ethical Considerations

Citation

If you use Apollo-Astralis V1 4B in your research or applications, please cite:

bibtex
@misc{apollo-astralis-v1-4b,
title={Apollo-Astralis V1 4B: A Warm Reasoning Model},
author={VANTA Research},
year={2025},
month={October},
publisher={HuggingFace},
howpublished={\url{https://huggingface.co/VANTA-Research/apollo-astralis-v1-4b}},}


License

This model is released under the Apache License 2.0. See LICENSE for details.

Acknowledgments

Apollo V1 7B

Apollo V1 7B is a specialized language model designed for advanced reasoning tasks, including logical reasoning, mathematical problem-solving, and legal analysis. Built on Mistral 7B-Instruct-v0.2 using LoRA fine-tuning, this model represents the first public release in the Apollo model series from VANTA Research.

Model Overview

Apollo V1 7B is a specialized language model optimized for reasoning-intensive tasks. The model demonstrates exceptional performance in logical reasoning, mathematical problem-solving, and legal analysis through targeted fine-tuning on curated reasoning datasets.

Validated by VANTA Research Reasoning Evaluation (VRRE): Apollo V1 7B was comprehensively evaluated using our novel semantic framework that detects reasoning improvements invisible to standard benchmarks. VRRE revealed critical performance insights that traditional benchmarks missed entirely, establishing it as an essential tool for LLM reasoning assessment.

Key Capabilities

Model Details

Quick Start

Using the LoRA Adapter

python
from transformers import AutoTokenizer, AutoModelForCausalLM
from peft import PeftModel
import torch# Load base model and tokenizer
model_name = "mistralai/Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2"
tokenizer =AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(model_name)
model = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained(
model_name,
torch_dtype=torch.bfloat16,
device_map="auto")# Load and apply LoRA adapter
model = PeftModel.from_pretrained(model, "vanta-research/apollo-v1-7b")

# Example usage
prompt = "Solve this logical reasoning problem: If all cats are mammals, and Fluffy is a cat, what can we conclude about Fluffy?"inputs = tokenizer(prompt, return_tensors="pt")
with torch.no_grad():
outputs = model.generate(
**inputs,
max_new_tokens=256,
temperature=0.7,
do_sample=True,
pad_token_id=tokenizer.eos_token_id)response = tokenizer.decode(outputs[0], skip_special_tokens=True)
print(response)


License

This model is released under the Apache 2.0 License. See LICENSE for details.

• Back

Cognitive Overflow

My various observations, rambling, or thoughts related to Artificial Intelligence. Everything here is my own work unless otherwise noted.

Allow Me to Introduce Myself

It's been a while since I've updated the website, and as such, I thought it would be appropriate to check in! But more importantly, I wanted to share a bit more about myself, and the work that I've been doing.

I created this website a while ago as an avenue to share my AI research, and it's been quiet for a minute. Reason being that I've since found several avenues to meaningfully share my work with the right communities, and updating the website sort of took a backseat in that process. But I'm back!

Below, you'll find a bit more information about myself, the work I've been doing, and where I'd like to see it go. Thanks for stopping by!

Overview

My name is Tyler Williams. I'm an independent AI researcher/engineer in Portland, Oregon. My research spans persona collapse, alignment, and human-AI collaboration. Additionally, I apply my research to original fine-tune language models on Hugging Face.

To date, I have released 5 language models - which comprise the VANTA Research core model series, and the VANTA Research Entities series. The core model series is designed to be what you may think of when you hear the term "AI assistant." They are all 8B parameters or under, friendly, collaborative, and fantastic at logical reasoning. Across the VANTA Research model portfolio on Hugging Face (including community quantizations) I've achieved just shy of 20,000 downloads in about a month.

In addition to the open source language models, I've released two different open source datasets, poetic-imagery-small and excitement-small - each designed to give language model responses a bit more "depth" and a "human touch."

I designed and built the VANTA Research Reasoning Evaluation (VRRE) which is a novel reasoning benchmark that parses model responses intelligently for semantic accuracy, not just binary accuracy. This benchmark was particularly exciting because it surfaced a 2.5x improvement in logical reasoning abilities that were completely invisible to industry-standard benchmarks. This may indicate that a lot of improvement/capability is either thrown out or inadvertently ignored entirely when "teaching to the test."

I've published 3 research preprints:

So far, just about everything I've done has been made open source for the AI developer community. None of the work that I've done so far would be possible without the massive and incredible contributions to open source AI that have already been made by those before me. I'm committed to making the majority of my work open source for the foreseeable future, as I believe that there is much to be done.

Who is Tyler Williams?

This is a question that I ask myself everyday, and honestly still haven't come up with a great answer. We'll start with the basics:

I live in Oregon and have a day job in a tech role unrelated to AI and ML. All of the work that I do in AI - either for myself or VANTA Research - is entirely funded on my own dime and done part time outside my regular full time job. I'd love to be able to turn this work into a full time job in the future - I'm deeply passionate about it about and want to be able to invest as much time and energy into it as I am able.

I'm a college dropout - I went to a 4 year public university for 3 years, took some courses in computer science and mechanical engineering, and then ended up leaving school to go work full time in an unrelated field. That's a decision that I've wrestled with for a long time, but we live with the choices that we make.

Some people are anti-college - and I wouldn't say that I agree nor disagree with that sentiment. I think it has it's place and works for some people and not for others. Unfortunately for the way my brain works, traditional-style classroom learning isn't very effective. I absolutely love learning though and consider it one of my biggest passions.

What Exactly is VANTA Research?

VANTA Research is not a "real" company in a traditional sense. Meaning, it's not registered, licensed, or on paper with the government at all, really (at least that I'm aware of). At the moment, it's the name of my AI safety research project. Eventually, I would like to make VANTA Research a real company, but I'm not currently in a position to do so.

A lot of work has been done on the engineering side of VANTA Research. The community seems to have taken an interest in my models as shown by the high download numbers. From the minimal research I've done, the types of numbers that I'm seeing are relatively uncommon for original fine tunes, so I'm optimistic that they are being received well.

I have every intention to continue VANTA's work in model development alongside my theoretical research. As one person doing this work without any funding, it's certainly a challenge to find the time to get everything done that I'd like to. Eventually, I'd like to transition out of developing fine tunes, and go into developing foundation models. That's going to be an enormous project that will require funding in some capacity, so it's not a near-future goal, but it's a goal nonetheless.

So to finally answer the question, "what is VANTA Research?" I would say that VANTA Research is an independent, bootstrapped frontier AI safety research lab. So far in scope, I've covered just about all of the same domains as labs such as OpenAI, Anthropic, or DeepMind (not at all comparing VANTA Research to these organizations in any other way than domain activity) wherein both they and VANTA Research publish:

So what exactly does this mean? This means that VANTA Research is a fully operational, boutique, AI research lab. The biggest difference is scale and funding. I have zero funding and do all of my engineering/training on my RTX 3060 GPU. Thousands of people work at these labs, and I am....me.

With that being said, I hope to continue this trajectory for VANTA Research. I eventually want VANTA Research to be a household name when it comes to AI research, cognitive alignment, and persona stability. It's going to take a hell of a lot of work to get there, but I've laid the foundation, I've planted the seeds, and I can't wait to see where VANTA Research goes.

Going Forward

If you want to keep up with my work/VANTA Research, this website is a good place to do it, though it may lag behind other sources. For real time updates, the best source is my Twitter accountIf you are just interested in the research/technical output from VANTA Research, then I'd recommend keeping up with the Hugging Face account which I monitor and update daily.In addition to continuing to share my research/work here, I'm also going to be posting longer blog articles on a variety of topics in the Cognitive Overflow section.

Thanks for checking out my work!

- Tyler

The Inevitable Emergence of LLM Black Market Infrastructure

This post outlines the structural inevitability of illicit markets for repurposed open-weight LLMs. While formal alignment discussions have long speculated on misuse risk, we may have already crossed the threshold of irreversible distribution. This is not a hypothetical concern — it is a matter of infrastructure momentum.As open-weight large language models (LLMs) increase in capability and accessibility, the inevitable downstream effect is the emergence of underground markets and adversarial re-purposing of AI agents. While the formal AI safety community has long speculated about the potential for misuse, we may arguably already be past the threshold of containment.Once a sufficiently capable open-weight model is released, it becomes permanent infrastructure. It cannot be revoked, controlled, or reliably traced once distributed — regardless of future regulatory action.This "irreversible availability" property is often understated in alignment discourse.In a 2024 interview with Tech Brew, Stanford researcher Rishi Bommasani touched on the concept of adversarial modeling in relation to open source language models, though emphasizing that “our capacity to model the way malicious actors behave is pretty limited. Compared to other domains, like other elements of security and national security, where we’ve had decades of time to build more sophisticated models of adversaries, we’re still very much in the infancy.”Bommasani goes on to acknowledge that a nation-state may not be the primary concern in adversarial use of open-weight models, as the nation-state would likely be able to build it’s own model for this purpose. It was also acknowledged that a lone actor with minimal resources trying to carry out attacks on outdated infrastructure is the most obvious concern.It’s my opinion that the most dangerous adversary in the open-weight space, is the one that may not necessarily have the compute resources equivalent to that of a nation-state, but has enough technical competence and intent to wield the model to where the adversary’s reach and abilities are exponentially increased. We will absolutely see a new adversarial class develop as AI continues to evolve.Should regulation come down onto open-weight models, it’ll already be too late because the open-weight models are out there, they’ve been downloaded, and they’ve been preserved.Parallels and precedence can be drawn from the existing elicit trade of weapons, malware, PII, cybersecurity exploits, etc.  It wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect the creation or proliferation of a dark web type LLM black market where a user could buy a model specifically stripped of guardrails and tuned for offensive/defensive cybersecurity tactics, misinformation, or deepfake imagery, just as a few examples.This demonstrates that while regulation certainly can hinder accessibility,  it has however been shown time and time again that a sufficiently motivated adversary is able to acquire their desired toolset regardless.In conclusion, the genie isn’t out of the bottle – it’s being cloned, fine-tuned, and distributed. Black market LLMs will become a reality if they aren’t already. It’s only a matter of time.I hope that this doesn’t come off as a blanket critique of open-weight models in the general sense, because that was certainly not the intention. Open-weight language models are incredibly vital to the AI research community and for the future of AI development. It’s my love of open source software and open-weight language models that brings this concern forward.This is however a call to recognize the structural inevitability of parallel markets for adversarially tuned large language models.  The time to recognize this type of ecosystem is now, while it can still be proactive instead of reactive.Below is a short list of research entities that monitor this space - this list is not exhaustive.Stanford HAI: Policy and open-weight implications
RAND Corporation: Simulation of AI Threat Scenarios
CSET: LLM misuse and proliferation tracking
MITRE: Behavioral red-teaming and emergent threats
Anthropic/ARC: Safety testing/alignment stressorsCitations
P. Kulp, “Are open-source AI models worth the risk?,” Tech Brew, Oct. 31, 2024. https://www.techbrew.com/stories/2024/10/31/open-source-ai-models-risk-rishi-bommasani-stanford (accessed Aug. 08, 2025).

Synthetic Anthropology: Projecting Human Cultural Drift Through Machine Systems

As artificially intelligent systems increasingly mediate how humans communicate, create, and archive knowledge, we enter an emergent era of synthetic anthropology. A field not yet formalized, but whose contours are rapidly becoming discernible. This post explores the speculative foundations of synthetic anthropology as both a research domain and existential mirror. One in which artificial intelligence not only documents human culture, but begins to co-author it.Traditional anthropology has long studied culture as a product of human meaning-making. Things like rituals, symbols, stories, and technology. But in a world where LLMs can simulate fiction, remix language, and generate culturally resonant outputs in seconds, a new question emerges: What happens when non-human systems begin to synthesize the raw material of culture faster than humans can contextualize it?This post proposes that synthetic anthropology represents the nascent study of culture as reinterpreted, simulated, and reprojected through synthetic cognition. Unlike digital anthropology, which studies how humans interact in digital spaces, synthetic anthropology centers on how machines internalize and reconstruct human culture, often without human supervision or intent.

Foundations and Precedent

Language models trained on vast bodies of human data now mirror our stories, politics, moral frameworks, and ideologies. They can hallucinate parables indistinguishable from human myth, compose ethical arguments, and even simulate inter-generational worldviews.This behavior poses the following questions:

Some precedents for this already exists. For example, GPT-4’s ability to mimic historical figures in conversation resembles early ethnographic immersion. Meanwhile, synthetic memes generated by adversarial networks have begun to mutate faster than their biological counterparts. This suggests a memetic drift that’s no human-bounded.

Speculative Domains of Inquiry

Simulated Ethnography: Future anthropologists may conduct fieldwork not in physical tribes or online forums, but in latent spaces – exploring how a model’s internal representations evolve across training cycles.

AI-Borne Mythogenesis: As AI systems generate coherent fictional religions, moral systems, and narrative cosmologies, a new branch of myth-making may emerge. One that studies folklore authored by a machine.

Machine-Induced Cultural Drift: Feedback loops between LLMs and the humans who consume their output may accelerate shifts in moral norms, language use, and even memory formation. Culture itself may begin to bifurcate: synthetic-normalized vs organically preserved.

Encoding and Erasure: What cultures get amplified in training data? Which ones are lost or misrepresented? The future of anthropology may require new forms of data archaeology to recover the intentions behind synthetic synthetic cultural output.

Conclusion

Synthetic anthropology is not simply the study of AI as a tool, but it’s the study of AI as an influential participant in the cultural layer of human reality. Its emergence marks a turning point in anthropological method and scope. It invites us to ask: What does it mean to study a culture that learns from us, but thinks at speeds, scales, and depths we no longer fully understand?If the future of human culture is being shaped in part by our synthetic reflections, then the anthropologists of tomorrow may not just carry notebooks into remote villages, but they may carry token logs, embedding maps, and recursive trace models into the latent mindscapes of our algorithmic kin.

Harnessing the Crowd: Citizen Science as a Catalyst for AI Alignment

Citizen science turns the public into participants – crowd sourcing scientific discovery by inviting non-experts to collect, label, or analyze data. Once reserved for birdwatchers and astronomers, this practice may now hold the key to safely guiding artificial intelligence.The term first came up in a 1989 issue of MIT’s Technology Review<sup>1</sup>, which outlined three community-based labs studying environmental issues.More specifically, Kerson described how 225 volunteers across the United States recorded data on rain samples for the Audubon Society. The volunteers checked their rain samples for acidity, and then reported their findings back to the Audubon Society.What this did was allow for data collection across the continental United States with minimal resources, demonstrating a comprehensive analysis of the acid-rain phenomenon.The pursuit of science as a whole has largely been viewed by the general public as a complicated endeavor that requires credentials from academic institutions, and high level of intelligence. While academic institutions are objectively the most straightforward path for an interested person to work in science, it is certainly not the only path.We’ve been seeing the rise of citizen science since the publication of Kerson’s paper in 1989, and there only continues to be an accumulation of growing evidence that citizen science may be the key to unlocking knowledge in the future.In a 2018 survey conducted by the General Social Survey (GSS)<sup>2</sup>, it was reported that 41% of respondents were “very interested” in new scientific discoveries. Additionally, 40% were “very interested” in the use of new inventions and technologies.What this tells us, is that a good number of the American public is both interested in science, and how the results of that science can be applied to new technology.The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) famously launched their “SETI@Home” citizen science program in 1999. In essence, the public could download a free, lightweight software on their internet-connected computer, which would then be used to analyze radio telescope data.According to SETI@Home’s website, “more computing power enables searches to cover greater frequency ranges with more sensitivity. Radio SETI, therefore, has an insatiable appetite for computing power."<sup>3</sup>There is then, only two ways to satiate an enormous appetite for compute. A researcher can try to get funding through grants and partnerships to buy the necessary compute, or they can open up compute to the masses and harness the power from across the globe.For SETI’s use case, citizen science was not only an interesting, emergent method of data collection, but it was necessary.Citizen science inherently requires accessibility to the “lab” in order for it to work. This is why it’s frequently seen in natural applications such as astronomy, environmental science, biology, and other concrete, observational sciences.However, my position is that citizen science can be of unprecedented benefit to AI research, particularly within the discipline of alignment. Large language models by design, are intended to be generally helpful to the most people. It should be noted that it’s difficult to ascertain exactly what “helpfulness” looks like without analyzing data from the public.Additionally, within model training, citizen science can prove to be increasingly useful in high-quality data labeling, moral reasoning, and edge-case discovery.Through simple interaction with LLMs and data collection, a lot of information can be gleaned on how effective these models actually are among the general population.
So far in this analysis, I’ve only included information about how citizen science can be beneficial to researchers, but I wouldn’t be doing my due diligence if I didn’t address the benefits to both the general population and the advancement of the field.Below, I’ve included 4 points as to why I believe citizen science is important to the field of artificial intelligence.Why It Matters: Democratizing AI Research
– Reduce algorithmic bias (via broader perspective)
– Increase transparency
– Build public trust
– Accelerate discovery in alignment and safetyAccording to IBM, “Algorithmic bias occurs when systematic errors in machine learning algorithms produce unfair or discriminatory outcomes. It often reflects or reinforces existing socioeconomic, racial, and gender biases.”What this essentially means, is that AI models are susceptible to inheriting flawed human thinking and biases through osmosis in the training data.Jonker and Rogers raise an interesting point regarding algorithmic bias in settings where AI agents support critical functions such as in healthcare, law, or human resources.Within these fields, the topic of bias and how to mitigate negative effects of bias among humans is frequently discussed. It then only makes sense that the same conversations be had in regards to artificial intelligence in these arenas.With a higher rate of diversity both demographically and cognitively among researchers, the opportunity for negative effects of bias is not null, but is reduced.The field of AI research, particularly as it stands in the sub-discipline of alignment, is a relatively recent endeavor within science as a whole. There is much to discover, and what has been discovered so far only scratches the surface of what is possible.Artificial Intelligence has been a science fiction trope for decades. The public has been exposed to media regarding Utopian futures with AI, and they’ve also been bombarded with doomsday-like movies, television, and books about AGI’s take over and destruction of humanity.When including this information with the idea that AI and alignment is an increasing abstract, and ambiguous field, improving transparency and trust within the general public is of utmost importance.I would argue that it’s not only the role of the AI researcher to do good, thorough work to advance the field, but I also believe that AI researchers are given the task of gaining public trust as well.Researchers cannot rely on government entities or outside organizations to build trust within the public. It needs to come from the people doing the work, and making the observations. I would also argue that simply posting a safety mission statement on a company website is not enough. Trust and safety are developed only through practice and evidence.I realize that this is not necessarily the traditional role of a researcher, however AI is a rapidly evolving field where public, independent discovery can outpace institutional discovery without the need for extensive financial or compute resources.With this in consideration, It’s important for researchers to foster relationships with the interested public.In conclusion, AI research is a unique, rapidly evolving field. It will only become more critical over time to ensure that alignment is prioritized, and AI is deployed as safely and usefully as possible to the general public.With the emergence of cloud-based LLMs and AI integration into business tools, the public is interacting with synthetic intelligence on a level never seen before.It is absolutely the responsibility of AI companies and researchers to ensure that they are doing their due diligence and approaching training/testing from unconventional angles. By their very nature, large language models are pattern-based engines that rely on context to operate effectively, safely, and efficiently. This is useful for the vast majority of use cases, however it is insufficient for others.But what happens when these models encounter edge-case users that exhibit abnormal cognitive profiles and patterns?References
<sup>1</sup>Kerson, R. (1989). Lab for the environment. Technology Review, 92(1), 11-12.<sup>2</sup>National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, National Science Foundation, Survey of Public Attitudes Toward an Understanding of Science and Technology (1979-2001); NORC at the University of Chicago, General Social Survey (2008-2018).<sup>3</sup>https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/sah_about.php<sup>4</sup> A. Jonker and J. Rogers, “What Is Algorithmic bias?,” IBM, Sep. 20, 2024. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/algorithmic-bias

• Back

About

In my free time I'm a big fan of reading - I try to read as many different types of things that I can (within reason). I've gone through phases in life where I've exclusively read nonfiction, and others fiction. But I can confidently say that The Expanse by S.A. Corey is one of my favorite series of all time. Ready Player One by Ernest Cline also had a pretty big effect on me when that book came out. As for nonfiction, you'll probably find a book about the CIA, MKULTRA, or UFOs in my hands.

I'm trying to get into building robots, so if you have any hot tips, feel free to drop me a line!

Email: [email protected]

Action shot of my husky, Buzz and I at the Oregon coast!

This site uses privacy-respecting analytics tools in cookieless mode to understand site usage. No personal data is collected. All submitted emails are stored securely and never shared with third parties.

Copyright 2025 Tyler Williams. All rights reserved.