Anton de la Fuente (@matonski) header
Anton de la Fuente (@matonski) profile picture

MTS @robocurve Physics PhD | SWE | MATS 10

San Francisco
Joined October 2008
Photo by Anton de la Fuente (@matonski)Photo by Anton de la Fuente (@matonski)Photo by Anton de la Fuente (@matonski)Photo by Anton de la Fuente (@matonski)Photo by Anton de la Fuente (@matonski)Photo by Anton de la Fuente (@matonski)Photo by Anton de la Fuente (@matonski)Photo by Anton de la Fuente (@matonski)
I joined @robocurve as a Member of Technical Staff!
Replying to @chooi_jeq
Shout out to @matonski for leading this research!
1
1
1
23
5,103
Anton de la Fuente retweeted
We're hiring Members of Technical Staff. You'll measure what AI can do with real robots and show the public and governments how fast it's improving. We're a Public Benefit Corporation. We want researchers who understand the stakes of powerful AI. No robotics experience needed.
3
4
1
60
14,416
We take a lesson from Anthropic’s “Teaching Claude Why” and test it in toy models of SFT. Training with reasons for a behavior can generalize better than with examples alone. We test this with a formatting rule, animal welfare, and self-preservation. nitter.cf/AnthropicAI/status/205…
New Anthropic research: Teaching Claude why. Last year we reported that, under certain experimental conditions, Claude 4 would blackmail users. Since then, we’ve completely eliminated this behavior. How?
1
7
737
We take another lesson from Redwood Research’s model-organism work and test it in alignment training. Model-organism behaviors can be fragile to further benign SFT. We also find this in alignment training, though the behavior is more robust after Model Spec Midtraining.
1
3
264
Surprisingly under-utilized trick: take lessons learned from one research area’s work on Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), and apply them to the others! Our new paper shows this is a productive way to collectively improve Alignment Training, Model Organisms and Toy Models of SFT.
1
3
1
52
8,519
Reasoning models think before they answer. Can you steer their behavior by editing their thoughts? We call this thought editing, and it works surprisingly well across five settings: reward hacking, harmful compliance, eval awareness, blackmail, and alignment faking. 🧵
4
6
2
71
19,541
On-policy resampling doesn’t steer behavior well. The model just rephrases the same behavior. Off-policy edits can actually change the trajectory. Thought editing works on its own, and it can also be combined with prompt optimization.
1
7
1,044